Thermo dino wrote:
lol. You cannot be serious. Asbel Kiprop, the strawman of top athletes. COAB you're hilarious.
Asbel Kiprop would meet my criteria of top athlete based on his top times.
Thermo dino wrote:
lol. You cannot be serious. Asbel Kiprop, the strawman of top athletes. COAB you're hilarious.
Asbel Kiprop would meet my criteria of top athlete based on his top times.
Dip, dive, duck, dodge.
There's no lengths you won't go to in order to not admit you are wrong.
I particularly like your "let's pretend it's still 2012" idea.
Besides, the "extreme hypothetical" was Lance admitting to doping full throttle. Yes, I know we haven't seen his actual medical records. Whew for you!
rekrunner wrote:
Thermo dino wrote:
lol. You cannot be serious. Asbel Kiprop, the strawman of top athletes. COAB you're hilarious.
Asbel Kiprop would meet my criteria of top athlete based on his top times.
But not a doper based on delusion.
Thermo dino wrote:
lol. You cannot be serious. Asbel Kiprop, the strawman of top athletes. COAB you're hilarious.
Indeed. What letsrun's PR guys - rekrunner isn't the only one - continue to "forget" is that the targeting of Kiprop started at least in 2016 with this suspicious ABP while in great shape, and finally succeeded in 2017. All their propaganda myths - several here repeated again by rekrunner despite his better knowledge - were easily dispelled by the AIU.
For details, see this Science of Sports thread:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1119563568100384768Some highlights:
Particularly interesting (to me, anyway), is the argument that if Kiprop knows he’s being tested (he's tiped-off), & knows he’s “glowing”, why not avoid the test? I think it says something about the athlete’s confidence in avoiding detection when micro-dosing than guilt/innocence
And explaining why so few EPO users get caught and why test dodging helps a lot, even if it only delays the test by a few days:
Away from the specifics of the #kiprop case, this is of course a really important concept - a dose of EPO might be detectable for a VERY short period only. Testers have to nail it within a day or two. The window for detection is incredibly narrow.
Thermo dino wrote:
Dip, dive, duck, dodge.
There's no lengths you won't go to in order to not admit you are wrong.
I particularly like your "let's pretend it's still 2012" idea.
Besides, the "extreme hypothetical" was Lance admitting to doping full throttle. Yes, I know we haven't seen his actual medical records. Whew for you!
What are you talking about?
The only significance of 2012 was that was when I made the original statement.
Interpreted as an absolute statement, I would admit that it is "wrong" after the first exception.
But "casual obsever" called it "false", as a "general statement". I disagree that it is false as a general statement, and this doesn't change with 4 examples you gave, nor the 16 Kenyan examples referenced in the WADA study "Doping in Kenya" between 2004 and 2018, and not even when adding the remaining few athletes busted for EPO/ABP since the study.
With respect to Lance, after the L'Equipe article, and Walsh's book, and testimony from virtually everyone connected to Lance, there was very little that was hypothetical when Lance admitted doping.
But your extreme hypothetical was an assumption and admission of a 100% doping rate, after accusing me of "dancing around" and "manipulating the concept of reality".
casual obsever wrote:
Thermo dino wrote:
lol. You cannot be serious. Asbel Kiprop, the strawman of top athletes. COAB you're hilarious.
Indeed. What letsrun's PR guys - rekrunner isn't the only one - continue to "forget" is that the targeting of Kiprop started at least in 2016 with this suspicious ABP while in great shape, and finally succeeded in 2017. All their propaganda myths - several here repeated again by rekrunner despite his better knowledge - were easily dispelled by the AIU.
For details, see this Science of Sports thread:
Some highlights:
Particularly interesting (to me, anyway), is the argument that if Kiprop knows he’s being tested (he's tiped-off), & knows he’s “glowing”, why not avoid the test? I think it says something about the athlete’s confidence in avoiding detection when micro-dosing than guilt/innocence
And explaining why so few EPO users get caught and why test dodging helps a lot, even if it only delays the test by a few days:
Away from the specifics of the #kiprop case, this is of course a really important concept - a dose of EPO might be detectable for a VERY short period only. Testers have to nail it within a day or two. The window for detection is incredibly narrow.
What exactly did I repeat despite better knowledge?
I did say Kiprop had advanced notice -- something confirmed by both the AIU and Ross. I said nothing further about the advance notice, and surely nothing that could be considered "propaganda myth". I would not ask, and did not ask, Ross's question, "why not avoid the test?"
While the AIU addressed many points raised by Kiprop, neither the AIU nor Ross addressed any of the points I raised (except confirming the advanced notice):
- Canova's recounting of Kiprop's poor shape, when he couldn't keep up with the women in training
- the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus
I also did not ask why so few EPO users get caught -- the claim was that "a lot" of "top" Kenyans were busted for EPO, and the discussion was whether the number 4 was "a lot". A WADA study told us that 16 Kenyans were busted for EPO between 2004 and 2018, and a few more since, for EPO/ABP. Not all of these 20 or so can be considered top athletes, either by time or, if you'd rather, by medal wins.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm only moving the goalposts back to their original spot in 2012.
