Clemence Calvin - who allegedly refused a doping test last month - sets new French NR of 2:23:41 in Paris

rekrunner wrote:

As are you. These scientists only give us their opinion of predictions for elite athletes. So far so good.

The next step is to see if the theory matches the practice.

No. Already done.

The scientists gave us their conclusions based on experimental data, for example their own and others' studies, as well as based on changes in performance at the very top along with suspicious ABPs (e.g, Schumacher + Ashenden, to name the best known ones).

rekrunner wrote:

This is why I act as if any large effects of doping should be visible at the top, and why it is significant when we do not observe the impact of these predicted large effects, over the complete sample across large populations, over many decades.

But we do see "the impact of these predicted large effects". You only pretend we don't, based on your aptly chosen statistics. If you were to take a pre-blood-doping era, like up to 1960 or maybe even 1968, and compare it to the blood-doping era, then everything would look very different.

rekrunner wrote:

Yet 2:23:41, as an all-time fastest for a nation, seems "un peu peu". Once again, I'm asking myself, why so few, and by so little? If the best scientific experts claim EPO provides 3-4 minutes for elites in the marathon, why is the best that France can produce over 30 years, more than two minutes slower than Ingrid Kristiansen and Joan Benoit ran in the 1980s, itself not a particularly fast time, more than 2 minutes slower than Ndereba, and nearly 6 minutes slower than the record?

You're too one dimensional in your thinking on this. Look at the other end of the spectrum for once and you'll see why so many, and by so much?

Since you're obsessed with top 100's in the different disciplines, we'll go with that in the women's marathon. Let's use confirmed doping cases:

2:18:20 Shobukhova (RUS) ABP (the time was flushed for hematological anomalies but it would be the *7th* fastest all-time! Her Off-score when she ran that PB @ Chicago was an astronomical 153! ? An Off-score of that magnitude is going to be extremely high Hgb paired with very low RET% - evidence of industrial-strength blood doping).

2:18:57 Jeptoo (KEN) EPO (OOC) & ABP (her PB ran at Boston/2014 was flushed for hematological anomalies).

2:19:34 Kabuu (KEN) Morphine (OOC)

2:19:39 Yingjie (CHN) Androsterone (OOC)

2:19:47 Chepchirchir (KEN) ABP provisional suspension (case pending)

2:20:41 Sumgong (KEN) EPO (OOC)

2:21:29 Duliba (BLR) ABP (Her PB from Boston/2014 was flushed for hematological anomalies).

There are also three other Russians in the top 100 who haven't tested positive or blown their passports, but considering the State-sponsored doping in Russia they would be considered highly suspicious (imagine that. Lol):

2:20:47 Bogomalova

2:21:29 Petro

2:21:31 Zakharova

So...there you go rekrunner; these are only the confirmed cases and three highly suspicious Russians in the top 100. Therefore, you no longer have to keep asking yourself "why so few, and by so little." Instead it's why so many, and by so much?

FTFY

Viva_ESPAÑA_VOX wrote:

Unbelievable, a thread about a possible doping code violation by a FRENCH athlete ends up being a thread full of cr*p about Spanish sport.

This thread has been RekRunnered!

Why so many, and by so much? wrote:

So...there you go rekrunner; these are only the confirmed cases and three highly suspicious Russians in the top 100. Therefore, you no longer have to keep asking yourself "why so few, and by so little." Instead it's why so many, and by so much?

Indeed.

And, best all times:

Radcliffe, 2:15:25, 2x flagged with a simultaneous Hb increase of over 20% and a RET-% decrease of over 20% within 2 - 3 days -> either absurd, repeated measurement errors or regular, undetectable blood transfusions.

2nd best, WR female only race:

Keitany, 2:17:01, showed up on the leaked IAAF list of suspicious runners/likely dopers.

Viva_ESPAÑA_VOX wrote:

Pro sport is tainted by doping everywhere. The golden rule is: Dope to cope.

Obviously. That's why Calvin neither upset nor surprised me.

But here we have a constant fight with many trolls, PR shills, and blind nationalists/fanboys.

casual obsever wrote:

Viva_ESPAÑA_VOX wrote:

Pro sport is tainted by doping everywhere. The golden rule is: Dope to cope.

Obviously. That's why Calvin neither upset nor surprised me.

This is the problem though isn't it? It's just another form of doping apologism.

casual obsever wrote:

But here we have a constant fight with many trolls, PR shills, and blind nationalists/fanboys.

