Latest Kenyan doper brings into question all the rest…

Training Advice/Discussion

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 10 of 11

1 9 10 11

Next Last

2 years ago 11/02/2023 9:09am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

We are in a doping era. How is this not obvious to everyone?

When the fastest runners are getting popped logic says no clean runners can really compete. And then we also know how easy the tests are to fool. It's simple. Big money is at stake. Get your heads out of the sand.

Doping surely works on Africans as well as Europeans and everyone else and is responsible for the records going down every other day this year.

The question is - do they all get the same drugs? Is it driven by individual runners or their team ? I have suspected some in NN running team, Hassan, many others. What about the top pros in the US, Japan, Europe?

2 years ago 11/02/2023 10:01am EDT

re: sir dopealot

Of course you need to adjust your training to your doping cycle. And you need to be knowledgeable, or you end up experimenting forever and risk detection. So yes, team. See AW/NOP/BTC/Aden/Kemei, to name a few.

As for the same drugs - different strategies and mixtures, with the same drugs occurring everywhere (EPO/roids/HGH/speed peptides/asthma stuff/...). Look at Balco and the US Postal Team. Like training, where different coaches mix the same ingredients (recovery/easy/tempo/interval/long) differently.

2 years ago 11/02/2023 3:26pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
he\'s soo dumb wrote:
Again, not a single word to the point.
Not reading all of your many thousands of posts for you means not reading any of them.
That's the conclusion you did . A conclusion on a level you have shown so many times.
Destroying thread after thread - that's the only "impact" you have in this forum. Nothing of any benefit, just nothing. Anybody at the top dopes - Kenyans are at the top because they dope.
And, no, Dumbstrong, being close to a current WR doesn't necessarily mean the athlete is a doper. Even you have stated this.
No, I haven't. But keep following me around. Does anything else interest you here?

You clearly have. But you can't follow your own contradictions, which regularly occur.

It is possible to come really close to a current WR without doping, that's where we agree.

I'm interested in rational discussions about those subjects - something which is destroyed by you again and again.

2 years ago 11/02/2023 8:34pm EDT

re: he's sooooo dumb

he\'s sooooo dumb wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, I haven't. But keep following me around. Does anything else interest you here?
You clearly have. But you can't follow your own contradictions, which regularly occur.
It is possible to come really close to a current WR without doping, that's where we agree.
I'm interested in rational discussions about those subjects - something which is destroyed by you again and again.

No, you're not. You're dying on a hill that's not worth dying on, which is whether anyone running close to the current world records is doping. I say they probably are in this era but if you disagree neither of us can prove it. It doesn't mean that Coe must have been doping 40 years ago. He may. Or he may not. It was an earlier era in a sport that keeps changing. Some of the record-holders before him may have doped (Viren?). The question is what is the state of the sport today with regard to doping. Athletics has been identified by WADA as a sport with a high risk of doping, along with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. We know many more athletes dope than are caught. It is extremely unlikely that a clean athlete can beat an athlete of near equivalent ability who dopes. It is hard to imagine now that any athlete can get to the top of the sport who doesn't dope.

This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.

2 years ago 11/02/2023 8:44pm EDT

re: sir dopealot

sir dopealot wrote:
We are in a doping era. How is this not obvious to everyone?
When the fastest runners are getting popped logic says no clean runners can really compete. And then we also know how easy the tests are to fool. It's simple. Big money is at stake. Get your heads out of the sand.
Doping surely works on Africans as well as Europeans and everyone else and is responsible for the records going down every other day this year.
The question is - do they all get the same drugs? Is it driven by individual runners or their team ? I have suspected some in NN running team, Hassan, many others. What about the top pros in the US, Japan, Europe?

It isn't obvious to someone who doesn't want to see it.

2 years ago 11/02/2023 8:46pm EDT

re: there is that

there is that wrote:
+1
Of course you need to adjust your training to your doping cycle. And you need to be knowledgeable, or you end up experimenting forever and risk detection. So yes, team. See AW/NOP/BTC/Aden/Kemei, to name a few.
As for the same drugs - different strategies and mixtures, with the same drugs occurring everywhere (EPO/roids/HGH/speed peptides/asthma stuff/...). Look at Balco and the US Postal Team. Like training, where different coaches mix the same ingredients (recovery/easy/tempo/interval/long) differently.

