Olympic Marathon Silver Medalist Eunice Kirwa Busted for EPO Doping

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Not likely. The irony now is that this was a topic I had previously remained silent, and somehow I was also faulted for my silence.

Rekrunner, you can never be faulted for your silence. It can only be celebrated. It is what you have to say that is largely unreadable.

Because the words are too big? Maybe you can ask an adult to help you.

casual obsever wrote:

+1

Letsrun rumor is that 2 of the ladies placing high in London this year tested positive.

Let's hope it is true.

Wanna bett?

That gag will never die. Lolz

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Rekrunner, you can never be faulted for your silence. It can only be celebrated. It is what you have to say that is largely unreadable.

Because the words are too big? Maybe you can ask an adult to help you.

Here's my take: Some of your words are "too big" but we're big boys & girls and can look them up. Lol. However, I think you do that to show-off i.e., bring attention to yourself. You don't see casual obsever do that and I believe he's a scientist (?). Also, Subway, Coevett & Armstronglivs speak very well & intelligently, and their posts are easy to understand. Even your comrade Jon Orange's posts are easy to read. Lol.

But the biggest annoyance I see is you obfuscate so much. Simple matters you make complicated and end up confusing as to what you're really trying to convey. I end up reading some of your post several times trying to decipher them thinking to myself; "what the heck is this guy talking about?"

Honest question: Is this an act you put on for this forum (I believe you've been posting here for over a decade?) or are you really that way in person? Something tells me you use this as an entertainment venue to put on your act, or perhaps you really are a mod here? ?

Here's my take wrote:

Subway, Coevett & Armstronglivs speak very well & intelligently

What? Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

No hope for any changes wrote:

Wow...what a system the IAAF has with career dopers. We'll ban you but you can keep your ill-gotten Olympic/WC medals and stay in the record books. Lol.

To be fair, it's the whole sport, not just the IAAF.

Another "fun" story is Ekaterina Poistogova's. First, her passport was judged clean although "they poured so much into her", so she kept her Olympic bronze, and later it was upgraded to silver because her teammate got DQ'd!

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Rekrunner, you can never be faulted for your silence. It can only be celebrated. It is what you have to say that is largely unreadable.

Because the words are too big? Maybe you can ask an adult to help you.

Your vocabulary is the least of my concerns.

Sayer of what? bahaha wrote:

Here's my take wrote:

Subway, Coevett & Armstronglivs speak very well & intelligently

What? Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

A fine imitation of a sheep. In every sense.

Rekrunner's posts remind me of the story of the child listening to a politician speaking and asking her mother, "but what does he actually stand for?" With rekrunner, one never really knows. He says his concern is for "accuracy" - so he constantly seeks to differ with, and indeed correct, what others say. To what ultimate purpose, your guess is as good as mine.

But in discussing many of these issues, and particularly doping, "accuracy" presumes there is only one correct view - like the recording of a stopwatch - a view which, apparently, rekrunner alone possesses. Yet most of these issues involve elements of subjectivity, estimation and guesswork. In respect of a topic in which most of its reality is concealed from view - because it is clandestine - and that is doping - it is almost like trying to map the dark side of the moon. Somehow, rekrunner knows better than anyone what isn't directly visible to the human eye - or even the best telescope. His "accuracy" is therefore merely guesswork and opinion. Like anyone else.

I never understood this repeated claim of obfuscation. "Easy to understand" and "simple" doesn't necessarily mean right. Reality is complex and nuanced. I don't know anyone in person who acts like some of the posters here. In my real world, I'm surrounded by scientists and engineers who understand my words.

Here's my take wrote:

But the biggest annoyance I see is you obfuscate so much. Simple matters you make complicated and end up confusing as to what you're really trying to convey. I end up reading some of your post several times trying to decipher them thinking to myself; "what the heck is this guy talking about?"

Honest question: Is this an act you put on for this forum (I believe you've been posting here for over a decade?) or are you really that way in person? Something tells me you use this as an entertainment venue to put on your act, or perhaps you really are a mod here? ?