And what exactly is it you're fighting for? For everybody here to simply to shrug their shoulders and say we may as well let the Kenyans get on with it, because El K is right and everybody else is doing it?

So, when I asked "why so few by so little" just now, it was regarding FRANCE. But since you took it a different route, whenever I asked the question before, it was always regarding the population of non-Africans, comparing the smaller quality and smaller quantity of their very best results, with the much larger quality and quantity coming out of tiny nations in East Africa. When you consider the population of East Africa compared to the rest of the world, these discrepancies become even larger. I've been accused of skewing the statistics to favor my conclusions, but if anything, grouping all non-Africans together, and picking the 5 best from this large population, hugely favors non-Africans, the group with consistently lower quality and quantity measures, over East Africans, despite 15-30 times the population. When you look at the top-95 (data from Jan. 2018, so missing some new entries from Dubai 2018, 2019 and Berlin 2018), there were only 36 non-African women faster than 2:22:56. I considered 36 rather small, especially compared to the 59 from Kenya (29) + Ethiopia (30). These 36 women come from 12 different countries: 11 from Japan (top-5 average 2:20:24) 6 from Russia (top-5 average 2:20:53) 5 from China (top-5 average 2:21:02) 4 from USA (average 2:21:06) 2 from Germany (average 2:20:32) 2 from Romania (average 2:22:12) 1 from Britain, Belarus, Ukraine, Ireland, Australia, Latvia 0 from France Compare this to: 29 from Kenya (top-5 average 2:18:45) 30 from Ethiopia (top-5 average 2:19:12) (these numbers would get better with the inclusion of Dubai 2018, 2019 and Berlin 2018) While China and Russia have a reputation for doping, Japan, with the highest quality/quantity combination, does not. Once again, Russia, by far the most doping country by nearly every measure, was not better than Japan, generally not considered to be dopers. When you ask "why so large", we know that Russians were taking cocktails with steroids and male hormones, which I've conceded would have a larger effect on women, than men. I suspect it is also the case with women from Belarus, Ukraine, and China, that they were taking drug cocktails with male hormones. When you ask "why so large", with respect to the women's marathon, I also addressed this in my analysis. There, I computed a 1990 reference of 2:22:56, something I considered quite weak, given that #3 Rosa Mota (2:03:29) was 2 minutes slower than Joan Benoit and Ingrid Kristiansen, and #5 Grete Waitz was 1 minute 30 slower than #3, and more generally, the relative immaturity of women's distance events before Zola Budd, Grete Waitz, Ingrid Kristiansen, and Joan Benoit. If you consider (like I do) that my 1990 reference is weak for the best elite women marathoners, it becomes even more surprising that only 36 non-African women could beat it, in nearly three decades of EPO availability, given the scientific promise of 3-4 minutes advantage. When you ask "why so many", we know: - Russia was doping their women with drug cocktails. - Many people, athletes, coaches, managers, and fans, believe doping is necessary to run fast -- which includes top athletes. We should expect some prevalence at the top, even in a scenario where belief is strong, but effect is not. I will also note that some of the doping busts came after the best performances, so there is still an issue with the arrow of cause and effect going in the wrong direction that remains unresolved.

Fighting for awareness, transparency, criminilization of doping, fair controls everywhere, tougher borders for the ABP, out with the lame excuses like doorbell, kissing, beef, you name it.

Ideally we would have replaced the whole IAAF council along with the WADA leadership, when the corruption broke. Now with just replacing the P with the VP, a clear sign was set that we will move on like before.

You overstate the basis in reality for expert opinions. When they project "up to 3%" and "3-4 minutes" this is not based on controlled observations of the kind of top athletes we are talking about. Is there even a study on the marathon? If we go back to the 1960s, you might be able to finally find 3%, but I think it is stretching the myth to suggest that the only improvements since the 1960s were due to doping.

RekRunnered wrote:

Viva_ESPAÑA_VOX wrote:

Unbelievable, a thread about a possible doping code violation by a FRENCH athlete ends up being a thread full of cr*p about Spanish sport.

This thread has been RekRunnered!

Nice one, but predictable because it's a dopers' thread. Therefore rekrunner will obfuscate us to death or at least boredom.

what else is new? wrote:

RekRunnered wrote:

This thread has been RekRunnered!

Nice one, but predictable because it's a dopers' thread. Therefore rekrunner will obfuscate us to death or at least boredom.