It is a sophisticated practice in many sports now, and often involves an athlete's medical team. But the "amateurs" may still be caught - as we are seeing in Kenya.

2 years ago 11/02/2023 8:57pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs, rekrunner: go away. You are contributing zero. You have killed this thread with meaningless back and forth over many pages now.

2 years ago 11/02/2023 8:58pm EDT

re: Total fitness

Total fitness wrote:
Ekiru’s performance at the time placed him sixth on the all time list. Surely this raises eyebrows around performances that are similar and faster? Not least with the fact that,
”The AIU has requested that the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya also refer the senior doctor to Kenyan criminal authorities for further investigation.”
It is hard ( and getting harder) to believe that many, if any of today’s athletic performances are achieved without “help”.
People say that athletics need these superhuman performances in order to bring the spectators and sponsors in. But as the following of the sport seems to be dwindling and every new drugs scandal seems to hasten its demise, is this really the case? Maybe we should look for other solutions to increase interest?
Link:www.runnersworld.com/news/a45550079/ti...

Not going to read the entire thread, but do people really believe the 2:00 and 2:11 WRs are clean? I mean, really? Ok, maybe everyone’s on something, but really?

2 years ago 11/03/2023 12:59am EDT

re: zvxczcxv

zvxczcxv wrote:
Armstronglivs, rekrunner: go away. You are contributing zero. You have killed this thread with meaningless back and forth over many pages now.

That is what the debate is about - for everyone. There is no agreement between those who think the sport is mostly clean at the top and those who think it mostly dirty. So the "back and forth" you object to will go on regardless if I or rekrunner leave.

2 years ago 11/03/2023 4:32pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
he\'s sooooo dumb wrote:
You clearly have. But you can't follow your own contradictions, which regularly occur.
It is possible to come really close to a current WR without doping, that's where we agree.
I'm interested in rational discussions about those subjects - something which is destroyed by you again and again.
No, you're not. You're dying on a hill that's not worth dying on, which is whether anyone running close to the current world records is doping. I say they probably are in this era but if you disagree neither of us can prove it. It doesn't mean that Coe must have been doping 40 years ago. He may. Or he may not. It was an earlier era in a sport that keeps changing. Some of the record-holders before him may have doped (Viren?). The question is what is the state of the sport today with regard to doping. Athletics has been identified by WADA as a sport with a high risk of doping, along with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. We know many more athletes dope than are caught. It is extremely unlikely that a clean athlete can beat an athlete of near equivalent ability who dopes. It is hard to imagine now that any athlete can get to the top of the sport who doesn't dope.

You have stated that anybody close to a current WR is a doper. You realised now it was nonsense - OK.

If someone has set a mark in earlier era (42 years ago (!) which is still close to THE CURRENT WR he must not have been doping - according to you.

So, Coe may have doped - or not.

Than Kiptum may have doped - or not.

Kipyegon may have doped - or not.

Hassan may have doped - or not.

Ingebrigtsen may have doped - or not.

"It is hard to imagine now that any athlete can get to the top of the sport who doesn't dope." But you have no problem to believe that Coe maye have set a mark better than the current WR 42 (!) years ago clean? Makes sense.

How many times are you going to write this bodybuilding episode? Don't you think 50 times is enough? But continue with it if you think your time is worth it.

2 years ago 11/03/2023 7:07pm EDT

re: zvxczcxv

zvxczcxv wrote:
Armstronglivs, rekrunner: go away. You are contributing zero. You have killed this thread with meaningless back and forth over many pages now.

Yeah sure. I'll go away when everyone presents their evidence.

These threads are DOA.

2 years ago 11/03/2023 7:10pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Sage was unwise. He also failed to establish any relation between doping and the fastest elite distance running performances, or explain why EPO hasn't ever seemed to worked for his fellow compatriots on the international stage.
The relationship between doping and performance is that every kind of athlete uses drugs now, including elite distance runners. It is only if you see elite athletes as dumber than a bunch of rocks will they choose to risk their careers and reputations for something that gives them no advantage. But that's you.

Thanks for another example of "fail".

2 years ago 11/04/2023 8:42am EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The relationship between doping and performance is that every kind of athlete uses drugs now, including elite distance runners. It is only if you see elite athletes as dumber than a bunch of rocks will they choose to risk their careers and reputations for something that gives them no advantage. But that's you.
Thanks for another example of "fail".

