VIOLAH JEPCHUMBA, a 65-minute half-marathoner and Ken-born athlete. busted for EPO.

??

Subway Surfers wrote:

Rekrunner really score and own goal with that one.

I've always paid attention to what he said. I hope he just might know a little something on this subject. I did ask him if he could clarify for me a couple points of his mitichondria study.

Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:

It sounds like you're starting to pay more attention to what Chad has to say. I think you're just having fun right now playing Devil's advocate.

Chad has a BA in human performance and PE - so he might just know a little something on this subject.

More correctly, what I deny is that busting someone very fast caught on EPO is sufficient to establish cause and effect. The fallacy of proof by example is not fixed by adding more examples.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Isn't it hilarious that we have gotten through to page 7 of a doping thread, about someone very fast caught on epo and still Rekrunner is denying the benefit of epo?

In another thread, you wrote "Normally, when someone improves so spectacularly ... doping is involved, but that does not mean that doping was the only factor. So the 5% improvement could just as well have been 2% from EPO and 2% from 'roids and 1% from box jumps/sit-ups/bench press/form drills/fast long runs etc., or whatever numbers one wants to estimate." While you and others keep trying to fabricate strawman positions, the above statement that "doping is not the only factor" resembles much more closely my arguments, and our disagreement is more along the lines of which are the other factors, and the different magnitudes of contribution. We cannot say "5%" from 1:09 to 1:05 only comes from EPO, like "mindweak" does with his repeated calculations, because (besides requiring favorable assumptions) it fails to even acknowledge, let alone account, for other known factors in the real world. Even worse, we cannot say, like some others do, that 1:05 is ONLY possible with EPO, when lacking any bust, i.e. Jepchumba ran 1:05 and was busted, therefore 1:05 is only possible with EPO, and most, if not all, 1:05 Kenyans -- there are currently 7 faster than Chepchumba -- are dirty and, because 1 out of 8 is a huge and staggering number, despite Jepchumba running for Bahrain, all Kenyans should be banned.

casual obsever wrote:

If the cheating runner improved last year from a 1:09 runner to a 1:05 runner, and gets caught cheating this year, he will not get retro-actively disqualified for last year's 1:05 because of a lack of evidence. However, most of his peers and teachers will be convinced that he started cheating last year. Exceptions are rekrunner and Canova.

rekrunner wrote:

??

Subway Surfers wrote:

Rekrunner really scored an own goal with that one.

rekrunner wrote:

More correctly, what I deny is that busting someone very fast caught on EPO is sufficient to establish cause and effect.

The fallacy of proof by example is not fixed by adding more examples.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Isn't it hilarious that we have gotten through to page 7 of a doping thread, about someone very fast caught on epo and still Rekrunner is denying the benefit of epo?

But I'm not generalizing, if you look above the thread is about "VIOLAH JEPCHUMBA, a 65-minute half-marathoner" but you said the same in the Kiprop threads, the Bett threads, the Jebet thread and the Sumgong threads. Notice the consistent theme?

Awesome. Your trolling gets better again, after several extremely poor weeks.

This here was a good one too, where you continued to troll that Jeptoo was clean in Boston, even after admitting that you read the multiple doping IAAF rule 40.8.

Then you found a slightly different 40.8 version, which said the same thing, yet twisted the wording to make it somehow look as if Jeptoo was DQ'ed for something other than doping, yet course cutting or illegal shoes are not at all what 40.8 was about.

A great example for your typical deflection and distraction and obfuscation and spin:

So many stupid, distracting questions. I just laughed, couldn't help myself. Did you really expect me or anyone else to answer them?

Please continue. Maybe mindweak will fall for it once more.

Speaking of mindweak: there you also made stuff up, namely when you pretended that no one called him coward.

Subway Surfers wrote:

But I'm not generalizing, if you look above the thread is about "VIOLAH JEPCHUMBA, a 65-minute half-marathoner" but you said the same in the Kiprop threads, the Bett threads, the Jebet thread and the Sumgong threads. Notice the consistent theme?

Yes - he probably learned about "correlation does not imply causation" before getting kicked out of high school.

