Kiptum's coach - "Doping is everywhere in Kenya, it's the clumsy ones who are caught”

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

WADA is not a health body. It doesn't prosecute athletes for harming their health but for breaking the rules of sport. Thousands of athletes have doped over the years. How many are reported to have significant health issues? How is Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong after all their doping, not to mention the countless Russian athletes now banned? How many of the stream of Kenyan dopers in recent years are now sick or have died as a result of doping? The greater part of doping has been about unfair performance enhancement, which is why WADA exists. Health issues may be a possible side-effect but for most athletes who dope it clearly isn't. Up to 50% of championship athletes have doped, according to confidential athlete surveys. In bodybuilding and the WWE it would nearly be a 100%. Where is the epidemic of sickness amongst these athletes? You are utterly clueless about all of this.

As for comparing the role of the churches with a tangible product whose benefits can be known through direct experience - that's as stupid a comparison as any you have made. And you have made many.

The most telling thing about doping is that it has found its way into all sports and all countries. It could only have done that if it produced results for those using it - like modern equipment, such as golf clubs and tennis racquets - otherwise the equivalent of rain dances to win a race would have become just as popular. Because you can't think beyond your own beliefs you have no idea how others think and especially competitive athletes.

Right. You are saying that WADA's "Health, Medical and Research Committee", the makers of WADA's annual banned lists, is not concerned with health or medical issues.

And once again, all these examples of sprinters and baseball, and for good measure, Lance Armstrong, doping. I'll note here that Tyler Hamilton almost died from a bad blood transfusion, and Lance Armstrong had cancer, questioning whether HGH aggravated it, and didn't I already mention Tom Simpson and his ampetemine overdose, and up to 20 European atheletes in 4 years suspected of dying from EPO?

The Kenyans that are the subject of this thread (i.e. victims of negligence during medical treatment due to lack of information and education) are unlikely to have health issues, since their "doping" is exceptional, in the normal course of their healthcare, or treatment of injuries.

You speak of "a tangible product whose benefits can be known through direct experience" -- all I ask is for some tangible evidence of the existence of this knowledge, preferably with data documenting the benefits, and its root cause(s).

The icing on the cake though, is asking me where are the WWE health issues -- a group who are notorious for early deaths in their '30s, '40s, and '50s. How to tell me you are clueless without telling me. A recent 2014 study found wrestlers were 122x more likely to die of drug overdoses, 15x more likely to die from cardiovascular issues, and 6x more likely to die of cancer.

Similarly, with bodybuilders, although there are fewer deaths than wrestlers, there are still reports of too many young bodybuilders disproportionally dying from heart and kidney issues.

And no doubt you walk away from this exchange thinking I am the clueless one, oblivious to the irony. Where are the WWE health issues. Made my day.

Surprise! wrote:

WWE competitors did/do a ton of anabolic steroids, HGH, etc and jumped off ladders onto wooden tables for a living at 200-300 pounds typically. Night after night, town after town. They get the living crap kicked out of them on a day to day basis even though it isn't "real". I'm pretty certain their potential health issues are a bit more than the typical "let me get a quick blood boost" distance runner doper. The WWE wellness policy was created in 2006 because Eddie Guerrero died after going from a skinny "cruiserweight" to a very jacked, very roided up WWE Heavyweight Champion. A year later in 2007, Chris Benoit, also a former smaller guy, did so many steroids he lost his mind and murdered his family and committed suicide. Facing severe outside pressure, WWE started doing enough testing and implemented enough oversight to reduce the risk. So yes, WWE policy was about optics and health.

WADA has absolutely nothing to do with that, and certainly aren't overseeing drug testing in WWE. They were created in 1999 to specifically combat PED use in sports. If during their many press releases, they mentioned an added bonus to their existence was athlete health, that's great, but that's not why they were created. They were created to track down the PED users and hopefully make sport a bit cleaner.

rekrunner wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

WWE competitors did/do a ton of anabolic steroids, HGH, etc and jumped off ladders onto wooden tables for a living at 200-300 pounds typically. Night after night, town after town. They get the living crap kicked out of them on a day to day basis even though it isn't "real". I'm pretty certain their potential health issues are a bit more than the typical "let me get a quick blood boost" distance runner doper. The WWE wellness policy was created in 2006 because Eddie Guerrero died after going from a skinny "cruiserweight" to a very jacked, very roided up WWE Heavyweight Champion. A year later in 2007, Chris Benoit, also a former smaller guy, did so many steroids he lost his mind and murdered his family and committed suicide. Facing severe outside pressure, WWE started doing enough testing and implemented enough oversight to reduce the risk. So yes, WWE policy was about optics and health.

