Two more Kenyans banned for doping violations

pupil3142 wrote:

I am afraid the US defiietly had state sponsored doping in the 70s and 80s else it wouldnt have been able to compete with eastern europe. drugs lists and drug identification were shaky, to say the least.

This led directly to the 90s and early 2000s about which less said the better

Whilst the US may not have state sponsored doping now, it certainly has systemic doping due to the cold war and EPO.

The ex Governer of Ca owes his entire fame and fortune to roided up excess ffs. he would have been taking all sorts of stuff under the benevolent eye of the Austrian army and now what does he do about it - systemic.

I'm not necessarily disputing that, but I think the argument that the West was systematically doping in the 70's and 80's, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to compete with the Soviet Bloc, is very poor (and one that Casual Observer often invokes).

First of all, the West didn't really compete with the Soviet Bloc, certainly not the women.

The GDR, with a population of about 1% of the West, would dominate the medal tables.

How on Earth do you explain the likes of Straub, from a country of 17 million that was dominating 50 different sports at the time, beating Ovett - one of the most naturally gifted athletes in history - from a country of 50+million in which middle-distance running was on a par with football at the time in terms of popularity and prestige? If, that is, GB was systematically doping the likes of Ovett to compete with the GDR? And why were our women so relatively poor, not to mention feminine looking (such as Kathy Cook) with the exception of a handful of obvious dopers such as Fatima Whitbread? Why didn't GB have dozens of Fatima Whitbreads if doping was systematic or even widespread?

Also, the GDR/Soviet Bloc was a competing ideology with the West, and the reason why they systematically doped was because they thought it proved their ideology and system superior. The West was supposed to be superior to the East as an open democracy with rules and fair competition in a Capitalist market. Systematically doping athletes in secret isn't exactly proof your system is better to a Marxist totalitarian one.

I am aware, however, that it is confirmed knowledge that the USA did cover up multitudes of doping cases concerning their athletes in the 80's and 90's, and even beyond.

Coevett wrote:

The GDR, with a population of about 1% of the West, would dominate the medal tables.

What?

pupil3142 wrote:

not forgetting the US openly admitted state sponsored doping in the early 2000s

No, it didn't. That is doping led by the government. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And so we are back in the tar-pit of doping denial. The deeper you go the worse it gets.

The most useful rule of thumb is that the more he protests the stronger the case against the sport's dopers.

Armstronglivs wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

not forgetting the US openly admitted state sponsored doping in the early 2000s

No, it didn't. That is doping led by the government. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I will admit i am taking 'state sponsored doping' to its limits, but that just evidences why we shouldnt use loose, non defined terms.

The whole point of the LA case was that government funds had been misappropriated for a team using drugs. ergo govt money used for drugs, ergo state sponsored. The phrase 'unwittingly' might be used, but this is where we get back into the 'systemic' nonsense. All the pople allowing the money to go to LS had to have a very good idea what was going on, and as a minimum did not carry out proper due diligence.

The major difference back then between West and East, whether we compare West Germany with East Germany or US with the Soviet Union, was that the West had state-encouraged doping, and the East state-sponsored and state-organized.

For the former, see the infamous bundestag meeting of the late 70s in Germany, or the fact that USATF literally covered up over 100 positive doping tests (including Carl Lewis). See also Athletics West including Salazar and Decker with their testo doping which was not state sponsored but protected.

Back then, it was patriotic to dope in the West, and have your federation cover it up. That was a major reason to remove the doping controls from the federations and create the NADOs.

Unfortunately this still amounts to self-policing, e.g. RUSADA directly helping the Russians to cheat, and AKAD and USADA indirectly helping by given warning calls to the Kenyan and American athletes prior to OOC testing (see Kiprop and Coleman for example).

Armstronglivs wrote:

And so we are back in the tar-pit of doping denial. The deeper you go the worse it gets.

The most useful rule of thumb is that the more he protests the stronger the case against the sport's dopers.