The failure is yours, that with no experience of doping you think know better than the thousands of athletes who have.

2 years ago 11/04/2023 8:58am EDT

re: he's soo dumb

he\'s soo dumb wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, you're not. You're dying on a hill that's not worth dying on, which is whether anyone running close to the current world records is doping. I say they probably are in this era but if you disagree neither of us can prove it. It doesn't mean that Coe must have been doping 40 years ago. He may. Or he may not. It was an earlier era in a sport that keeps changing. Some of the record-holders before him may have doped (Viren?). The question is what is the state of the sport today with regard to doping. Athletics has been identified by WADA as a sport with a high risk of doping, along with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. We know many more athletes dope than are caught. It is extremely unlikely that a clean athlete can beat an athlete of near equivalent ability who dopes. It is hard to imagine now that any athlete can get to the top of the sport who doesn't dope.
You have stated that anybody close to a current WR is a doper. You realised now it was nonsense - OK.
If someone has set a mark in earlier era (42 years ago (!) which is still close to THE CURRENT WR he must not have been doping - according to you.
So, Coe may have doped - or not.
Than Kiptum may have doped - or not.
Kipyegon may have doped - or not.
Hassan may have doped - or not.
Ingebrigtsen may have doped - or not.
"It is hard to imagine now that any athlete can get to the top of the sport who doesn't dope." But you have no problem to believe that Coe maye have set a mark better than the current WR 42 (!) years ago clean? Makes sense.
How many times are you going to write this bodybuilding episode? Don't you think 50 times is enough? But continue with it if you think your time is worth it.

You can't respond to the point about bodybuilding because you have nothing to counter the WADA assessment that track is of the same level of risk of doping. You know nothing about the sports that WADA compared track with. But most who know anything about sports would have no confidence that bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling are clean. And that is where running is.

With regard to your irrelevant nonsense about Coe, because you can't follow my argument you try to construct one that suits you. It isn't mine.

I am talking about doping in this era. Kiptum, Hassan, Ingebrigtsen and Kipyegon will all be doped in my view. I have little doubt about it. Coe may have doped but I don't see the same evidence for it 40 years ago as athletes today.

Because you can't bear to face the reality of where the sport is you obsessively prattle on about Coe, as though the question of whether he doped decides the issue of how dirty the sport is today. It is irrelevant casuistry - a fancy term for empty bollocks.

This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.

2 years ago 11/04/2023 9:00am EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
zvxczcxv wrote:
Armstronglivs, rekrunner: go away. You are contributing zero. You have killed this thread with meaningless back and forth over many pages now.
Yeah sure. I'll go away when everyone presents their evidence.
These threads are DOA.

There is no evidence that will convince a flat-earther such as yourself.

2 years ago 11/04/2023 1:10pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
he\'s soo dumb wrote:
You have stated that anybody close to a current WR is a doper. You realised now it was nonsense - OK.
If someone has set a mark in earlier era (42 years ago (!) which is still close to THE CURRENT WR he must not have been doping - according to you.
So, Coe may have doped - or not.
Than Kiptum may have doped - or not.
Kipyegon may have doped - or not.
Hassan may have doped - or not.
Ingebrigtsen may have doped - or not.
"It is hard to imagine now that any athlete can get to the top of the sport who doesn't dope." But you have no problem to believe that Coe maye have set a mark better than the current WR 42 (!) years ago clean? Makes sense.
How many times are you going to write this bodybuilding episode? Don't you think 50 times is enough? But continue with it if you think your time is worth it.
You can't respond to the point about bodybuilding because you have nothing to counter the WADA assessment that track is of the same level of risk of doping. You know nothing about the sports that WADA compared track with. But most who know anything about sports would have no confidence that bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling are clean. And that is where running is.
With regard to your irrelevant nonsense about Coe, because you can't follow my argument you try to construct one that suits you. It isn't mine.
I am talking about doping in this era. Kiptum, Hassan, Ingebrigtsen and Kipyegon will all be doped in my view. I have little doubt about it. Coe may have doped but I don't see the same evidence for it 40 years ago as athletes today.
Because you can't bear to face the reality of where the sport is you obsessively prattle on about Coe, as though the question of whether he doped decides the issue of how dirty the sport is today. It is irrelevant casuistry - a fancy term for empty bollocks.

