The AIU has banned Beatrice Jelagat Cherop (Kenya) for 2 years from 27 November 2024 for Presence/Use of a Prohibited Substance (Triamcinolone acetonide). DQ results from 6 October 2024 Details here: https://t.co/d1Bo2Zjnsupic.twitter.com/jiwEkiNP9G
triamcinolone is the same drug Bradley Wiggins had a (dodgy) TUE for. there are probably lots of westerners taking stuff like this and getting a TUE with the help of their team or agent, and we never hear about them even though in most cases they are cheating i.e. not really needing the drug for genuine medicinal purposes. do the sub-elite/borderline elite africans even know what a TUE is, let alone how to get one?
I generally assume nothing "works" until it is "proven". This intellectual skepticism always exists.
Triamcinolone acetonide looks to be "proven" for skin conditions and stuffy noses from allergies.
It is in Nasacort, which is apparently availalbe over-the-counter without a prescription.
Despite Kenya setting world records for doping violations so far "nothing is proven" that their doping works. There is a distinction between scepticism and denial.
I generally assume nothing "works" until it is "proven". This intellectual skepticism always exists.
Triamcinolone acetonide looks to be "proven" for skin conditions and stuffy noses from allergies.
It is in Nasacort, which is apparently availalbe over-the-counter without a prescription.
Despite Kenya setting world records for doping violations so far "nothing is proven" that their doping works. There is a distinction between scepticism and denial.
That is your intellectual hurdle, which you have yet to clear.
Now that you realize there is a distinction, you can correct your previous errors, and start correctly calling me a doping performance skeptic.
Despite Kenya setting world records for doping violations so far "nothing is proven" that their doping works. There is a distinction between scepticism and denial.
That is your intellectual hurdle, which you have yet to clear.
Now that you realize there is a distinction, you can correct your previous errors, and start correctly calling me a doping performance skeptic.
The intellectual hurdle you haven't made is that you have gone far beyond scepticism to denial. Kenyan athletes dope in greater numbers than any other athletes in the sport of distance running yet none of that can persuade you they do so because of what doping does for them. They have experience in using the drugs; you have absolutely none and yet you know better than they.
That is your intellectual hurdle, which you have yet to clear.
Now that you realize there is a distinction, you can correct your previous errors, and start correctly calling me a doping performance skeptic.
The intellectual hurdle you haven't made is that you have gone far beyond scepticism to denial. Kenyan athletes dope in greater numbers than any other athletes in the sport of distance running yet none of that can persuade you they do so because of what doping does for them. They have experience in using the drugs; you have absolutely none and yet you know better than they.
You didn't dispute you failed to clear the intellectual hurdle.
The Kenyans with doping experience are not the ones telling me what they know.
I don't deny that which has been supported with data, evidence, and/or controlled observations, but I remain skeptical of things which haven't.
The intellectual hurdle you haven't made is that you have gone far beyond scepticism to denial. Kenyan athletes dope in greater numbers than any other athletes in the sport of distance running yet none of that can persuade you they do so because of what doping does for them. They have experience in using the drugs; you have absolutely none and yet you know better than they.
You didn't dispute you failed to clear the intellectual hurdle.
The Kenyans with doping experience are not the ones telling me what they know.
I don't deny that which has been supported with data, evidence, and/or controlled observations, but I remain skeptical of things which haven't.
What we know but you apparently don't is that Kenyan doping in running is of epidemic proportions. To be "sceptical" that it helps them performance-wise makes idiots of them all - or you.
You didn't dispute you failed to clear the intellectual hurdle.
The Kenyans with doping experience are not the ones telling me what they know.
I don't deny that which has been supported with data, evidence, and/or controlled observations, but I remain skeptical of things which haven't.
What we know but you apparently don't is that Kenyan doping in running is of epidemic proportions. To be "sceptical" that it helps them performance-wise makes idiots of them all - or you.
We know lack of education is one factor, and educating the athletes is part of the solution.
We also know Kenyas are victims of exploitation by both local doctors and pharmacists and foreign coaches and agents.
There is little to no data about "it helps them performance-wise" to address the skepticism.
What we know but you apparently don't is that Kenyan doping in running is of epidemic proportions. To be "sceptical" that it helps them performance-wise makes idiots of them all - or you.
We know lack of education is one factor, and educating the athletes is part of the solution.
We also know Kenyas are victims of exploitation by both local doctors and pharmacists and foreign coaches and agents.
There is little to no data about "it helps them performance-wise" to address the skepticism.
The most relevant "data" - which you are unable to fathom - is that considerable numbers of their athletes use drugs that are banned because WADA knows the drugs in question can be used to enhance performance. So what is the likelihood the drugs have aided the Kenyan athletes even if they haven't submitted to research that would establish by how much? There is no "education" that can show drugs cannot aid performance. If there was WADA would not exist and nor would doping. Your ridiculous "scepticism" is based on an insistence on data which is impossible to obtain while refusing to acknowledge the data that is available and can be relied on to draw general if not individualised conclusions. You are blind because you choose to be, for what you don't wish to see.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
That's the weakest excuse yet for the disease that is Kenyan doping.
Excuse? It's a fact.
It isn't the fact you think it is. "Proportionality" does not reduce the scale or the seriousness of Kenyan doping, which is clearly the worst of any country today in the sport of distance running.
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.
The most relevant "data" - which you are unable to fathom - is that considerable numbers of their athletes use drugs that are banned because WADA knows the drugs in question can be used to enhance performance. So what is the likelihood the drugs have aided the Kenyan athletes even if they haven't submitted to research that would establish by how much? There is no "education" that can show drugs cannot aid performance. If there was WADA would not exist and nor would doping. Your ridiculous "scepticism" is based on an insistence on data which is impossible to obtain while refusing to acknowledge the data that is available and can be relied on to draw general if not individualised conclusions. You are blind because you choose to be, for what you don't wish to see.
Data on using drugs allows us to talk about drug use. But that is not data on "it helps them performance-wise".
I don't need any basis for skepticism, but rather a lack of basis -- which you continue to give me without fail.
The AIU's Brett Clothier told me that Kenyan education is part of the solution to the Kenyan doping problem. This must mean in part that doping "makes idiots of them all".
I acknowledge the data that is available and the difficulty of obtaining better data. However, the alleged impossibility of obtaining data is not relevant. We must still call baseless conclusions baseless, regardless of the difficulty of developing a basis. Don't blame me for the intellectual hurdles you fail to clear.