Doping in Kenya English video

"Apart the investigation about Russian doping (effective because of whistleblowers really knowing the situation, and athletes of absolute top international level), ALL THE OTHER STORIES WERE ORGANIZED LIKE A FICTION, paying "Actors" like athletes, and involving also scientists, such as Ashenden and Parisotto, in ridiculous analysis, clearly not possible if the "climate" was honest and collaborative.

It's very easy to create a fake "truth" using media as "weapon", and Seppelt and Sunday Times are masters in this direction"

What are you saying about Ashenden and Parisotto here, Renato?

* laissez-faire *

kute wrote:

* laissez-faire *

"a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering"

Nothing involving human beings takes its own course. Everything is manipulated, and massaged to create outcomes.

You may believe that things follow their own course, but that is just the bubble of delusion that you live in.

[quote]fred wrote:

Mr Arnold has his own agenda, and belief system. He would like to believe that what is occurring in running is part of the fabric of Kenyan culture. Coming from the U.S. he has a biased viewpoint believing that what he is seeing is through an objective lens, a scientific lens free of American culture.

]

You are right, everyone has their own biases. What's yours, pray tell?

What's your point? EPO made him 5 seconds slower in 2008? Did he take it to re-find lost fitness? Was he hi-lo training at altitude?

The The wrote:

For insight as to the effectiveness of doping, consider one Rashid Ramzi (busted for synthetic EPO in 2008):

2015 3:37.59 Ninove 01 AUG

2007 3:35.00 Osaka (Nagai Stadium) 29 AUG

2006 3:29.14 Roma (Stadio Olimpico) 14 JUL

2005 3:30.00 Roma (Stadio Olimpico) 08 JUL

2004 3:30.25 Roma (Stadio Olimpico) 02 JUL

2003 3:39.30 Rabat 31 MAY

2002 3:44.85 Stockholm 16 JUL

Andrew Arnold wrote:

[quote]fred wrote:

Mr Arnold has his own agenda, and belief system. He would like to believe that what is occurring in running is part of the fabric of Kenyan culture. Coming from the U.S. he has a biased viewpoint believing that what he is seeing is through an objective lens, a scientific lens free of American culture.

You are right, everyone has their own biases. What's yours, pray tell?

BOOM!

To poster The The,Rekrunner will not make the connection that Ramzi doped at any other point in his career, than when he tested positive. For him, a positive test in 2008 means that he only doped in 2008...

rekrunner wrote:

What's your point? EPO made him 5 seconds slower in 2008? Did he take it to re-find lost fitness? Was he hi-lo training at altitude?

The The wrote:

For insight as to the effectiveness of doping, consider one Rashid Ramzi (busted for synthetic EPO in 2008):

2015 3:37.59 Ninove 01 AUG

2007 3:35.00 Osaka (Nagai Stadium) 29 AUG

2006 3:29.14 Roma (Stadio Olimpico) 14 JUL

2005 3:30.00 Roma (Stadio Olimpico) 08 JUL

2004 3:30.25 Roma (Stadio Olimpico) 02 JUL

2003 3:39.30 Rabat 31 MAY

2002 3:44.85 Stockholm 16 JUL

Ashenden and Parisotto were in the pool working for creating a valid Biological Passport. They perfectly know the scientific problems faced for having a valid biological passport, and well know the LEGAL problems connected with the possibility to ban some athlete looking at the fluctuetion of his blood values.

In the TAS, we saw already many battles between IAAF and lawyers of athletes who were banned using the BP. One case lasting many years, for example, was the ban of Asli Cakir Alptekin, the Turkish winner of 1500m in OG 2012, who was banned after many hearings, 3 years later.

For TAS, a BP can have validity only when there are several tests (normally more than 10) showing fluctuations in more than 4-5 occasion.

When Seppelt gave the document to Sunday Times, speaking about "55 suspicious cases of athletes, clearly using EPO", the document itself consisted of a list of 12000 tests, regarding 5500 athletes.

If maths is not an opinion, this means an average of 2.2 tests per athlete, something absolutely irrelevant for individuating any fluctuation.