You are always coming up with odd, and often not comparable, comparisons of what things are like, rather than tackling the subject directly with real facts and arguments. But in a moment of clarity, you've stumbled upon one of the reasons I say "belief" so much. Using your "dark side of the moon" reference, much of what is said about EPO/blood doping improving elite performance is based on 15% knowledge and 85% "dark side of the moon". (NOTE: these percentages are for illustration only) I don't know all the answers, but I know some of you need better methods.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sayer of what? bahaha wrote:

What? Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

A fine imitation of a sheep. In every sense.

Ha! Clever! Not...

I could easily prove your lack of intelligence. But you wouldn't understand it.

rekrunner wrote:

You are always coming up with odd, and often not comparable, comparisons of what things are like, rather than tackling the subject directly with real facts and arguments.

But in a moment of clarity, you've stumbled upon one of the reasons I say "belief" so much.

Using your "dark side of the moon" reference, much of what is said about EPO/blood doping improving elite performance is based on 15% knowledge and 85% "dark side of the moon". (NOTE: these percentages are for illustration only)

I don't know all the answers, but I know some of you need better methods.

I think if you were right with the "belief" notion, EPO would have never gotten out of the starting gate back in it's infancy.

How long has EPO been around? ? Maybe 3+ decades now? (There's evidence of use way back in 1988 at Calgary & Seoul). Blood transfusions have been around a lot longer but involve less availability & practicality due to the money and resources needed. EPO is more cost effective and can be shipped practically anywhere all over the world to the athletes or coaches. Administration can be started immediately without the long downtime of blood withdrawls as well as all the other hassles involving transfusions (e.g., storage, transportation, re-infusions, blood bags getting mixed up, etc.).

This is what made it so widespread across the globe - and some athletes could use it covertly without anyone even knowing including the athlete's family & coach. And since most African nations wouldn't have the money & resources needed for blood doping, EPO made the perfect endurance drug for those that desired to dope.

Therefore, if it didn't provide some level of performance enhancement benefits after 3 decades of widespread use, why would athletes and coaches continue to use it for so long? Athletes & coaches aren't stupid - they wouldn't waste their time & money on drug that is ineffective and solely based on "belief" (would you use a pharmaceutical or supplement that didn't seem to be providing any benefits?). And considering the huge number of EPO pops and ABP sanctions for hematological anomalies suspected with EPO use, athletes & coaches must still think the benefits far outweigh the risk of getting caught.

You act like EPO was just developed last year and athletes & coaches are in the experimental phase with it. This is an endurance drug that has 3+ decades of world wide use and despite much better testing and the ABP....continues to be abused.

If we know what asprin does, why would it be any more speculative to know what EPO does? It isn't new. Or steroids? Testosterone, or caffeine? The chemistry behind drugs isn't a mystery - any doctor or chemist would know this stuff - and the effects on biology are proven. None of that stuff is the dark side of the moon. What is speculative is how many are using, and what are they taking, given that the manufacturers are able to vary the composition of the products so they are not picked up by testing or are out of an athlete's system in very short order.

Sayer of what? bahaha wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A fine imitation of a sheep. In every sense.

Ha! Clever! Not...

I could easily prove your lack of intelligence. But you wouldn't understand it.

No one would. Bleating as you do.

rekrunner wrote:

In my real world, I'm surrounded by scientists and engineers who understand my words.

Curious: Are you semi-retired or work from home? (you post with great regularity).

I think you mentioned at one time that you work in statistics? And on a post quite sometime ago someone mentioned you are a youth coach over there in Europe...any truth to that?

Your "real facts and arguments" are merely opinion. You may be surrounded by scientists, as you say, but you are clearly not one, as you are always selective with data and how it is to be interpreted so that it inevitably supports a predetermined conclusion. Such information that doesn't fit you either ignore, assert is wrong or seek to minimise. Your arguments are therefore tendentious and your methods those of the propagandist - but they are not that of a scientist. It would be safe to say of you that nothing could change your mind once you have formed a belief. It is apppropriate that you keep coming back to that term when discussing doping, because to you "belief" is everything. What you attribute to others is a thus a description of yourself. Freud would be amused.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sayer of what? bahaha wrote:

Ha! Clever! Not...

I could easily prove your lack of intelligence. But you wouldn't understand it.

No one would. Bleating as you do.

So, you are talking to a sheep... ooookkkkkk

casual obsever wrote:

+1

Letsrun rumor is that 2 of the ladies placing high in London this year tested positive.

Let's hope it is true.

Wanna bett?

Be patient.