WADA has absolutely nothing to do with that, and certainly aren't overseeing drug testing in WWE. They were created in 1999 to specifically combat PED use in sports. If during their many press releases, they mentioned an added bonus to their existence was athlete health, that's great, but that's not why they were created. They were created to track down the PED users and hopefully make sport a bit cleaner.

Agree with WWE. Imagine the magnitude and depth of ignorance you would have to have about doping in sport, to come up with this gem with a straight face: "In bodybuilding and the WWE it would nearly be a 100%. Where is the epidemic of sickness amongst these athletes? You are utterly clueless about all of this." Quelle ironie. What a maroon.

I'm not a fan of the ambiguous term PED, as I don't always know which drugs on WADA's lists can rightly be called PEDs, and, by the way, neither does WADA. To get around that limitation, the WADA lawyers speak in terms of "potential", in order to avoid costly proofs, and messy legal challenges. WADA also permits the use of known PEDs like caffeine, and alleged PEDs like thyroid medication, so all around it seems more like an emotionally charged marketing term, rather than a part of a serious discussion.

Here's why WADA says it was established: "WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes, promote the values of clean sport, and preserve the spirit of sport internationally." What can "protect athletes" mean if it doesn't include their health?

Protecting athlete's health is not a fortuitous bonus by-product, but the risk to health is an uncouplable trade-off that athletes are too willing to pay as they decide to dope, without any guarantees about performance. As I have shown earlier, this concern for the athletes' health was expressed as early as 1939.

rekrunner wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

WWE competitors did/do a ton of anabolic steroids, HGH, etc and jumped off ladders onto wooden tables for a living at 200-300 pounds typically. Night after night, town after town. They get the living crap kicked out of them on a day to day basis even though it isn't "real". I'm pretty certain their potential health issues are a bit more than the typical "let me get a quick blood boost" distance runner doper. The WWE wellness policy was created in 2006 because Eddie Guerrero died after going from a skinny "cruiserweight" to a very jacked, very roided up WWE Heavyweight Champion. A year later in 2007, Chris Benoit, also a former smaller guy, did so many steroids he lost his mind and murdered his family and committed suicide. Facing severe outside pressure, WWE started doing enough testing and implemented enough oversight to reduce the risk. So yes, WWE policy was about optics and health.

WADA has absolutely nothing to do with that, and certainly aren't overseeing drug testing in WWE. They were created in 1999 to specifically combat PED use in sports. If during their many press releases, they mentioned an added bonus to their existence was athlete health, that's great, but that's not why they were created. They were created to track down the PED users and hopefully make sport a bit cleaner.

Agree with WWE. Imagine the magnitude and depth of ignorance you would have to have about doping in sport, to come up with this gem with a straight face: "In bodybuilding and the WWE it would nearly be a 100%. Where is the epidemic of sickness amongst these athletes? You are utterly clueless about all of this." Quelle ironie. What a maroon.

I'm not a fan of the ambiguous term PED, as I don't always know which drugs on WADA's lists can rightly be called PEDs, and, by the way, neither does WADA. To get around that limitation, the WADA lawyers speak in terms of "potential", in order to avoid costly proofs, and messy legal challenges. WADA also permits the use of known PEDs like caffeine, and alleged PEDs like thyroid medication, so all around it seems more like an emotionally charged marketing term, rather than a part of a serious discussion.

Here's why WADA says it was established: "WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes, promote the values of clean sport, and preserve the spirit of sport internationally." What can "protect athletes" mean if it doesn't include their health?

Protecting athlete's health is not a fortuitous bonus by-product, but the risk to health is an uncouplable trade-off that athletes are too willing to pay as they decide to dope, without any guarantees about performance. As I have shown earlier, this concern for the athletes' health was expressed as early as 1939.

rekrunner wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

WWE competitors did/do a ton of anabolic steroids, HGH, etc and jumped off ladders onto wooden tables for a living at 200-300 pounds typically. Night after night, town after town. They get the living crap kicked out of them on a day to day basis even though it isn't "real". I'm pretty certain their potential health issues are a bit more than the typical "let me get a quick blood boost" distance runner doper. The WWE wellness policy was created in 2006 because Eddie Guerrero died after going from a skinny "cruiserweight" to a very jacked, very roided up WWE Heavyweight Champion. A year later in 2007, Chris Benoit, also a former smaller guy, did so many steroids he lost his mind and murdered his family and committed suicide. Facing severe outside pressure, WWE started doing enough testing and implemented enough oversight to reduce the risk. So yes, WWE policy was about optics and health.

