Steeplecahse WR holder Ruth Jebet Banned for 4 years

physics defiant wrote:

So the most talented and best trained track athletes all appeared 15-25 years ago. After that they died out and the superior training was forgotten.

They did not dissappear; they moved from the track to the roads, where there was more money.

physics defiant wrote:

Um, your athletes don't have any of those records.

Moses Mosop still has the 25000m and 30,000m track record.

And you haven't addressed my point. I know èpossible to be WR holder using clean training, while all people overrating the effect of EPO on the performances don't think it possible.

I don't have any experience with doped athletes, and can avoid the possibility that can help the athletes in some case. But everybody thinking not possible to run at top level without doping is of sure wrong, because, while the possibility that EPO works or not with top athletes, in full training in altitude, is only a SUPPOSITION, World Records in clean way are a FACT (for the other poster who says I have not record holders, this is the list of my athletes who bettered a WR

3000m steeple : Saaeed Saif Shaheen 7'53"63 (still valid)

25000m (Track) : Moses Mosop 1:12:25 (still valid)

30000m (Track) : Moses Mosop 1:26:47 (still valid)

25 km (Road) : Paul Kosgei 1:12:25 (bettered)

15 km (Road) Women : Florence Kiplagat 46:14 (bettered)

20 km (Road) Women : Florence Kiplagat 1:01:57 and 1:01:56 (two different occasion, bettered)

HM Women : Florence Kiplagat 1:05:12 and 1:05:09 (bettered)

Armstronglivs wrote:

Everything you say about doping is conjecture - as it is with much of the comment that you disagree with on this board - because you have no experience in coaching athletes who dope and indeed no contact with any athlete who dopes (as far as we - or you - know).

In the words of rekrunner, it is only your "belief" that training is more effective than EPO because you have no direct experience or knowledge of how EPO works in practice to make a fully-informed comparison. (Again, in rekrunner's terms, you haven't dealt with "confounders"). Perhaps, like rekrunner, you need to do more reading to be expert? Mind you, that's all he's done.

Once again I note that blatant hypocrisy here of relying on your perception of the experiences of thousands of athletes/coaches, all the while not knowing their actual experience, and then arguing, again without presenting any real knowledge of elite performance or doping, against the experience of one of the coaches who has coached athletes to world record performances.

When you read Renato's posts, he says that many of the world records were done CLEAN, without EPO or banned substances, and often without any non-banned supplements. This is not conjecture about doping, but a recounting of his personal experience with training elite athletes at altitude.

This actually addresses head-on EPO as a potential confounder, by denying that EPO was a factor at all in the world record performances.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Strange they don't do that. Perhaps they know that EPO enhances performance more than altitude training. Experience has shown them that - and not your reading.

Or perhaps it's an irrational belief based on the perceived experiences of others. If only we had the data of these experiences we could form an informed opinion.

Um, Ramzi's (et al) experience was not just perceived irrationally. The data was three Golds from a sub talented elite.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

So the most talented and best trained track athletes all appeared 15-25 years ago. After that they died out and the superior training was forgotten.

They did not dissappear; they moved from the track to the roads, where there was more money.

El G and Komen did not switch to the roads.

Renato Canova wrote:

I don't have any experience with doped athletes, and can avoid the possibility that can help the athletes in some case.

There are blood values from Chinese athletes that suggest you are not being truthful.

rekrunner wrote:

When you read Renato's posts, he says that many of the world records were done CLEAN, without EPO or banned substances, and often without any non-banned supplements. This is not conjecture about doping, but a recounting of his personal experience with training elite athletes at altitude.

This actually addresses head-on EPO as a potential confounder, by denying that EPO was a factor at all in the world record performances.

They are assertions without evidence.

If you want to believe those assertions, that is fine, but don't pretend it is less based on "faith" than other people's beliefs.

lolz gary talking for renato is classic...one is a legit coach and the other? well a self proclaimed hobby jogger who works in IT and has no real running or coaching experience.....haha only here on LR can a noob claim he is just as smart as renato hahaha

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Strange they don't do that. Perhaps they know that EPO enhances performance more than altitude training. Experience has shown them that - and not your reading.

Or perhaps it's an irrational belief based on the perceived experiences of others. If only we had the data of these experiences we could form an informed opinion.

