This just in the news this morning. Kenya is being forced by WADA to implement a national anti doping agency.
DISCUSS
This just in the news this morning. Kenya is being forced by WADA to implement a national anti doping agency.
DISCUSS
It is ridiculous that countries without national anti-doping agencies have been allowed to compete in interntational competitions.
agip and I were having a good discussion on the other thread. Just for some continuation:
Clerk wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:These are the IAAF's stats for out of competition tests in 2013:
http://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=9c151f8b-b420-41b8-82db-d3412fad6497.pdf&urlslug=The%20IAAF%20Doping%20Control%20Programme%2C%202013%20%E2%80%93%20List%20of%20Tests%20on%20Registered%20Testing%20Pool%20AthletesThat list is not specific to out of competition tests, just any registered athlete who has been tested (IC or OOC).
Some posters are taking the positive results as evidence that testing works, or that athletes are using only the drug they were caught for. As another poster said, even Kisorio admitted that he was taking more than what he was caught for.
Other posters are saying that Kenya is small-peas compared to other nations. Does that legitimize it? No other notoriously doped country is as prolific as Kenya. Even Jamaica (who seem to have cooled off this year) don't have the depth as Kenya. The correlation between Kenya's culture of success correlates too highly with their culture of lax testing. This correlation is what makes me uncomfortable. Now, this pattern of positives is beginning to show that there is a direct relationship between doping and Kenyan success. More evidence is needed of course, but these reports are only proving the idea.
__
A post on another thread replied to these kinds of ideas with the wiki for "burden of proof". The traditional burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty, cannot be applied to doping in sport. Historical patterns of success in sport show that the best performances are illegitimate. Until there is a radical change in the infrastructure and culture, this assumption must be maintained: the best athletes dope. We have not seen anything in the last 10 years that the infrastructure or culture of our sport has changed, so we need to maintain a skepticism of all of our athletes.
This report (among others) confirm this skepticism: the culture has not changed, the incentives to dope out weigh the consequences of being caught, the infrastructure does not protect clean athletes from being cheated. In this light, I cannot view the season's world beating performances with any faith in their legitimacy.
agip wrote:
Clerk wrote:Rashid Ramzi (2008) (Olympic Gold)
Mo Trafeh (2014) (Multi US champion, 60:34 HM)
Martin Fagan (2012) (13:39, 27:58, 60:57)
Christian Hesch (2012) (3:40, 13:58, 64:56)
Charles Nyakundi (2007) (2:17)
Ronald Rutto (2012) (13:25, 8:16 SC)
Fernando Silva (2006) (62:58, 2:12)
Luketz Swartbooi (2005) (2:09)
Gert Thys (2006) (60:23, 2:06)
Ambesse Tolosa (2008) (62:19, 2:08)
Khalid Zoubaa (2007) (13:11)
Jynocel Basweti (2013) (63:48, 2:14)
Eliud Cheptei (2012) (64:34, 2:11)
Wilson Loyanae Erupe (2013) (61:46, 2:05)
Nixon Kiplagat (2013) (2:14)
Matthew Kisorio (2012) (26:54, 58:46)
Moses Kiptoo Kurgat (2013) (2:08)
Abderrahim Goumri (2008) (12:50, 27:02)
Amine Laalou (2012) (3:29)
Hassan Hirt (2012) (13:10)
So, we know the best women sprinters dope. We concede the best womens throwers, middle and long distance runner dope. We concede the best male sprinters dope, and so do the best throwers, and middle distance runners. We know the best race walkers dope. We know the best cyclists dope. We know.
Now, we have a long list of mens distance runners. But even if you think that is a sparse list above, why would be the hold-out demographic among competitive athletes?
well yes it is a sparse list.
Clearly mens distance running is different fundamentally from the other disciplines of t/f.
Not sure how else to think about it. Would you say 3-5 of the men on your list are A list?
given the many penaties issued to other disciplines...I can't believe mens distance running is somehow protected. I think probably drugs just don't help very much among the super elite male distance running - not enough to make the risk of being caught worth it.
And really - isn't that why so many people love the sport - success comes from rubbing the rubber off the bottom of your shoes. Drugs will help, but not like in the other disciplines of t/f.
if it did help as much, we would see many, many more positive tests and catches.
