Renato Canova defends Federico Rosa, "(It) is not possible to control what they individually do."

Steve. wrote:

https://justpaste.it/74i18

Ha hilarious, we need one of these for Gary.

Who could have predicted that a well-researched poster like you would miss addressing all the main points, instead replacing them with name-calling? I think we are in total agreement that this thread is not about sprinting or field events. Now that you've clarified what this thread is really about, it remains unexplained, and inexplicable, why you suggest we must always keep in mind a non-biased corrected survey result that includes sprinters, throwers, jumpers, (something everyone knows) and non-endurance PEDs? It doesn't seem relevant to the topic. OK, I stand corrected -- It was 146 endurance medals won by 76 medalists, with no medal breakdown among these 76 medalists indicated. Recall you were suggesting that runners at the top have a higher concentration of dopers, and that this could be shown by counting medals, not medalists. Medalists winning multiple medals distort that count. Recall again the same source tells us that the really high concentrations of "suspicious medals" were in events where Russians won many medals. Recall again the subject, as clarified by you, is not about Russian doping. And recall that Seppelt and the Sunday Times did not show us the concentration of "abnormal" athletes that did not medal, in these dirty events. The Sunday Times did show some overall statistics, which, like the World Championship survey, includes non-endurance athletes less likely to blood dope, while doping in ways that do not alter blood values. Even among the "endurance" events, the "abnormal" statistics range from 11% to 54%, a rather large deviation hidden by any overall "1 in 3 medals won" count. There are at least two more fundamental issues with the Seppelt suspicious medal count: - The medals won were not correlated to the abnormal blood values in the database. The "suspicious" measure was existence in a database covering 12 years. This means a medal won in 2001, and a suspicious value in 2012 counts as a "suspicious medal". This only serves to artificially inflate the percentage of suspicion, by counting results not correlated to suspicion. - Some of the abnormal blood results are known to be false positives because they were collected and analyzed under conditions proven by scientific research to increase the rate of false positives. If Kenyan doping is so bad, why do we have to resort to counting all these other non-Kenyan events, nationalities, and loose methods, to inflate the figures? When we discuss doping in cycling, we don't mix in statistics from track-cycling, BMX free-style, mountain biking, or trials. Steroids are highly relevant to the count for women, because it artificially increases the medal count of blood dopers on the podium, for women taking both steroids, known to be highly effective for women, and blood doping, to a degree that it doesn't do for the men, or for longer events, like the marathon. Kiprop, Sumgong, Jeptoo and so on, did not act on knowledge, but on belief. You may be right though -- Kiprop and others may well know, better than you or me, if they ran slower than their best while they were doping.

I corrected you on all your main points, and pointed out that you were trolling again. That's a factual description, not name calling.

As you know, the (likely underestimated) 43.6% dopers were a reminder of the facts, as a response to

"Really is it possible to think that ALL THOSE ATHLETES WERE DOPED ?"

As also pointed out yesterday, running isn't exactly cleaner than jumping. Plus, there are a lot more running than jumping events.

No, I correctly pointed out that the gold medals were more suspicious than the bronze medals. And after you trolled me there again for the facts, I cited the numbers:

Looks like a medal breakdown to me. Also, 55 is more than 45. So, you were wrong again, which you knew, as you read that article many many times, but you just can't stop trolling.

But let's again do the math:

146 medals, 76 medalists: 146 / 76 = 1.9

1 in 3 medals won: 33% of the medals, on average the suspicious medal winners won 1.9 medals.

Case 1: no other medal winner won more than one medal (highly unlikely), then 33%/1.9 = 17% of the medal winners were suspicious.*

Case 2: the other medal winners won also more than one medal on average. Then correspondingly more than 17% of the medal winners were suspicious.

Comparison to the whole group:

1 out 7 suspicious = 14%.

Conclusion: doping is more widespread on the top.

* Let's keep in mind here that this was about blood doping only, but Canova's question was generally about doping, so yes, we need to add steroids and HGH etc. to those 17%. Plus the more careful blood dopers/"micro"dosers.

rekrunner wrote:

I have to disagree with your second statement:

Nothing about ABP requires correlating blood values to performance, beyond the mere existence of a performance near (and after) a test with abnormal values.

It doesn't require it but it's used to correlate an effect of hematological anomalies on performance. There are over 100 ABP sanction cases involving hematological anomalies. These athletes were sanctioned and as a consequence medals, titles and times were annulled as a result of the anomalies at or around the time frame of the performance(s). Keep in mind there were no positive tests for EPO nor any admission to the use of EPO or blood doping by the athlete. The only evidence in most of the cases is hematological anomalies (i.e, elevated Hgb, changes in RET%). Medals in major competitions, major titles and times (some of the times are the fastest for that particular event or in many cases the athlete's PB).