WADA has absolutely nothing to do with that, and certainly aren't overseeing drug testing in WWE. They were created in 1999 to specifically combat PED use in sports. If during their many press releases, they mentioned an added bonus to their existence was athlete health, that's great, but that's not why they were created. They were created to track down the PED users and hopefully make sport a bit cleaner.

Agree with WWE. Imagine the magnitude and depth of ignorance you would have to have about doping in sport, to come up with this gem with a straight face: "In bodybuilding and the WWE it would nearly be a 100%. Where is the epidemic of sickness amongst these athletes? You are utterly clueless about all of this." Quelle ironie. What a maroon.

I'm not a fan of the ambiguous term PED, as I don't always know which drugs on WADA's lists can rightly be called PEDs, and, by the way, neither does WADA. To get around that limitation, the WADA lawyers speak in terms of "potential", in order to avoid costly proofs, and messy legal challenges. WADA also permits the use of known PEDs like caffeine, and alleged PEDs like thyroid medication, so all around it seems more like an emotionally charged marketing term, rather than a part of a serious discussion.

Here's why WADA says it was established: "WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes, promote the values of clean sport, and preserve the spirit of sport internationally." What can "protect athletes" mean if it doesn't include their health?

Protecting athlete's health is not a fortuitous bonus by-product, but the risk to health is an uncouplable trade-off that athletes are too willing to pay as they decide to dope, without any guarantees about performance. As I have shown earlier, this concern for the athletes' health was expressed as early as 1939.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It's a simple equation, but you can't manage it - even though you're a bean-counter. The numbers of athletes who have doped - which over the decades will have been in their thousands, with expert estimates of at least 20% doping throughout sport - as against the numbers of doped athletes who have died or been seriously ill. If these groups were in any way commensurate we would easily know who was doping without testing them; we would know by those who had become seriously ill through drug use. We don't know who is doping by this measure because the numbers matching dopers with those who have serious health issues aren't in any way equivalent. Further, would-be dopers would know that drug use would inevitably make them sick, which would deter most because a consequence of illness is the opposite of performance enhancement. You are still and always will be a moron.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

From the WADA site. Clearly, you didn't read this far, in your usual cherry-picking way:-

"Sport is not a game you simply win or lose.

Its ethos goes beyond winning.

Win by cheating, and everybody loses.

At WADA, we are dedicated to fair competition.

We are proud to be the world’s unifying force for doping-free sport.

We exist…to guide…to enable…to inspire athletes and sport to make the right choices.

Because we are all at our best when we play fair and square."

----------------------------

Strangely - no mention there of any public health issues. One would get the impression their overriding goal is fair sport.

I was told "They were created in 1999 to specifically combat PED use in sports."

WADA doesn't specifically say that, either in your chosen quote, nor mine. That is "Surprise!" specifying it in his own words.

WADA specifically explain "WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes, promote the values of clean sport, and preserve the spirit of sport internationally."

A doping-free support reduces health risks, as well as any potential performance enhancement.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It's a simple equation, but you can't manage it - even though you're a bean-counter. The numbers of athletes who have doped - which over the decades will have been in their thousands, with expert estimates of at least 20% doping throughout sport - as against the numbers of doped athletes who have died or been seriously ill. If these groups were in any way commensurate we would easily know who was doping without testing them; we would know by those who had become seriously ill through drug use. We don't know who is doping by this measure because the numbers matching dopers with those who have serious health issues aren't in any way equivalent. Further, would-be dopers would know that drug use would inevitably make them sick, which would deter most because a consequence of illness is the opposite of performance enhancement. You are still and always will be a moron.

Your word salad is meaningless drivel. You obliviotly asked where the WWE sickness was amongst these athletes. The health risk is so significant, there is a 2014 paper that studied the long term effects and several causes of premature death. You are utterly clueless about all of this. You are still and always will be a moron.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You clearly can't follow an argument. It's a simple question. "Do all athletes who dope suffer health consequences as a result of their doping?" If not all, then how many? You cannot answer that question - or you choose to avoid it, because it makes nonsense of your assertion that antidoping is chiefly about preserving health rather than maintaining fair sport.

The fact is that only a fraction of those who dope suffer health consequences. If it were not so we would always know who was doping through illness, which would be an inevitable consequence of their doping. Drug tests would be redundant. How sick today are Ben Johnson, Justin Gatlin, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, Rashid Ramzi, Asbel Kiprop Kiprop, Shelby Houlihan and the dozens of Kenyan doping offenders in the last few years? Arnold Schwarzenegger took a sh*t-load of steroids. Is he unwell as a result? Countless athletes have doped in the last decades. All serious bodybuilders are on drugs. So where are all these invalids?