As an absolute statement, a handful of exceptions would render it false, but as a "general statement", it is neither "ridiculous" nor "false", but remains true today, despite the handful of exceptions since 2012. This is because exceptions do not break the general rule.
And I did not say absolutely ALL "Ethiopians and Kenyans and other top East Africans" -- the stated belief was not absolute nor exclusive. Indeed, as few as 2 Ethiopians, 2 Kenyans, and 2 other East Africans is sufficient to make the belief, as stated, true. (That was not my belief, but what it would take to render it false, as stated).
"other top East Africans" would imply that the Ethiopians and Kenyans were also "top", or else "other" doesn't make sense. In any case, you should read that stated belief as including only "top" East Africans, as the original goalpost. In general I don't find it surprising that athletes of the caliber 5 minutes slower than the world record would be tempted to take EPO in an attempt to reduce that significant gap.
Winners of Olympic medals can be highly unpredictable, as athletes like Centrowitz and Rupp are Olympic medal winners, but more dominant athletes like Radcliffe is not.
Judging "top" athletes by time is much more reliable than by medals, as we only include the best athletes when they are running their best, which is not always the case for medal winners at fixed events with limited participation like the Olympics and World Championships. This reduces a lot of the variability in the long term.
Listen to this contorting. It's amazing you actually type this out and believe your own BS.
You've also narrowed what constitutes a top athlete down to such small numbers that by your own definition a lot has to be a very small number.
Now that medalists hardly count we can only count fast guys and gals as top athletes.
Here's a B level guy that accidentally somehow won London.
This guy is as clean as a whistle but somehow forgot that he might have to prove it . Poor guy with nothing to hide.
Another B level guy. Just misunderstood. Probably also clean and never even heard of EPO.
Fortunately this gal failed her Kenyan citizenship. Lucky you! But she managed to run a mediocre 1:05:xx half. Not really a top time since it only ranked number 4.
What are you trying to show with all of these examples?
As I told you before, "proof by example", even many examples, is simply not compelling.
I would be more compelled if you could show trends, or percentages of the total population.
rekrunner wrote:
What are you trying to show with all of these examples?
As I told you before, "proof by example", even many examples, is simply not compelling.
I would be more compelled if you could show trends, or percentages of the total population.
That you will deny anything. You said you didn't believe they were using back in 2012. A positive test tends to indicate use. Examples of positives SHOULD be compelling.
Was there some other way of showing use that you were hoping people would provide?
The trend is for doping among top Kenyans. Compellingly.
Thermo dino wrote:
You've also narrowed what constitutes a top athlete down to such small numbers that by your own definition a lot has to be a very small number.
Now that medalists hardly count we can only count fast guys and gals as top athletes.
It's a small number when you compare it to the number of top athletes who have not been busted for EPO.
Thermo dino wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What are you trying to show with all of these examples?
As I told you before, "proof by example", even many examples, is simply not compelling.
I would be more compelled if you could show trends, or percentages of the total population.
That you will deny anything. You said you didn't believe they were using back in 2012. A positive test tends to indicate use. Examples of positives SHOULD be compelling.
Was there some other way of showing use that you were hoping people would provide?
The trend is for doping among top Kenyans. Compellingly.
You just show the existence of a small percentage of exceptions to the general rule.
I don't deny that some small percentage of Kenyans, even a small number of top Kenyans, used EPO.
But this is not a compelling argument for the remaining Kenyans (and Ethiopians and other East Africans).
Does the sand bother your eyes?
rekrunner wrote:
What are you trying to show with all of these examples?
As I told you before, "proof by example", even many examples, is simply not compelling.
I would be more compelled if you could show trends, or percentages of the total population.
Proof by examples can be very compelling when you understand that EPO has varying levels of efficacy with athletes. You have to understand the high-responder/low-responder concept as well as factors such as dosage (micro vs macro), off/on cycles of usage and whether other PEDs are utilized for a synergistic effect (e.g, androgens, HGH, SARMs, etc.).
https://mobile.twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/850240827142004736?lang=enTake Sumgong from the above example: From 2006 - 2012, she never ran faster than 2:28 in her first 6 career marathons. In her next 2 career marathons, at age 28, she improved by almost eight (8) minutes, running 2:23 @ Rotterdam, followed by 2:20:48 for 2nd behind Jeptoo @ Chicago!
You can't say with a straight face that this sudden, dramatic improvement was solely result of harder training, or pace setters, or a change in diet, or whatever way you try rationalize these incredible performance jumps with some of the East Africans. The elephant is clearly in the room with Sumgong - PEDs was the game changer in her career. Remember, we're talking about an Olympic champion here - the highest achievement that an athlete can obtain. An Olympic champion is equivalent to a team winning the Super Bowl or a bodybuilder winning the Mr. Olympia title.
Some more from Tucker on EPO:
https://mobile.twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/1038041603246579712Magness on the high-respnder/low-responder concept and that doping "impacts everyone differently."
https://mobile.twitter.com/stevemagness/status/1265288378905432065Meh, says rekrunner, she didn't set a WR.