My new contribution: it is ridiculous to say that doping does not help. There is no direct evidence to suggest that the performance enhancement of doping diminishes to zero for elites. Canova's "the experiments never test elites" doesn't prove that the top tier of elites are immune to dope, and it is illogical to suggest otherwise.
Instead, we have data showing the rampant use of doping by top athletes, whether they are on the track or not, endurance runners or not, male or female. And no data showing that the world's best elites are biologically different. So, it is fair to lump them into the pool of athletes, which time after again, show a susceptibility to to cheating.
Clerk wrote:
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762.longPublished in 2011, but I haven't seen any discussion about it. This study followed 7200 samples from 2300 IAAF athletes since 2001. Hematological parameters were tracked and measured for evidence of blood doping. (Specific parameters can be found int he full text).
This is the country-by-country break down. Most prevalent country found [bold]48%[/bold] of samples were doped. Incredible!
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762/T2.expansion.htmlna Prevalence M1, %b Prevalence M2, %
Males 4028 12 (10–15) 12 (10–15)
Country A 205 48 (35–63) 78 (54–99)
Country B 352 3 (1–11) 1 (0–2)
Country C 257 23 (15–30) 28 (17–36)
Country D 208 6 (3–19) 5 (0–17)
Country E 160 18 (11–30) 18 (7–28)
Country F 148 6 (1–25) 2 (0–22)
Country H 160 39 (20–54) 51 (21–87)
Females 3261 18 (15–21) 18 (15–21)
Country A 445 46 (35–58) 50 (35–68)
Country B 130 8 (4–34) 2 (0–11)
Country C 147 12 (4–20) 14 (1–28)
Country D 103 1 (0–11) 0 (0–3)
Country E 106 11 (7–20) 8 (1–14)
Country F 110 6 (3–19) 0 (0–13)
Country H 65 36 (13–62) 36 (5–66)
All 7289 14 (12–16) 14 (12–16)
All nonendurance 1329 3 (0–8) 1 (0–3)
All endurance 4999 18 (15–22) 19 (16–22)
In light of the new marathon performances, how can we believe that the current culture is any different from the 2000's doping culture? What has been done to change things from 2011 to now, that the huge amounts of doping found just 3 years ago disappears?
clerk - I've seen that study - it is worrying, to be sure. I don't understand the contradiction between so many people found doping in this study...and so few positive tests. Do you understand that split?
But their conclusion is that doping happens primarily in a few countries. I don't think Ethiopia or Kenya are those countries, do you? I think those countries are Spain, Russia, India, Gulf States, China? and probably others I am not thinking of.
here is their conclusion:
"In addition to an expected difference between endurance and nonendurance athletes, we found nationality to be the major factor of heterogeneity. Estimates of the prevalence of blood doping ranged from 1% to 48% for subpopulations of samples and a mean of 14% for the entire study population"
Which is what I said in the other thread - I think it is fair to assume that elite LD athletes from Japan, the UK, Australia, the US and E Africa are clean.
And I never said drugs don't work on elite male ld runners - I said drugs have less impact on that group and that drugs weren't worth the risk as much. If drugs had the same impact, we would actually have some positive tests and catches among A list male LD runners. but we don't.
Drugs DO have a large impact on throwers, sprinters and female LD runners, so we have more positive tests and catches in those groups.
and of course, that study is not just long distance runners. It is sprinters, throwers, jumpers, etc.
so it means almost nothing to our discussion of elite male LD runners.
It could have found guilt in 100% of sprinters, 75% of throwers and 3% of LD runners for all we know.
triple post!
Jamaica of course - I'd think at least half of the Jamaican team was doping in 2011 when the samples were taken, no?
enforcer wrote:
It is ridiculous that countries without national anti-doping agencies have been allowed to compete in interntational competitions.
Luckily countries like the US and A have been topping the tables cleanly for years
agip wrote:
clerk - I've seen that study - it is worrying, to be sure. I don't understand the contradiction between so many people found doping in this study...and so few positive tests. Do you understand that split? . . .
I haven't read the report, but from Clerk's description, my interpretation is that the study was essentially the biological passport criteria retroactively applied to data collected prior to the official implementation of the BP.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
enforcer wrote:It is ridiculous that countries without national anti-doping agencies have been allowed to compete in interntational competitions.
Luckily countries like the US and A have been topping the tables cleanly for years
Which means the USADA is actually making an effort to catch our drug cheats, which mostly consist of sprinters.
