Rojo's question to Ruth Chepngetich being widely reported on news sites

Rojo has single-handedly started perhaps the biggest global debate on the Kenyan doping issue ever.

But there's something else he could do that would be almost as valuable to the cause of anti-doping.

Ban Rekrunner.

"Kenya remains steadfast in upholding the highest level of integrity in sports. We shall continue to collaborate with international bodies to ensure that sports remain fair and clean for all."

Absurd.

According to you. Who is "BfB" again?

I looked again at your "reasons". You just gave me names and titles and beliefs, with no "arguments based on facts" and not "soundly supported".

You are just another one of many anonymous nobodies suggesting "knowledge and experience" exists, but not providing any substantial information.

I would prefer not making these threads about me, or about all these other names and titles, and skipping all these middlemen, and pointing me to the relevant data, in the case of this thread, to marathon performances.

Thanks in advance.

LOL - are you for real?

Who is "rekrunner" again? Evidently "one of many anonymous nobodies" who cannot read. Nice off-topic attempt though.

Look at my reasons again. Where do you see the words "believe" and "beliefs"? Nowhere. Fact! That is all your stupid trolling/off-topic obfuscation; you completely made that up while ignoring all evidence.

And now again: according to me? No, not just me. It's fact that the field is dealing with PEDs since several decades, at least since the 60s. And I gave you plenty of examples of knowledgeable experts. I could add some that are even older, but what's the point? You'd just distort the facts again.

P.S. I also didn't give you "titles" - you made that up too, for whatever reason.

In America, and in this forum, we still value freedom of speech, as long as it respects forum guidelines of civility.

I'm still hoping for some thoughtful responses to this question: "For those who think it was a good question, I'm wondering what do they consider would be a good answer?"

What is the expectation here? What does anyone think is going to happen by asking the same question that has been essentially been asked for decades? How does the conversation advance? How does "rojo" asking this question add any value to the cause of anti-doping? Will the problem be solved here in the forums by the great minds here?

Thanks in advance.

In that case, Rojo may as well allow all the Doha escort spam posts and threads. You turn every single doping thread into a mindnumbing discussion of your crazy idea that EPO doesn't work.

If they wont ban him, then at least just have one official 'does EPO work?' thread, which he can post all day in, but tell the mods that in other threads it will be treated as thread derailing. Or else, limit him to 10 posts a day.

I am for real. Are you? None of your "experts" are telling me any factual basis for your "reasons", so I only have you as yet another anonymous nobody middleman giving me your twist.

I looked at your "reasons" again, and still found nothing relevant. My expressed doubt was about marathon performance, in response to your presumptuous question "What time could they run if doped?".

Who in "the field" has looked at both doping and marathon performance, and has given us "arguments based on facts" allowing us to think that elite marathon runners would run their best marathon any faster doped?

How can I distort facts when no one has provided relevant facts to distort?

I don't care about unknowledgeable predictions, even from "knowledgeable experts" unless they are backed up by facts, and even then I care about, like Sgt. Friday says, "just the facts, ma'am".

While you look for new ways to insult me, as if that were a substantial argument, in another thread I was provided a study purported to demonstrate how "EPO works", as if anything I have ever said has ever differed from "scientific experts". Out of 2851 unique studies, only 10 met their robust inclusion criteria, and these top-10 studies only provided "low-to-moderate quality evidence", and even then, "almost exclusively seen during maximal exercise intensities, which may be less relevant to athletic competition conditions".

That is the glowing result of 60 years of your scientific experts in the field (reason #1). I could go on, but your reasons #2-#7 are not more factual.

Good idea. How about just maintaining one Kenyan doping thread then too, in order to focus that discussion, rather than repeating the same (non-)discussion in several dozens of scattered threads with every provisional suspension, and then again with every decision?

Here's a good starting point I was given to educate myself on the question of "does EPO work" (described above) -- not a very glowing scientific endorsement:

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effect of erythropoietin on athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Athletes have attempted to glean the ergogenic benefits of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) since it became available in the 1980s. However, there is limited consensus in the literature regarding its true performance...

Open link

Here's some more selected reading when discussing whether I deviate from scientific consensus:

"Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk-benefit"

"Overestimated Effect of Epo Administration on Aerobic Exercise Capacity: A Meta-Analysis"

"EPO or PlacEPO? Science versus Practical Experience"

LOL. Nice long off-topic distraction. Try to answer this again:

Look at my reasons again. Where do you see the words "believe" and "beliefs"? Nowhere. Fact! That is all your stupid trolling/off-topic obfuscation; you completely made that up while ignoring all evidence.

No? Well, then troll some more... BTW, you started the insults, I just returned them to you.

The beliefs are implicit, e.g. scientists believe "up to 3% via blood doping", Salazar believes "2 minute gain in the marathon", etc. They are beliefs when unsupported by relevant facts, evidence, controlled observations, etc.

You set the tone with "stupid and clueless". As you can see from some of the meta-analysis papers I linked, maybe it is you who is "seriously over-estimating the knowledge and experience" of your "expert" scientists/coaches/athletes, based on at best, low-to-moderate quality evidence.

Coming full circle, I still see no reason to think that elite marathon runners would be any faster doped than clean. I see only fallacies.

27 questions? Oh hahaha, dream on...

In the end, a classic Rekrunner lie. No, that is not the results of 60 years of studies. It's just one meta study on Epo, that discarded most Epo studies, not even mentioning the marathon, while the discussion here was about all kinds of doping for female marathoners.

But, for you: propaganda >>>> facts. Always. Who is paying you for that PR?

27 questions?

The meta-study on the ergogenic effects of EPO is a general indication of the quality of all doping/performance studies -- they are of low-to-moderate quality, and do not mirror actual competition.

Where are the studies within the last 60 years on doping for female marathoners? Thanks in advance.

Where are there any facts in this thread that gives anyone any reason to think that these female marathoners would be any faster doped? Thanks in advance.

"Just the facts, ma'am."

Coming full circle, I still see no reason to think that elite marathon runners would be any faster doped than clean. I see only fallacies. (quote)

Yet these marathon runners dope and are sometimes popped for it. Yours is the effective manifesto of a doping flat-earther.

That's how you show belief, not effect.

"Just the facts, ma'am."

You set impossible hurdles to demonstrating doping, because EPO is illegal in running and it's unethical to dose genuinely elite athletes and train and race them under normal racing conditions. Any true elites in the study would be banned and race results from, say, Monaco with known dosing individuals might well be cancelled because Monaco would lose its accreditation for allowing doping athletes knowingly to compete there. As for the steroid studies, they typically show major improvements but note specifically that the improvements would likely be much greater if the participants (who are not elite athletes, again) were given doses as high as actual dopers. Finally, if your claim is that the placebo effect is as great or greater than the benefits of EPO, then it has the same effect, regardless of whether they are doping, as long as they think they are doping, so they genuinely have to believe that they are using EPO for it to work, in that assumption. As soon as they knew it wasn't effective or it wasn't really EPO, the effect would cease to be the case. None of the studies show that. In fact, the control subjects are given a placebo and do not see any effect.

while coming to the staunch defence of the banned burrito eating excuse athlete to the extent of starting a gofundme page for her. rojo is no champion of justice.

Even a skeptical 2020 meta-study on EPO says "mild to moderate" effects on performance.

You aren't bright enough to realise your own claim about Kenyan marathon runners is exactly that, a mere belief.