Doping denial would be doubting doping prevalence is more than 0% -- something I've never done.

Here the expressed doubt is whether Kenyan doping is more than 50%, and whether such a determination can be made objectively, especially from the three reasons given by casual obsever.

Correct. You are – like Ghost1 – the resident doping downplayer and doper apologist. Cases in point in this thread alone:

1) Calling the peer-reviewed conclusion of the scientists after their WADA/IAAF-supported sensitivity analyses

2) Throwing shade on the guilty verdict of this banned cheat (like Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, …)

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And so we are back in the tar-pit of doping denial. The deeper you go the worse it gets.

The most useful rule of thumb is that the more he protests the stronger the case against the sport's dopers.

Doping denial would be doubting doping prevalence is more than 0% -- something I've never done.

Here the expressed doubt is whether Kenyan doping is more than 50%, and whether such a determination can be made objectively, especially from the three reasons given by casual obsever.

Doping denial is not only denying that it exists - that is a typical falsehood. It is also minimising its incidence (like a holocaust denier will do with regard to the holocaust), denying the evidence that an individual athlete has doped, or denying (or minimizing) the ability of drugs to enhance performance. You do nothing else. You are the champion of doping deniers.

Added to that, you constantly play with word meanings and misrepresent the argument - "those were nor the words I used", "those are your words" etc - so that you always present a moving target to those who challenge what you say. You are the gold medallist of obfuscation; the world record-holder for argumentative sleight-of-hand; the denier who denies that he means what others take his words to mean; the bottomless pit from which no light can shine.

You are correct that I am correct.

I don't ever think I'm downplaying doping, but downplaying the played-up hype.

1) What is it that you are calling a conclusion?: I read it was only a "suggestion" that "we were unlikely to have over-estimated ..." I don't downplay the peer-reviewed paper, but I downplay your played-up interpretation. The objective fact is that these authors didn't measure one single likelihood of estimate error.

2) So if this is "doping downplayer" and "doping apologist", does that mean Kendagor is a "doper"? That was me throwing shade on the athlete. For some reason, he decided not to bring back his witnesses, despite CAS informing him that he risks CAS drawing an adverse inference. He got lucky that they didn't infer adversely, at least completely, but the CAS still penalized the weight of the testimony, as they couldn't re-examine the witnesses. This wasn't my judgement on the verdict, but more a comment along the line that if he had a better lawyer, he might have gone free -- which is probably the case for many Kenyan athletes. CAS said explicitly that not having the witnesses hurt by altering the weight, and that the IAAF having witnesses helped them. I think I recall that the athlete himself did not attend his hearing (another unwise legal strategy?)

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doping denial is not only denying that it exists - that is a typical falsehood. It is also minimising its incidence (like a holocaust denier will do with regard to the holocaust), denying the evidence that an individual athlete has doped, or denying (or minimizing) the ability of drugs to enhance performance. You do nothing else. You are the champion of doping deniers.

Added to that, you constantly play with word meanings and misrepresent the argument - "those were nor the words I used", "those are your words" etc - so that you always present a moving target to those who challenge what you say. You are the gold medallist of obfuscation; the world record-holder for argumentative sleight-of-hand; the denier who denies that he means what others take his words to mean; the bottomless pit from which no light can shine.

I think you misunderstand what I minimize. I minimize your cartoon descriptions of a world that you cannot substantiate.

If I say "those were not the words I used" or "those are your words" -- this is evidence of you playing with my words, by choosing words with different meanings. What appears like obfuscation is usually several iterations of correcting your wrong interpretations. The only moving target I ever present is the one that you (and others) built.

Meanwhile, the offers are always open for you to provide something of substance, either that tangibly supports one of your notions, or directly contradicts one of mine.

LOL. You are playing opposite day again.

I am not the one arguing against:

by pretending it should be 50% more or even twice as much. I just go by the facts.

You are the one pretending it should be 50% less if not only half as much. Repeatedly. For pages and pages.

Just like you keep defending all these banned cheats, from Baumann to Salazar.