Compare with Jamaica.
Is this lost on you?
Kenyans have been running on a competitive level for a very long time. However, their ceiling used to be in line with the Japanese athletes (arguably the most honest people on earth).
Only since the influence of EUROPEAN coaches in Kenya have they dropped from 2:07/2:08 to 2:03/2:04.
Coincidence?
Clerk wrote:
agip and I were having a good discussion on the other thread. Just for some continuation:
Clerk wrote:That list is not specific to out of competition tests, just any registered athlete who has been tested (IC or OOC).
Some posters are taking the positive results as evidence that testing works, or that athletes are using only the drug they were caught for. As another poster said, even Kisorio admitted that he was taking more than what he was caught for.
Other posters are saying that Kenya is small-peas compared to other nations. Does that legitimize it? No other notoriously doped country is as prolific as Kenya. Even Jamaica (who seem to have cooled off this year) don't have the depth as Kenya. The correlation between Kenya's culture of success correlates too highly with their culture of lax testing. This correlation is what makes me uncomfortable. Now, this pattern of positives is beginning to show that there is a direct relationship between doping and Kenyan success. More evidence is needed of course, but these reports are only proving the idea.
__
A post on another thread replied to these kinds of ideas with the wiki for "burden of proof". The traditional burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty, cannot be applied to doping in sport. Historical patterns of success in sport show that the best performances are illegitimate. Until there is a radical change in the infrastructure and culture, this assumption must be maintained: the best athletes dope. We have not seen anything in the last 10 years that the infrastructure or culture of our sport has changed, so we need to maintain a skepticism of all of our athletes.
This report (among others) confirm this skepticism: the culture has not changed, the incentives to dope out weigh the consequences of being caught, the infrastructure does not protect clean athletes from being cheated. In this light, I cannot view the season's world beating performances with any faith in their legitimacy.
agip wrote:
well yes it is a sparse list.
Clearly mens distance running is different fundamentally from the other disciplines of t/f.
Not sure how else to think about it. Would you say 3-5 of the men on your list are A list?
given the many penaties issued to other disciplines...I can't believe mens distance running is somehow protected. I think probably drugs just don't help very much among the super elite male distance running - not enough to make the risk of being caught worth it.
And really - isn't that why so many people love the sport - success comes from rubbing the rubber off the bottom of your shoes. Drugs will help, but not like in the other disciplines of t/f.
if it did help as much, we would see many, many more positive tests and catches.
My new contribution: it is ridiculous to say that doping does not help. There is no direct evidence to suggest that the performance enhancement of doping diminishes to zero for elites. Canova's "the experiments never test elites" doesn't prove that the top tier of elites are immune to dope, and it is illogical to suggest otherwise.
Instead, we have data showing the rampant use of doping by top athletes, whether they are on the track or not, endurance runners or not, male or female. And no data showing that the world's best elites are biologically different. So, it is fair to lump them into the pool of athletes, which time after again, show a susceptibility to to cheating.
Clerk wrote:
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762.longPublished in 2011, but I haven't seen any discussion about it. This study followed 7200 samples from 2300 IAAF athletes since 2001. Hematological parameters were tracked and measured for evidence of blood doping. (Specific parameters can be found int he full text).
This is the country-by-country break down. Most prevalent country found [bold]48%[/bold] of samples were doped. Incredible!
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762/T2.expansion.htmlna Prevalence M1, %b Prevalence M2, %
Males 4028 12 (10–15) 12 (10–15)
Country A 205 48 (35–63) 78 (54–99)
Country B 352 3 (1–11) 1 (0–2)
Country C 257 23 (15–30) 28 (17–36)
Country D 208 6 (3–19) 5 (0–17)
Country E 160 18 (11–30) 18 (7–28)
Country F 148 6 (1–25) 2 (0–22)
Country H 160 39 (20–54) 51 (21–87)
Females 3261 18 (15–21) 18 (15–21)
Country A 445 46 (35–58) 50 (35–68)
Country B 130 8 (4–34) 2 (0–11)
Country C 147 12 (4–20) 14 (1–28)
Country D 103 1 (0–11) 0 (0–3)
Country E 106 11 (7–20) 8 (1–14)
Country F 110 6 (3–19) 0 (0–13)
Country H 65 36 (13–62) 36 (5–66)
All 7289 14 (12–16) 14 (12–16)
All nonendurance 1329 3 (0–8) 1 (0–3)
All endurance 4999 18 (15–22) 19 (16–22)
In light of the new marathon performances, how can we believe that the current culture is any different from the 2000's doping culture? What has been done to change things from 2011 to now, that the huge amounts of doping found just 3 years ago disappears?