What he fails to realize (better: admit), that we know quite a bit about the mechanism of this causation. This is not like the famous case where the number of pirates decrease while the birthrate goes down.

Well, we would if homeostasis and thermoregulation, or maybe even hyperthermia wouldn't stop the EPO cheats from improving.

rekrunner wrote:

While you and others keep trying to fabricate strawman positions, the above statement that "doping is not the only factor" resembles much more closely my arguments, and our disagreement is more along the lines of which are the other factors, and the different magnitudes of contribution. We cannot say "5%" from 1:09 to 1:05 only comes from EPO, like "mindweak" does with his repeated calculations, because (besides requiring favorable assumptions) it fails to even acknowledge, let alone account, for other known factors in the real world.

Right - if you wouldn't constantly be trolling around so extremely, you would've have noticed long time ago that I hold a much more moderate position than say, you or mindweak. Yet you love to pretend that I hold the most extreme position for whatever trolling reason of yours.

For example, you are the king of strawman "arguments", yet even here when you openly agree with me, you must accuse me literally in the same paragraph of "trying to fabricate strawman positions".

You can't possibly be this dumb.

It was a sarcastic ruse to get you to actually read the threads where confirmed dopers posted.

Of course you have some bizarre thought that they need to write on here before you'll even consider their view.

casual obsever wrote:

[quote]Subway Surfers wrote:

Yes - he probably learned about "correlation does not imply causation" before getting kicked out of high school.

What he fails to realize (better: admit), that we know quite a bit about the mechanism of this causation. This is not like the famous case where the number of pirates decrease while the birthrate goes down.

Well, we would if homeostasis and thermoregulation, or maybe even hyperthermia wouldn't stop the EPO cheats from improving.

Hilarious, something tells me the next doping thread will play out exactly like this. This bust seems to have silenced JonO significantly. Wait a couple more pages of Rekrunner's fallacies and then Renato will finally join us in an attempt to shut the thread down.

Subway Surfers wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

[quote]Subway Surfers wrote:

Yes - he probably learned about "correlation does not imply causation" before getting kicked out of high school.

What he fails to realize (better: admit), that we know quite a bit about the mechanism of this causation. This is not like the famous case where the number of pirates decrease while the birthrate goes down.

Well, we would if homeostasis and thermoregulation, or maybe even hyperthermia wouldn't stop the EPO cheats from improving.

Hilarious, something tells me the next doping thread will play out exactly like this. This bust seems to have silenced JonO significantly. Wait a couple more pages of Rekrunner's fallacies and then Renato will finally join us in an attempt to shut the thread down.

Jon is just feverishly searching for a new word(s) to augment his theory. We've had basic physiology, homeostasis, thermoregulation and circumvent physics, so far.

50% detection rate, tee hee.

Let's add some facts regarding detection rates from the famous Tubingen/Harvard study:

Let's add some comments from experts (all direct citations, can be checked via google):

John Hoberman, an expert in performance-enhancing drug use from the University of Texas at Austin, said that he wasn’t surprised by the findings. "The entire elite global sports system has built incentives to dope into itself in such a way that these are irresistible incentives," he said.

Dick Pound, ex WADA President:

"you can miss two tests simply by not answering the door if you're on something."

"There is no general appetite to undertake the effort and expense of a successful effort to deliver doping-free sport."

"There's this psychological aspect about it: nobody wants to catch anybody. There's no incentive. Countries are embarrassed if their nationals are caught. And sports are embarrassed if someone from their sport is caught."

Paul Scott, the chief science officer of Korva Labs, a testing and research laboratory focused on anti-doping:

"Drug testing has a public reputation that far exceeds its capabilities."

"Sophisticated dopers have come to understand how to work around the Athlete Biological Passport," he warns. "They have evaluated correctly that they need to pare back taking steroids or EPO and they will still get most of the benefits."

Speaking of Renato...where has he been lately? Usually a day or two doesn't go by where either Chad, casual or you don't get a stern lecture about overestimating the effects of EPO/PEDs ? There's an interesting thread just started in reference to no Italian marathoners breaking 2:10 in over 10 yrs - no posts by Renato. It would be real interesting to get his take on that.