When a thread is in the first throes of being 'RekRunnered' I stay away for a few days and them come back to see if anything has changed, i.e. if he's buggered off, if it hasn't I go away again for a few more days.

rekrunner wrote:

When you look at the top-95 (data from Jan. 2018, so missing some new entries from Dubai 2018, 2019 and Berlin 2018), there were only 36 non-African women faster than 2:22:56.

2:22:56 is very fast for female marathoner. Sub-2:21:00 is getting into super-elite territory (only 2 Americans have gone sub-2:21) and the WR is downright MUTANT!

casual obsever wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

But didn't the Spanish national team win everything by boring their opposition to death?

That, and by always having more men around the ball. I.e. by running more.

That can help ?

Why so many, and by so much? wrote:

Let's use confirmed doping cases:

2:18:20 Shobukhova (RUS) ABP (the time was flushed for hematological anomalies but it would be the *7th* fastest all-time! Her Off-score when she ran that PB @ Chicago was an astronomical 153! ? An Off-score of that magnitude is going to be extremely high Hgb paired with very low RET% - evidence of industrial-strength blood doping).

2:18:57 Jeptoo (KEN) EPO (OOC) & ABP (her PB ran at Boston/2014 was flushed for hematological anomalies).

2:19:34 Kabuu (KEN) Morphine (OOC)

2:19:39 Yingjie (CHN) Androsterone (OOC)

2:19:47 Chepchirchir (KEN) ABP provisional suspension (case pending)

2:20:41 Sumgong (KEN) EPO (OOC)

2:21:29 Duliba (BLR) ABP (Her PB from Boston/2014 was flushed for hematological anomalies).

There are also three other Russians in the top 100 who haven't tested positive or blown their passports, but considering the State-sponsored doping in Russia they would be considered highly suspicious (imagine that. Lol):

2:20:47 Bogomalova

2:21:29 Petro

2:21:31 Zakharova

Isn't it a relief for the sport that Paula Rekrunner brings integrity back to the list. Just like Bolt in the 100m. We can all sleep well now.

Good one, Subway!

Might find 3%? Lol. Pre-1960 - apparently before blood-doping became standard, the 10000 m world record was 28:30. That's over 8% slower than the current record.

5000: 13:35, almost 8% slower than currently.

Marathon: 2:15:17, 11% slower than currently.

rekrunner wrote:

You overstate the basis in reality for expert opinions. When they project "up to 3%" and "3-4 minutes" this is not based on controlled observations of the kind of top athletes we are talking about. Is there even a study on the marathon?

If we go back to the 1960s, you might be able to finally find 3%, but I think it is stretching the myth to suggest that the only improvements since the 1960s were due to doping.

Surely the people here who put forward the extreme position that literally EVERYBODY dopes have to concede to RekRunner that doping therefore doesn't have quite the massive effects on performance that are claimed. And if they have to agree with that, it undermines their position that EVERYBODY dopes (because all elites have to 'dope to cope').

A much more realistic and consistent position is that doping is a widespread problem, but in some places (i.e. East and North Africa) it's much worse than other places, and that not all elites do dope.

But then to suggest (like I did semi-seriously) that it's possible no Kenyan has run a sub 3:35 1500m clean is racist, but it's merely 'cynical' to claim that no runner from any country has run a sub 3:35 1500m clean.

For example, was blood doping even around when Herb Elliott was running? If he can solo run a 3:35 back in 1960 on a track probably at least 4 or 5 seconds slower than Monaco today, and we assume he was likely clean, or at least not blood doping, why is it so absurd to believe that a sub 3:30 isn't possible clean today, let alone a sub 3:35, which these days is very competitive. Jake Wightman, for example, who nobody could deny is 'elite' even at the global level, only broke 3:35 two years ago, and only ran 3:33.96 last year (at Monaco). Yet I have to believe he's doped to the gills, or at least doping to the level he feels confident he wont get caught, because any top runner these days has to 'dope to cope'?

And I'm racist not to assume that Jake Wightman is as guilty of doping as any random Kenyan athlete, even though there have been no male middle-distance doping busts ever in the UK, and in the last 12 months alone, one of the top 3 Kenyan runners in the 800, 1500, and 5000 has been suspended for EPO?

The very best British 1500 runner today (and he's probably since Peter Elliott) is running maybe at least 5 or 6 seconds slower than Herb Elliott would be today clean, but I'm naive and nationalistic to believe that he's clean as well? I have to assume that he and everybody else is dirty, including Nick Willis who was robbed of Olympic Gold and sporting immortality, just because Kenyans are getting popped every week?