So, lets get down to brass tacks here: If you're so sure that hematological anomalies have no effect on performance then why doesn't the IAAF just sanction the athlete with no annulment of medals, titles. times? Better yet why not just set an upper safetly limit for Hgb/Hct with a 2 week down period from competition much like the old "50% Hct rule" used decades ago in pro cycling? (e.g., Marco Pantani's Hct safety violation during the 1999 Giro where he was dismissed and could not compete for 2 wks...but no ban). If you're so sure that hematological anomalies have no effect on performance - then why was Jeptoo stripped of her 2014 Boston title absent a positive for EPO?

If you recall that high-profile case, Jeptoo tested positive for EPO pre-Chicago that year and her victory was consequently annulled. Several months earlier at Boston she won the race, set a CR and just happen to run the 5th fastest marathon of all-time! She was drug tested pre-comp on April 19 and again post-race on April 21. Both samples were negative for the presence of EPO or any other banned substance. However, her ABP data from the race showed a significant increase in Hgb and an elevated RET% (2.5%). Anti-doping experts concluded that the hematological anomalies were not compatible with other physiology or pathological conditions and evident of the use of an ESA (btw, Dr. Schumacher was one experts on this panel).

Noted in the IAAF summary of the CAS hearing (paragraph 133 (b)):

"The Athlete's use of rEPO (or similar) targeted at major competitions in which she achieved great success, and coupled with her status as an experienced athlete and role model to young Kenyan athletes, constitutes a doping plan or scheme...."

Hmmm ?....."targeted at major competitions" and "achieved great success." Sounds like to me the IAAF is showing an great performance success as the result of the use of an ESA.

So when Renato wrote "Really is it possible to think that ALL THOSE ATHLETES WERE DOPED ?", he was talking about not less than 100% of athletes above these "clean thresholds" calculated at 4% below the current records, arguing that "if only one of them was clean, all the theory of 4% is not valid". Was it your point to say that as many as 56.4% could be clean (a figure which includes steroids, HGH, etc.), and therefore the theory of 4% is not valid based on this fact? If so, I misunderstood. If not, then it still doesn't really seem relevant in any context of this thread. I didn't say jumping events. I said sprints and field events. I count 13 events compared to the 9 events selected as "endurance", 2 of which, I remind you, are walking, not running. As I pointed out your absolute count of busts needs to be converted to a percentage of the respective athlete population, to be comparable. Whether it is 17%, or worse, this value is inflated, at the very least, by virtue of including the dirtier race-walking events. I also pointed out the error of your overall "1 in 7" whole group", a count of athletes, as this is not limited to the 9 endurance events, that produced "1 out of 3" medals. The blood database also contained the blood of non-endurance athletes -- something we learned in a 2011 study from the IAAF. When they looked at endurance only, the "overall" "whole group" number jumped to 18-19%. To really compare the concentration of "suspicious" medalists, to "suspicious" non-medalists, you need more accurate figures, preferably limited to distance running events, and not figures that inflates the medalist count, while understating the non-medalist count. To eliminate the question of the effect of steroids for women in this blood doping medal count, it would also be interesting to treat the men and women separately, since we also learned from the 2011 study, that the "abnormal" blood values differed significantly between men (12%) and women (18%).

I don't think you are using "correlate" the right way. I'm sure you asked these questions before. Don't mix up performance benefit as a determining factor into the decision to ban an athlete or annul a performance. I don't. The IAAF doesn't. WADA doesn't. Athletes dope, they get banned, performances annulled -- end of story. ABP allows that decision even without a positive test. The IAAF does not waive a ban if the athlete underperformed while doped. So please, let's decouple any discussion about sanctioning and annulling, from a discussion about performance benefits.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Ha hilarious, we need one of these for Gary.

Renato Canova wrote:

Lucy.........You put too many chocolates in your mouth at the assembly line!!

What?

Mo. wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Ha hilarious, we need one of these for Gary.

https://justpaste.it/6hk1f

??hilarious

Still haven't worked out if poster Renato Canova really is Renato Canova.

Sal Alazar wrote:

Still haven't worked out if poster Renato Canova really is Renato Canova.

It could be Rojo, lets face it, he would never have trouble convincing readers of his posts that English was his second language.

Yes and no. You cited what I wrote, for your convenience here again the key points:

But you skipped over them, and jumped into full deflection mode over the 43.6%, for your millionth time, which was just mentioned to support my second key point.

As per ususal, you started making up stuff ("a thread about Kenyan marathon distance running"), lied outright ("no medal breakdown indicated,") and went into full obfuscation mode from there.

The third key point is obvious, and for the first, I cited Schumacher.

For these 4%, I could also have cited for favorite Sunday Times article:

"Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute."