You just go by the IAAF propaganda or worse and your wishful thinking.

But, why are you arguing? Just to keep another thread alive? Remember you already admitted:

What was my "argument" again? Am I arguing about a percentage?

It might seem that way, since you are arguing so hard for it.

Oh that's right -- the goalpost before you moved it all over: "subjective" versus "objective".

Is it "objectively false" that "the vast majority of top Kenyans are clean as a whistle"?

In giving your reasons for "objectively false", one of your reasons for objectivity was itself subjective, and the second was dumbed down ignorance, and the third lacks perspective. Adding up 1+2+3 is ridiculous.

You just go by the facts? You called a "suggestion" a "peer-reviewed conclusion". LOL.

IAAF propaganda? Do you mean the rebuttal WADA called "scientifically sound"? Just the facts? ROFL.

You only go by half the facts. We could revise one of Newton's laws for you:

Casual Obsever's third law is: For every fact I go by, there is an equal and opposite fact I ignore.

Lol rekrunner, you are not even trying to pretend to be a logical person anymore, instead you just go straight to the ad hominem attacks again. Whatever.

casual obsever wrote:

Lol rekrunner, you are not even trying to pretend to be a logical person anymore, instead you just go straight to the ad hominem attacks again. Whatever.

So you are pretending to be a logical person just going by the facts?

Let's assess just the facts.

You can redirect all of my comments to your arguments. You are a model poster, but your arguments are exaggerations or misrepresentations of facts or ignorance of facts, and they are factually incomplete.

Was it a fact when you called a "suggestion" a "peer-reviewed conclusion"? Looks like your own propaganda.

Was it a fact when you called the IAAF rebuttal "propaganda", despite being upheld by the WADA experts and the WADA IC as "scientifically sound"? Looks like more propaganda on your part.

Was it a fact when you misinterpreted/misrepresented the criteria for being a Category A country? I called it ignorance (as most would only know "most likely to dope" or "most likely to have doping problems", and would be ignorant of the real criteria), but it could also be dishonest if you already knew that.

Finally, is it an "objective" fact that "the majority of Kenyans are clean as a whistle" is "objectively false"? Not when your reasons are "subjective", "ignorant", and lack perspective. Ridiculous.

LOL

44% of elite athletes doping is way too low a percentage.The real figure is double that number.Athletes have no choice but to take drugs to be competitive at top leval.Its play hard,or go home.

I agree Jeff. I'm not sure why rekrunner focus so much on data from unreliable surveys where many athletes, even if anonymously, aren't going to reveal that they use PEDs. If I was a doper, the last thing I would do would be to admit on a form that I use PEDs. Lol. PEDs are everywhere - you've got amateurs & age-group competitors using gear. You've got sub-elites using gear in an effort to move up to elite status. And elites are fighting it out for the limited number of shoe contracts and whatever else they can meek out for a living. It's a "dog eat dog" world in professional sports. I think rekrunner is pretty naive not understand what goes on in the real world of professional sports.

I guess the main reason you are not sure is because I am not and I do not focus on data from unreliable surveys -- on the contrary, I seem to be the only one saying that this survey has a number of issues with ensuring compliance to the survey, from both dopers and non-dopers, for a number of well known reasons documented in other peer-reviewed papers. It could be double. It could be half. There is no way to "objectively" tell when you don't measure compliance and you don't measure honest responses (features of other survey methods).

What I said here, has little to do with the this survey (that was casual obsever trying to argue "objectively") is that statements like "jeff's", that it is "double" that figure, that you agree with, are "subjective", because they are not based on "objective" observations.

i read somewhere(i cant remember where) that the figure of elite athletes doping is 44-57% and it was supposedly based on surveys.I think the pan arab games,and pan american games were mentioned,and world championships.Its from a few years back.Im also not sure what passes as an elite athlete.Perhaps olympic B qualifier leval.I can believe about half at B leval or above are using drugs,and literally everyone at top leval is using.