I'm Convinced Asbel Kiprop was Framed!

Giles Corey wrote:

Winthrop wrote:

Kiprop doped. Kenya is a cesspool of dopers. Get over it.

Right.

Russians and Africans.

Not white Euros and white Americans though.

Very credible

Yeah 100% not credible.

They claim Kenya has a murder rate 10 times that of Switzerland. Very credible. Switzerland are simply better at covering up murders.

They say Putin has political opponents killed with ricin. Only Putin? If you don't believe Boris Johnson has journalists bumped off for mocking his hairstyle, no doubt you believe the moon isn't made of cheese.

El K is right. Every Kenyan bust is a stitch up and only means that 100 Brits are getting away with it.

nobodycares69 wrote:

I totally agree. Lots of fishy stuff surrounding his case. Not a cut and dry doping bust like most are

Obviously this case did highlight the corrupt nature of Kenyan anti-doping, but what was cut and dry was that his urine was found to contain EPO.

There has been a lot of focus on the tea money and the prior knowledge of the test, but that fact remains.

I'm convinced El Keniano is:

a) Asbel Kiprop

b) A moron

c) All of the above

(Correct answer = c)

casual obsever wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

Why? Because he said so? Lol.

I am just laughing. And El K wants his trolling on record, lol.

Sometimes El K is worse than rekrunner. Or maybe it's a competition, as in:

Who can most shamelessly defending the most disgusting cheat?

He has to be trolling given that in the world of Kiprop a) his manager/coach was arrested for doping and his form suddenly dropped from being 3:26 to 3:32 in the space of 3 weeks during a period leading up to the Olympics and b) his manager/coach is Rosa and c) he was singled out in the Fancy Bears list. All before being busted.

Kiprop was a drug cheat just like everyone else that trains in Iten.

Anyone who things that East Africans are clean is either extremely naive or their karyotype shows a trisomy.

trollism wrote:

nobodycares69 wrote:

I totally agree. Lots of fishy stuff surrounding his case. Not a cut and dry doping bust like most are

Obviously this case did highlight the corrupt nature of Kenyan anti-doping, but what was cut and dry was that his urine was found to contain EPO.

There has been a lot of focus on the tea money and the prior knowledge of the test, but that fact remains.

Was it "cut and dry"? I wouldn't say that before seeing an image of the results.

Recently, I was disturbed to read some details about the cases of other athletes convicted of EPO in their urine: Norwegian speed-walker Erik Tysse, Czech triathlete Vojtech Sommer, German runner Benedikt Karus, and Irish Sprinter Steven Colvert.

In short, there are credible doubts regarding the interpretation of the EPO results in these cases, and once athletes are accused, the burden shifts to the athletes, and it is next to impossible for the accused athlete to get access to the raw data of their results, and independent confirmation, in order to mount a proper defense.

The scientific doubts expressed regarding these four athletes and their WADA lab test results are documented here:

rekrunner wrote:

I don't know if El K is worse, but I agree with you that I am bad at defending disgusting cheats. It's like I never try.

What's your joke here?

Are you

a) playing opposite day again?

b) denying that Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar etc. etc. are cheats?

c) denying that these cheats are disgusting?

d) all of the above

rekrunner wrote:

While it is tempting to rush to premature conclusions, I will still reserve any judgement until more facts come out.

"premature", lol, "more facts", LOL, Only you... well and El K...

This disgusting cheat tested positive in 2017, and was ultimately banned over a year ago. Yet in your bizarro world it's still a premature conclusion to call him doper?

At least two years ago, you had a rare honest moment:

rekrunner wrote:

I guess you could say "doper apologist", but no one ever does.

I often wonder why someone who sometimes poses as an intellectual on the topic, often feels the need to resort to emotional kindergarten intellect phrases like "disgusting cheats".

I'll let the facts surrounding the cases of Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar, etc. speak for themselves.

"Doper Apologist" was only hypothetical because, as I said then, no one had ever said that.

rekrunner wrote:

I often wonder why someone who sometimes poses as an intellectual on the topic, often feels the need to resort to emotional kindergarten intellect phrases like "disgusting cheats".

Obfuscation instead of answering the questions, a classic rekrunner.

Be that as it may: sometimes I can't help it when you (or El K or other doper apologists) try to find excuses for those cheats - yes they truly disgust me, no matter how childish you find that expression. It would never occur to me to stand up for such people, the mere thought is revolting, but evidently you are very different.

rekrunner wrote:

I'll let the facts surrounding the cases of Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar, etc. speak for themselves.

LOL!

rekrunner wrote:

"Doper Apologist" was only hypothetical because, as I said then, no one had ever said that.

Well you wrote "you could say doper apologist", so I write: doper apologist. You are welcome.

Sorry, I was not aware there was a genuine question. My answer is e) none of the above.

'Find excuses for those cheats' is more appealing to emotion. Your personal emotions may be real, but add no value to any discussion. I try to be fully informed of all the facts surrounding these cases, rather than forming pre-judgments based on half the facts, and becoming revolted by those who highlight omissions in otherwise one-sided arguments. If you want to call this "apologism", what can I do about this deflection?