Last man in that final ran a 13:52, so 30 seconds are at least 3.6%. Noting the "about 30 seconds", 4.0% would be 33 seconds.

Yet last time you went into your troll mode with me, you went berserk just for me estimating 15 - 30 seconds over 5000 m, including steroids and HGH etc.

Speaking of Jeptoo:

Doped to the Max wrote:

Hmmm ?....."targeted at major competitions" and "achieved great success." Sounds like to me the IAAF is showing an great performance success as the result of the use of an ESA.

Hmmm - but rekrunner stated:

rekrunner wrote:

Kiprop, Sumgong, Jeptoo and so on, did not act on knowledge, but on belief. You may be right though -- Kiprop and others may well know, better than you or me, if they ran slower than their best while they were doping.

Poor rek. Not only do the scientists not agree with him, now his beloved and oh so trustworthy IAAF led by the impeccable Lord agrees with the scientists about the benefits of blood doping, based on experimental observations. Lolz.

Sorry, should have proofread:

For these 4%, I could also have cited your favorite Sunday Times article:

"Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute."

Last man in that final ran a 13:52, so 30 seconds are at least 3.6%. Noting the "about 30 seconds", 4.0% would be 33 seconds.

Yet last time you went into your troll mode with me, you went berserk just for me estimating 15 - 30 seconds over 5000 m, including steroids and HGH etc.

casual obsever wrote:

Sorry, should have proofread:

For these 4%, I could also have cited your favorite Sunday Times article:

"Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute."

Last man in that final ran a 13:52, so 30 seconds are at least 3.6%. Noting the "about 30 seconds", 4.0% would be 33 seconds.

Yet last time you went into your troll mode with me, you went berserk just for me estimating 15 - 30 seconds over 5000 m, including steroids and HGH etc.

+1

Glad you posted that...I've been searching for it and thought I had it bookmarked in my smartphone. That is significant and what I would characterize as a game changer.

Imagine chopping off "30 seconds" in the 5k with difference being between the gold medal and last place at London. But of course rekrunner will predictably say it's only an estimation and educated guess. And coming from experts? I don't think rekrunner gives any creditability to anti-doping experts. He sure didn't waste any time with his skepticism of Dr. Schmaucher.

Doped to the Max wrote:

I don't think rekrunner gives any creditability to anti-doping experts.

That goes without saying.

No...it's not the end of the story: Then why are medals, titles & times annulled on an athlete's ABP profile where hematological anomalies are detected during the competition period where you say elevated Hgb has no effect on performance? If you say elevated Hgb has no effect on performance and therefore no unfair advantage for a blood doper, then why is anyone getting sanction in the first place? If it's a safety issue, then the experts can roundtable and determine what would be an upper safe limit for Hgb levels (similar to cycling's old 50% Hct rule). No need to strip medals & titles and ruin careers if hematological anomalies have no bearing on performance?...right rekrunner?

ABP data is used to determine whether or not a performance should be annulled even in cases where there's evidence of admission to doping by the athlete. Have you researched the Poistogova case? Poistogova and her 800m teammate Savinova admitted in the ARD-recordings of doping during the summer of 2012 in prep for London (EPO & oxandrolone). Neither tested positive in the pre & post-race controls. Savinova takes gold & Poistogova takes bronze. Savinova is banned for 4 yrs, Poistagova gets 2 yrs.

Savinova ABP data from London shows strong evidence of doping with an elevated Hgb (16.1/48.3 Hct) & elevated RET% (1.30). Savinova's CAS hearing is available with further details (Schmaucher is one of the reviewing IAAF experts). Poistogova's ABP data from London (McLaren report) shows "normal." Savinova has her gold stripped while Poistogova retains her bronze, and is later elevated to silver! No steroid module was in use yet - so no data on androgen use. Poistagova does have her 2015 EIC silver medal stripped (maybe they saw some anomalies on her ABP data from that race but nothing is mentioned in McLaren).

So, both admit to doping for London. Both medal. One has hematological anomalies in her ABP while the other has a "normal" appearing ABP. One loses her medal while the other skates. If elevated Hgb indicative of doping isn't the most determining factor in the decision to annul a performance...then I don't know what is.

Well then...here's another one from Schmaucher ref the Kristina Ugarova CAS hearing from 2016 (paragraph 103):

103. In addition, importantly, the Sole Arbitrator notes that Sample 2 was taken on the eve of an important competition (i.e. the European Championship in Helsinki), whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 were not taken in temporal vicinity to a competition. As testified by Dr. Schumacher, high HGB values enhance sporting performance. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the coincidence of the fact that Sample 2 contained high HGB values, whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 contained no such high levels, makes it indeed highly likely that the abnormal blood values in Sample 2 are to be explained by the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods."

You do realize he is just pulling your leg, right?

Tough question: Is Gary serious or just toying with everyone?