One of two things is true of Renato:

1. He is telling the truth and has absolutely no experience with EPO. In which case you should absolutely and completely ignore anything he says about EPO. He has no scientific background on which to make his arguments, by his own admission. He has no experience. All you could then say which would be relevant to his experience is that some people can run fast without EPO. Which I don't think is in dispute in any way.

2. He has experience with EPO and is lying about it.

Que Sera Sera wrote:

Speaking of Renato...where has he been lately? Usually a day or two doesn't go by where either Chad, casual or you don't get a stern lecture about overestimating the effects of EPO/PEDs ? There's an interesting thread just started in reference to no Italian marathoners breaking 2:10 in over 10 yrs - no posts by Renato. It would be real interesting to get his take on that.

for the most part i only post while at work, yes i know i shouldnt....but to try and post from home on my phone is super hard

so to read all the posts since yesterday was quite amusing, rek talking circles and confusing himself like usual, then trying to mock me about "my" mitochondria study, and then demand some sort of answer about how something foolish like C02...i mean, didnt he brag he has "something science" degree? sorry rek you never had credibility but if you cant wiki up mitochondria and see how it works i dont really know what to tell you...ehh f*ck it, i told LR who i was, where i went to college, what degrees i earned, what my lifetime PRs where, after him and others talked mad sh*t for MONTHS and months to man up and admit who i was....as if being truthful on LR is some impossible task lolz

well here you go rek, i will try to keep it 3rd grade level so you can hopefully understand

mitochondria is a special cell inside the muscle cells. it absorbs 02 (thats oxygen) from the blood and combines it with glucose (thats a simple sugar), and creates ATP...(adenosine triphosphate, its kinda like a battery)

the byproduct of making ATP, is H20 (water) and C02 (greenhouse gas lolz)

this is the simplest way i can explain it, the more mitochondria, the more 02 is absorbed, the more 02 is absorbed the more ATP can be created, the more ATP that can be created the more water and C02 will be created. also the mitochondria can use lactate and combine it with ADP, to created ATP again....the more mitochondria you have the faster this can be accomplished, this helps keep the acidity of the cell down...but who really cares about that when your not going passed the AT boundary.

you see rek, if you are doing nothing but aerobic respiration and still doing say 4:36 mile pace for a marathon, your body is never producing lactate cause your never in oxygen debt or aka anaerobic respiration.

rhEPO has been shown to significantly change the size and number of mitochondria, and yes the RBCs go up a little bit. in some of these LR types on here they claim EPO is nothing more than a placebo instead of trying to figure out exactly why and how it makes such a HUGE performance change.

well its pretty simple, more and larger mitochondria...why it makes larger and more of them? i think it goes back to the fact they inject the EPO genome into e. coli bacteria to start the process of making synthetic EPO. and the science claims that mitochondria were at one point a BACTERIA. its calle chimera engineering...its not just your run of the mill blood doping

oh and im sure i will get scolded by renato soon enough...although i have to say ever since i said who i was rek doesnt say much to me anymore and renato hasnt posted.

I don't believe that athletes are simpletons. They can read, have got access to the internet, there are people knowledgeable about medical aspects around them to whom they can talk. I am not medically trained, but I can pick out pain medication from a pharmacy, why wouldn't they be able to "even if they tried" just because they are athletes? Yes, I am sure that a number of those caught for doping where doing it under pressure from coaches / training groups / agents, but I also believe a lot of athletes choose to do it by themselves.

Yes -- there is always consistency. Examples are a bad way to show cause and effect. You cannot do it with 1 example, nor 10 examples, nor 50 examples.

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

More correctly, what I deny is that busting someone very fast caught on EPO is sufficient to establish cause and effect.

The fallacy of proof by example is not fixed by adding more examples.

But I'm not generalizing, if you look above the thread is about "VIOLAH JEPCHUMBA, a 65-minute half-marathoner" but you said the same in the Kiprop threads, the Bett threads, the Jebet thread and the Sumgong threads. Notice the consistent theme?

rekrunner wrote:

Yes -- there is always consistency. Examples are a bad way to show cause and effect. You cannot do it with 1 example, nor 10 examples, nor 50 examples.

Oh, Gary. You funny.