I can accept their final argument from people totally ignorant of the rules, not from somebody who was among the "fundators" of the process.

It's a clear evidence that, also in this case, Seppelt WANTED to create a case, giving more strength with the opinions of the two Australian scientists.

But, exactly for their opinion (which could not be accepted in any scientific way, as IAAF clearly explained), we have also the clear evidence that they were not honest, trying to cheat normal people, thinking everybody was ignorant and not able to refute their wrong fabricated theory.

I don't want to say they were paid for liying. Maybe they build this case for putting more attention on doping, or because, like Seppelt, they can be considered "taleban of antidoping", mentally sick, thinking all top athletes are doped, and they are on the Earth with the exclusive goal to renew the era of the Inquisition. In any case, they were not honest, and totally wrong.

I'm very happy when somebody can fight doping in the right and polite way.

But never I can accept people using fraudes for supporting their goals.

I'm on the side of Police when arrest guilty people, I can't be with Police when they go to kill young black people, shooting before asking something, "because maybe they could have a gun".

It does no good to turn on the lights for a blind man, lol.

Clerk wrote:

To poster The The,

Rekrunner will not make the connection that Ramzi doped at any other point in his career, than when he tested positive. For him, a positive test in 2008 means that he only doped in 2008...

rekrunner wrote:

What's your point? EPO made him 5 seconds slower in 2008? Did he take it to re-find lost fitness? Was he hi-lo training at altitude?

Okay, I didn't really understand your argument before (maybe I still don't). It's that the the gains from administering EPO in low/low training should be similar to those of high/low training? Is that right?

Personally I'm dubious that altitude training reduces the effectiveness of EPO for the following reason (I'm pushed to accept diminishing returns only because the 7% number is so ludicrously high). One of the most pronounced changes due to training, particularly altitude training, is an increase the blood plasma volume. This increase is so dramatic that even though altitude training stimulates increased red blood cell (RBC) production, hematocrit tends to drop during training, even at altitude. While there are more RBCs, there is even more volume of fluid to dilute them. Why don't RBCs keep up to maintain or even raise the hematocrit? Likely because the human body is evolved to be overly cautious about increasing RBC production because if too high, blood viscosity can increase to the point that clots happen. The point is that the body fears clots more than it cares about optimal performance so the hematocrit is naturally set below optimum distance running levels. That's why EPO helps untrained but otherwise healthy people run faster. Highly trained people and particularly those trained at altitude, however, have lower hematocrits due to their vastly increased blood volume. In theory this should give them more room to increase their hematocrit via injection of EPO or red blood cells (blood doping). Unless there is some other factor at work here, it seems obvious that highly trained runners, particularly altitude trained runners, should be able to tolerate a lot more EPO than everyone else.

I don't think the weight-loss analogy is entirely apt here, or at least I don't understand it. When I wrote 7%, I meant that from memory (can't call up the full text of the article right not) early scientific studies of cyclists on EPO (Birkeland 2000) showed a roughly 7% increase in power when EPO was administered. In running power and velocity are pretty linearly related (not so much in cycling) so I'd translate that to meaning EPO would increase velocity or decrease time about 7%. Now these weren't highly trained cyclists nor was altitude training involved so all of those objections apply.

Andrew Arnold wrote:

[quote]fred wrote:

Mr Arnold has his own agenda, and belief system. He would like to believe that what is occurring in running is part of the fabric of Kenyan culture. Coming from the U.S. he has a biased viewpoint believing that what he is seeing is through an objective lens, a scientific lens free of American culture.

]

You are right, everyone has their own biases. What's yours, pray tell?

I'm just posting on a message board. I'm not taking money to study a group of people and write a thesis, paper or book about it in order to further my standing in the academic world.

my previous post is enough off-topic that I started a thread about the last part.

Andrew Arnold wrote:

“The camp’s cleaning staff once found suspicious items in the camper’s rooms (I was shown a picture of syringes and glass bottles in a box). We didn’t know what it was, but it looked illegal, so we quickly collected all of the material, packaged it, and sent it off to WADA. We also gave WADA the name of the athlete where we found the items. WADA confirmed to us that none of the substances were illegal, and returned everything. We apologized to the camper about the inconvenience, but explained that these actions are part of the camp’s policies”.