I wrote, and you quoted: "I guess you could say "doper apologist", but no one ever does." Thanks for the full quote. Do you want a star for copy/pasting?

rekrunner wrote:

Do you want a star for copy/pasting?

How disgustingly childish of you.

The Asshat from Mombasa wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Do you want a star for copy/pasting?

How disgustingly childish of you.

Your personal emotions may be real, but add no value to any discussion.

casual obsever wrote:

Are you

a) playing opposite day again?

b) denying that Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar etc. etc. are cheats?

c) denying that these cheats are disgusting?

d) all of the above

rekrunner wrote:

My answer is e) none of the above.

Then what? Are you seriously denying that you have been defending them?

Moreover, if you don't deny that they are cheats, and if you don't deny that they are disgusting, then maybe you should stop arguing against such statements.

trollism wrote:

nobodycares69 wrote:

I totally agree. Lots of fishy stuff surrounding his case. Not a cut and dry doping bust like most are

Obviously this case did highlight the corrupt nature of Kenyan anti-doping, but what was cut and dry was that his urine was found to contain EPO.

There has been a lot of focus on the tea money and the prior knowledge of the test, but that fact remains.

Except the testers weren’t from ADAK and the lead guy was a Brit. But thanks for playing.

rekrunner wrote:

I often wonder why someone who sometimes poses as an intellectual on the topic, often feels the need to resort to emotional kindergarten intellect phrases like "disgusting cheats".

I'll let the facts surrounding the cases of Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar, etc. speak for themselves.

"Doper Apologist" was only hypothetical because, as I said then, no one had ever said that.

Have you read the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision? It has all the facts and details of the case. If you haven't read it, I'm surprised since you pride yourself on reading & analyzing a lot of these doping cases (e.g, Salazar decision, the prosecution report on Aden, etc).

Kiprop, who had legal representation, presented a wide variety of defenses from the "EPO detected was naturally produced due to intense exercise at altitude," spiked samples, chain of custody issues, analytical problems with the samples and so forth. Schumacher looked at the "EPO naturally produced by intense excercise at altitude" defense and gave his analysis. A world-renowned PhD lab expert from Olso provided a 2nd opinion on the A & B samples (at Kiprop's request), witnesses to the chain of custody issue testified and so on. Every defense by Kiprop's legal team was evaluated by the DT - it looked like an open-and-shut case. However, it's currently in appeal with CAS - so arbitration will have the final say.

More Kenyan DT case decisions if you're interested (Jebet, Sumgong, Bett, Kitpum, Kirwa, etc):

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Have you read the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision? It has all the facts and details of the case. If you haven't read it, I'm surprised since you pride yourself on reading & analyzing a lot of these doping cases (e.g, Salazar decision, the prosecution report on Aden, etc).

Of course he has vigorously studied it. That's why he wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I'll let the facts surrounding the cases of Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar, etc. speak for themselves.

rekrunner wrote:

While it is tempting to rush to premature conclusions, I will still reserve any judgement until more facts come out.

casual obsever wrote:

Then what? Are you seriously denying that you have been defending them?

Moreover, if you don't deny that they are cheats, and if you don't deny that they are disgusting, then maybe you should stop arguing against such statements.

You want to frame this as a discussion about "defending disgusting cheats"

It does not interest me to discuss whether they are "disgusting" or "cheats".

It does interest me to talk about all of the relevant facts, regardless of whether they support or undermine such emotional judgments.

And you should not confuse attacks on incomplete arguments as a defense of rule violations.

casual obsever wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Have you read the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision? It has all the facts and details of the case. If you haven't read it, I'm surprised since you pride yourself on reading & analyzing a lot of these doping cases (e.g, Salazar decision, the prosecution report on Aden, etc).

Of course he has vigorously studied it. That's why he wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I'll let the facts surrounding the cases of Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar, etc. speak for themselves.

rekrunner wrote:

While it is tempting to rush to premature conclusions, I will still reserve any judgement until more facts come out.

So, he's just trolling again and I'm wasting my time posting these DTs? I guess with his "self-proclaimed" expertise in the field of anti-doping, he's probably read over many of those First Instance Decisions - especially the EPO & ABP cases. So I guess he doesn't agree with the facts and final decision of the DT? But if the DT ruled Kiprop not guilty of the doping offense then he would support their decision? Lol. I wonder what he's going to say if CAS supports the DT's decision and affirms the ban on Kiprop? Claim that they also made the wrong decision? Lol. Good old rekrunner - first he insinuates to know more than world-renowned anti-doping experts like Schumacher and now it's the experts on the DT panel. Barrel of Laughs.

I appreciate the additional facts and findings. I don't see how your questions follow from what you quoted.

I'll let the new facts and findings speak for themselves. I'll just note that they didn't use the phrase "disgusting cheat" or call me an "apologist".