Some dopers will experience adverse side-effects - and so will some people who take any kind of medication. But illness isn't the main effect of doping and is almost always avoided when it it done expertly, as it typically is now. Sick athletes are not the main purpose for why WADA was created; it was to try to maintain fair sport after a massive cycling scandal in the late '90's. WADA was created because the main consequence of doping is performance enhancement that breaches the principles of fair sport - and that includes your beloved Kenyan marathon runners.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You clearly can't follow an argument. It's a simple question. "Do all athletes who dope suffer health consequences as a result of their doping?" If not all, then how many? You cannot answer that question - or you choose to avoid it, because it makes nonsense of your assertion that antidoping is chiefly about preserving health rather than maintaining fair sport.

The fact is that only a fraction of those who dope suffer health consequences. If it were not so we would always know who was doping through illness, which would be an inevitable consequence of their doping. Drug tests would be redundant. How sick today are Ben Johnson, Justin Gatlin, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, Rashid Ramzi, Asbel Kiprop Kiprop, Shelby Houlihan and the dozens of Kenyan doping offenders in the last few years? Arnold Schwarzenegger took a sh*t-load of steroids. Is he unwell as a result? Countless athletes have doped in the last decades. All serious bodybuilders are on drugs. So where are all these invalids?

Some dopers will experience adverse side-effects - and so will some people who take any kind of medication. But illness isn't the main effect of doping and is almost always avoided when it it done expertly, as it typically is now. Sick athletes are not the main purpose for why WADA was created; it was to try to maintain fair sport after a massive cycling scandal in the late '90's. WADA was created because the main consequence of doping is performance enhancement that breaches the principles of fair sport - and that includes your beloved Kenyan marathon runners.

It is a simple question, but one that no one was asking. Funny if you swap "health" for "performance", your post applies to you. Do all doped athletes run faster as a result of their doping? You cannot answer that so you avoid it.

Note I do not argue that anti-doping is chiefly about health. I said WADA gives us 3 reasons, one of which is health. They did not rank them by importance. Before WADA, I did say the UCI (according to the CIRC) was more concerned with health, e.g. letting their athletes dope and compete if hematocrit was below 50%.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you asked me the question you posed, do all athletes run faster as a result of their doping, I would say the answer is overwhelmingly yes. The only ones who wouldn't would be the rare exceptions who have an adverse reaction to a drug or do not know how to administer it. That is the opposite conclusion to the question I posed to you, which was do all athletes who dope get sick. No. Very few do.

You also lie now about your claim that antidoping isn't mainly about health. That's exactly what you have been saying. You don't accept that antidoping is mainly about unfair performance enhancement because you see performance enhancement from doping as a fiction. WADA was set up because of a huge cycling doping scandal in the '90's. It had nothing to do with any athletes falling sick. It was about their cheating.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you asked me the question you posed, do all athletes run faster as a result of their doping, I would say the answer is overwhelmingly yes. The only ones who wouldn't would be the rare exceptions who have an adverse reaction to a drug or do not know how to administer it. That is the opposite conclusion to the question I posed to you, which was do all athletes who dope get sick. No. Very few do.

You also lie now about your claim that antidoping isn't mainly about health. That's exactly what you have been saying. You don't accept that antidoping is mainly about unfair performance enhancement because you see performance enhancement from doping as a fiction. WADA was set up because of a huge cycling doping scandal in the '90's. It had nothing to do with any athletes falling sick. It was about their cheating.

I do not lie, but defer to the written words of the relevant authorities in the context of the history of doping and anti-doping.

Of course you would provide an answer you can only imagine -- unable to support with any facts, observations or evidence.

If I asked WADA to provide an answer, they would tacitly decline, and instead, speak in terms of "potential".

I do not rank the importance of "health risk" concerns versus "potential performance enhancement" concerns, nor say things like "chiefly" or "mainly about".

Nor does WADA give any such ranking priortizing one over the other. I showed you where WADA explains in their own words, the reasons they were established in 1999, and the multiple factors they consider when WADA's Health, Medical & Research Committee recommend to ban a substance or method.

Lacking any reason otherwise, I would equate "health risk" and "potential performance enhancement" and "spirit of the sport" as equal concerns.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Waffle, waffle, waffle. WADA was formed after a massive cycling bust. Its creation was about cheating, not the health of the cyclists.