As most on here are aware, I am anti-doping and praise most acts that intend to clean up the sport.

But the above act is reckless. It's effectively theft, and also dangerous.

If the athlete had, say, an insulin dependency, then the camp, who "didn't know what it was [...] collected all of the material [...] and sent it off to WADA" would have unnecessarily endangered the life of that athlete.

Clearly, it wasn't a PED, so presumably it was medication that the athlete needed and relied upon. But someone at the camp randomly deprived the athlete of their meds.

Not cool.

It's too easy to support any theory when you can make up your own data.

Clerk wrote:

To poster The The,

Rekrunner will not make the connection that Ramzi doped at any other point in his career, than when he tested positive. For him, a positive test in 2008 means that he only doped in 2008...

rekrunner wrote:

What's your point? EPO made him 5 seconds slower in 2008? Did he take it to re-find lost fitness? Was he hi-lo training at altitude?

Maybe to put it simply, if altitude training (hi lo) is truly effective, as some studies indicate, then, in my stated opinion, you don't need to cross the line of cheating.EPO may or may not bring additional improvements, but then you greatly increase your risk from "no risk" to "high risk" by crossing that line.If "hi lo" training is effective, I'm saying it's stupid to be greedy. But then again, I'm not in a category where these marginal gains would bring me big rewards.The weight loss pill analogy was to illustrate how a drug can help amateurs (the ones in most studies), help faster runners less, but not necessarily work at all for the fastest runners, who have no more room for improvement.It may or may not be apt -- this depends on your assumptions.

test2 wrote:

Okay, I didn't really understand your argument before (maybe I still don't). It's that the the gains from administering EPO in low/low training should be similar to those of high/low training? Is that right?

...

I don't think the weight-loss analogy is entirely apt here, or at least I don't understand it. When I wrote 7%, I meant that from memory (can't call up the full text of the article right not) early scientific studies of cyclists on EPO (Birkeland 2000) showed a roughly 7% increase in power when EPO was administered. In running power and velocity are pretty linearly related (not so much in cycling) so I'd translate that to meaning EPO would increase velocity or decrease time about 7%. Now these weren't highly trained cyclists nor was altitude training involved so all of those objections apply.

There was a thread that may have related to doping, making a close examination of David Torrence's progression (especially in 2010-2012) when he associated with Jama Aden, but for some reason it was deleted.

It should be restored if this site cares at all about open discussion.

all of these threads about doping over the years, where no one really knows the science, and no one is really getting caught, shows the situation is so incredibly far from being fixed.

it's sad, but detecting doping accurately is probably at least another 10+ years away, probably more. And at that point so many new drugs will be developed to evade detection. it seems like an impossible situation unless someone on the inside involved with the cheating is documenting/video-recording/photographing not only the sale of PEDs but athletes in the act using them.

you have to catch both acts to find someone guilty which is nearly impossible. If i was cheating, i would never inject myself anywhere near other humans or tell anyone about it

Cheaters are more clever, thorough, and desperate than those policing them...

A quick question, what benefit can be obtained from the magnesium injections? That was the most interesting thing to come out of this, the rest is old news sadly.

it looks bleak wrote:

all of these threads about doping over the years, where no one really knows the science, and no one is really getting caught, shows the situation is so incredibly far from being fixed.

it's sad, but detecting doping accurately is probably at least another 10+ years away, probably more. And at that point so many new drugs will be developed to evade detection. it seems like an impossible situation unless someone on the inside involved with the cheating is documenting/video-recording/photographing not only the sale of PEDs but athletes in the act using them.

you have to catch both acts to find someone guilty which is nearly impossible. If i was cheating, i would never inject myself anywhere near other humans or tell anyone about it

Cheaters are more clever, thorough, and desperate than those policing them...

Notice also that virtually every Kenyan doping thread in the last 10 years on this site ultimately gets derailed by RekRunner and his 'EPO doesn't work' thesis.