EPO has been used for over 30 years; other forms of doping even longer. If belief in their enhancement capacity was irrational you would think it would have been found out by now.

Comprehensive data will never be forthcoming when the desired subjects would never make themselves available for study; doping is clandestine. But we at least have information obtained from confidential surveys of athletes about usage, and studies that have shown generally that a very wide selection of drugs is able to increase capacity - albeit to varying degrees, which is in part because no two individual athletes will respond exactly the same way.

The general picture linking drugs with performance is unmistakable; the finer details of how much advantage drugs will give to each individual athlete may be all that is missing. But the detail isn't needed by athletes choosing to dope; it is of academic interest only. When you put fuel in an engine you only need to know that it works to drive the motor; not why it works or how the combustion engine operates. Your mechanic knows that. Or your coach or physician, if you are a doper.

Only one of those events - the 3k steeple - is a regular event. Even so, I would be sceptical that the record is clean - as with any record today. It is possible that some of your athletes could have doped and you wouldn't have known, because they wouldn't have admitted it to you.

However, I return to my earlier point, that if you have had no experience with doping you are speculating when you say training can still be superior. What if an athlete used your training methods - and doped? No difference?

there is a time faster than that and it was an EPO bust...but renato and gary love to forget that one lolz

g

so gary and renato, how much faster then could brahim boulami have run in the 3000m st if he hadnt gotten mindweak?

7:53.17 is faster than your precious "clean" shaheen, and by your reasoning doping isnt as good as your training....so could brahim have run 7:50 with your superior clean training? lolz

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Laughable. EPO works for couch potatoes but not the super-fit. The same risible argument could be made for any form of doping, that it only helps the inferior or the unfit, but we see that doping improves even the very best. Your arguments are not simply ill-informed, they are cloddish.

The same could be said for all doping -- all doping, if it works, works to a point, and then will get worse beyond that point.

You say "we see doping improves the very best", yet we have not seen the data, nor attributed the improvement to doping.

It doesn't get "worse"; the law of diminishing returns - if that's what applies - still produces a net positive outcome.

And doping doesn't improve the best? 10 of the 11 fastest times for the 100m in 2017 were run by dopers. It works in every event and for all distances. Ramzi, Jeptoo, Kiptum, Jebet, Kiprop, the Chinese runners in the '90's, the E Bloc women in the '80's - and many more. If doping had not played a feature in their performances they must have been monumentally stupid along with being dishonest.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

So the most talented and best trained track athletes all appeared 15-25 years ago. After that they died out and the superior training was forgotten.

They did not dissappear; they moved from the track to the roads, where there was more money.

And they almost all came from countries identified as being "most at risk of doping".

I would not expect that at all -- in my experience people are irrational. Look how old religions are. Word of mouth that it "worked" for someone else is enough to keep the myths alive for decades.

I don't ask for comprehensive data, but sufficient data for you to back up what you claim. Did thousands of athletes have a positive experience? How would you know? As long as such data remains unavailable, I will continue to call it faith and belief. There is no intellectual escape clause that says we can presume knowledge or fact because the activity is clandestine.

Your general picture or performance linked to drugs is full of mistakes, many of which I have pointed out over the years, as the distribution of drugs does not correlate at all with the distribution of the best performances.

physics defiant wrote:

Um, Ramzi's (et al) experience was not just perceived irrationally. The data was three Golds from a sub talented elite.

That's just one, not thousands.

We still need to answer some questions -- was he a sub-talented elite without drugs?

Showing benefit or improvement requires two data points.

really?? Really?? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

When you read Renato's posts, he says that many of the world records were done CLEAN, without EPO or banned substances, and often without any non-banned supplements. This is not conjecture about doping, but a recounting of his personal experience with training elite athletes at altitude.

This actually addresses head-on EPO as a potential confounder, by denying that EPO was a factor at all in the world record performances.

They are assertions without evidence.

If you want to believe those assertions, that is fine, but don't pretend it is less based on "faith" than other people's beliefs.

Maybe, but they are not "conjecture about doping" from a coach who has no experience with doping.

Armstronglivs says we should consider the experiences and knowlege of coaches -- it seems hypocritical for him to act like he knows experience better than someone with real experience.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

They did not dissappear; they moved from the track to the roads, where there was more money.

And they almost all came from countries identified as being "most at risk of doping".

You mean like Belarus and Ukraine?