If the health of doped athletes was of equal concern to their cheating we would see that health issues would occur with virtually all dopers. You haven't answered the question: do all doped athletes get sick as a result of their doping? In not all, what percentage do? What, in fact, is the evidence that health consequences are an inevitable or even likely result of doping? Name those top athletes we know who have been busted that have health issues as a result of their doping: Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Rashid Ramzi, Asbel Kiprop, Shelby Houlihan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, every second bodybuilder and weightlifter - the list is endless. How sick are they? How many of the busted Kenyans are sick from their doping? What is beyond you is that if sickness was the result of doping we would know it, as sports would be full of unwell athletes, and what is also likely is that any performance enhancement would be purely temporary at best. Few athletes would pay that price. Athletes may be prepared to take risks with their health to succeed, but they are not so stupid as to gamble the possibility of success against inevitable sickness. If that was the result of doping few would do it.

Simply because WADA lists its objectives is not an indication that equal weight is given to each. WADA bans drugs that have a "potential" for unfair performance enhancement so that it doesn't have to prove athletes gained from the use of the drug. The presence of the drug is sufficient. WADA isn't speculating and thinking "maybe this drug could boost performance?" The expert advice it receives is that it will - and does - which is why it is banned. Because you are as clueless as Sage says you are you don't get that. WADA also includes health issues because drugs - medicines - that are misused can have health consequences: this is not saying these consequences are inevitable. It also bans drugs that are "against the spirit of sportsmanship" because - wait for it - WADA is above all a sporting body and its stated priority is about fair sport. Your seeking to misrepresent and obfuscate its purpose to suit your doping denial beliefs only emphasises once again how your fanaticism is finally mere stupidity.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Waffle, waffle, waffle. WADA was formed after a massive cycling bust. Its creation was about cheating, not the health of the cyclists.

If the health of doped athletes was of equal concern to their cheating we would see that health issues would occur with virtually all dopers. You haven't answered the question: do all doped athletes get sick as a result of their doping? In not all, what percentage do? What, in fact, is the evidence that health consequences are an inevitable or even likely result of doping? Name those top athletes we know who have been busted that have health issues as a result of their doping: Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Rashid Ramzi, Asbel Kiprop, Shelby Houlihan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, every second bodybuilder and weightlifter - the list is endless. How sick are they? How many of the busted Kenyans are sick from their doping? What is beyond you is that if sickness was the result of doping we would know it, as sports would be full of unwell athletes, and what is also likely is that any performance enhancement would be purely temporary at best. Few athletes would pay that price. Athletes may be prepared to take risks with their health to succeed, but they are not so stupid as to gamble the possibility of success against inevitable sickness. If that was the result of doping few would do it.

Simply because WADA lists its objectives is not an indication that equal weight is given to each. WADA bans drugs that have a "potential" for unfair performance enhancement so that it doesn't have to prove athletes gained from the use of the drug. The presence of the drug is sufficient. WADA isn't speculating and thinking "maybe this drug could boost performance?" The expert advice it receives is that it will - and does - which is why it is banned. Because you are as clueless as Sage says you are you don't get that. WADA also includes health issues because drugs - medicines - that are misused can have health consequences: this is not saying these consequences are inevitable. It also bans drugs that are "against the spirit of sportsmanship" because - wait for it - WADA is above all a sporting body and its stated priority is about fair sport. Your seeking to misrepresent and obfuscate its purpose to suit your doping denial beliefs only emphasises once again how your fanaticism is finally mere stupidity.

This waffle may be what you say, arising from your imagination, but none of it is supported by any anti-doping authority.

You seem to fail to understand what "risk" means in "health risk". All athletes who decide to dope without medical need take that risk. You also seem to fail to understand what "potential" means. All athletes who decide to dope for performance, do so expecting to realize a "potential" performance boost.

Some athletes may damage their health. Some athletes may improve performance. How big is "some" is anybody's guess.

For those Kenyans "doping" due to one-time negligence during genuine treatment of medical issues, as Kiptum's coach told us happens in Kenya, they are probably healthier, having seen a doctor and received standard treatment for acute injuries or symptoms.

All the track and field athletes you listed above were already subject to some form of anti-doping, benefitting from a reduction of the risk to health. Contrary to your belief, it's not clear any of them ran faster because of doping, and neither WADA nor the AIU takes any position that their performance was faster because of their doping.

I already gave you alarming health statistics about wrestling, not subject to doping controls, and body-building, subject to WADA doping standards but not implementing them effectively.