That you write "I have nothing to counter" clearly shows that often you just interpret things, mostly wrongly. You think I want to "counter" this, but can't. You are wrong Dumbstrong, as so often.
Kiptum, Hassan, Ingebrigtsen and Kipyegon are not "doped in your view" (they are or they are not). You BELIEVE they are doped. You are free to do so. Are they doped? You don't know this. I also don't know it.

The point about Coe is extremely important in regard to your "argumentation".
Before you clearly stated that you can't come close to a current WR without doping. This was clearly wrong and you accepted this now, and this is OK. You just BELIEVE almost any current top athlete is doping, that's OK. But completely useless for any serious discussion.

2 years ago 11/05/2023 12:58am EDT

re: he's sooooo dumb

he\'s sooooo dumb wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You can't respond to the point about bodybuilding because you have nothing to counter the WADA assessment that track is of the same level of risk of doping. You know nothing about the sports that WADA compared track with. But most who know anything about sports would have no confidence that bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling are clean. And that is where running is.
With regard to your irrelevant nonsense about Coe, because you can't follow my argument you try to construct one that suits you. It isn't mine.
I am talking about doping in this era. Kiptum, Hassan, Ingebrigtsen and Kipyegon will all be doped in my view. I have little doubt about it. Coe may have doped but I don't see the same evidence for it 40 years ago as athletes today.
Because you can't bear to face the reality of where the sport is you obsessively prattle on about Coe, as though the question of whether he doped decides the issue of how dirty the sport is today. It is irrelevant casuistry - a fancy term for empty bollocks.
That you write "I have nothing to counter" clearly shows that often you just interpret things, mostly wrongly. You think I want to "counter" this, but can't. You are wrong Dumbstrong, as so often.
Kiptum, Hassan, Ingebrigtsen and Kipyegon are not "doped in your view" (they are or they are not). You BELIEVE they are doped. You are free to do so. Are they doped? You don't know this. I also don't know it.
The point about Coe is extremely important in regard to your "argumentation".
Before you clearly stated that you can't come close to a current WR without doping. This was clearly wrong and you accepted this now, and this is OK. You just BELIEVE almost any current top athlete is doping, that's OK. But completely useless for any serious discussion.

I haven't accepted anything you argue. But you just keep going around the mulberry bush.

But put your cards on the table. Is doping common at the top of the sport or not?

2 years ago 11/06/2023 4:35am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yeah sure. I'll go away when everyone presents their evidence.
These threads are DOA.
There is no evidence that will convince a flat-earther such as yourself.

Flat-earther. That never stops being clever.

But I agree there is no convincing evidence to support much of the mythology.

2 years ago 11/06/2023 4:50am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
You can't respond to the point about bodybuilding because you have nothing to counter the WADA assessment that track is of the same level of risk of doping.

Why do you keep calling this a WADA assessment, rather than your own?

According to WADA's 2019 reports, the chance of a Bodybuilding sample testing positive was 30x greater than the chance of an Athletics sample. Despite Athletics having 26x more tests, Bodybuilding still produced 25% more ADRVs, absolutely.

Which "risk" do you allege WADA assessed is at the "same level"?

2 years ago 11/06/2023 6:57am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You can't respond to the point about bodybuilding because you have nothing to counter the WADA assessment that track is of the same level of risk of doping.
Why do you keep calling this a WADA assessment, rather than your own?
According to WADA's 2019 reports, the chance of a Bodybuilding sample testing positive was 30x greater than the chance of an Athletics sample. Despite Athletics having 26x more tests, Bodybuilding still produced 25% more ADRVs, absolutely.
Which "risk" do you allege WADA assessed is at the "same level"?

It isn't my assessment. I have read it as a statement from WADA that it sees T and F as equal risk for doping as bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling.

Page 10 of 11

1 9 10 11

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Real Runners, Real Reviews

Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt. Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.

What shoe are you reviewing?

Rate your shoe

Overall Rating

Appearance

Comfort

Cushioning

Durability

Value

I would buy this shoe again

Yes No

Would you buy this shoe again?

One-line review. Optional. Your written review provides information to readers that numbers can't.

Email Optional. Required for t-shirt drawing.

Real runner reviews • Community-powered rankings

Latest Kenyan doper brings into question all the rest…

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Latest Kenyan doper brings into question all the rest…

Jump To A Page

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.

Real Runners, Real Reviews