==========================
"The correlation between Kenya's culture of success correlates too highly with their culture of lax testing..."
Here we go again!
who is tested more between let's say Kenya and Namibia?
Infact, you could add Malawi, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, Madagascar, Guinea Bissau, Angola, Zambia, Mauritius, Chad, Lesotho, Swazi Land and Zimbabwe to name but a few.
Who gets tested more - between Kenya on the one hand, and these countries on the other?
Question 2,
What is the success rate (or rather the performance) of these countries with regard to long distance running (actually 800m to the marathon)?
Question 3,
What is the explanation for your answer on 2 above?
I have always asked this question and no ones seems equipped (or willing) to answer;
Anybody?
enforcer wrote:
It is ridiculous that countries without national anti-doping agencies have been allowed to compete in interntational competitions.
If this were to happen, the IAAF and IOC would have to kick out virtually every country save very few.
The other guy! wrote:
This just in the news this morning. Kenya is being forced by WADA to implement a national anti doping agency.
DISCUSS
This is what WADA did to Jamaica several years ago.
agip wrote:
clerk - I've seen that study - it is worrying, to be sure. I don't understand the contradiction between so many people found doping in this study...and so few positive tests. Do you understand that split?
But their conclusion is that doping happens primarily in a few countries. I don't think Ethiopia or Kenya are those countries, do you? I think those countries are Spain, Russia, India, Gulf States, China? and probably others I am not thinking of.
here is their conclusion:
"In addition to an expected difference between endurance and nonendurance athletes, we found nationality to be the major factor of heterogeneity. Estimates of the prevalence of blood doping ranged from 1% to 48% for subpopulations of samples and a mean of 14% for the entire study population"
Which is what I said in the other thread - I think it is fair to assume that elite LD athletes from Japan, the UK, Australia, the US and E Africa are clean.
And I never said drugs don't work on elite male ld runners - I said drugs have less impact on that group and that drugs weren't worth the risk as much. If drugs had the same impact, we would actually have some positive tests and catches among A list male LD runners. but we don't.
Drugs DO have a large impact on throwers, sprinters and female LD runners, so we have more positive tests and catches in those groups.
That report shows that doping is more prevalent than the tests indicate. Combined with admissions by athelthes who have been sanctioned that they take more than what they were caught for, the conclusion is that testing in general is ineffective. There is more doping than positive tests show.
I disagree that the reason elite males are not cheating while their female counterparts are. I believe that the males have more infrastructure to avoid testing positive. The infrastructure and history of male distance runners means that the same coaches, doctors and training camps have been in the system for a long time. The same coaches, or their assistants who have moved up, have been in the game since before the EPO test, since before the ABP. These coaches and doctors would know how to defeat the tests.
That infrastructure is not the case in women's athletics. I really can't figure out why Russia is so bad at doping. Meaning, why are they failing the tests so frequently, when, as the IAAF report shows that so many others are able to falsely pass tests. My guess is bad systems and no investment in quality learning, management and training for women (to be able to pass tests).
So, its just speculation, but I stand by it: Canova, Berardelli, Rosa, Kostre, Hermens, are all experienced in the sport. They have been part of the evolution of drug detection, and have been able to change their practices accordingly; they have the knowledge to beat the tests. Thats why the A-listers don't get caught. We see it in other disciplines and sports there are good doctors and bad doctors.
Again, nothing scientific shows that EPO has significantly less effect on A-list elites than the trained, sub-elite, or elite athletes cited in research.
The study discusses all athletes, yes, but that furthers the point that track as a whole is a doping culture. Yet there is nothing to show that elite male distance runners are exempt; the lack of A-list positives are just part of the deeper roots of the doping culture.
Question 3,
What is the explanation for your answer on 2 above?
I have always asked this question and no ones seems equipped (or willing) to answer;
Anybody?
Kenya has invested a lot more human and financial resources in athletics than those countries. That same investment develops clean athletes, but can also be use to mask their doping. As the journalist reporting shows, one form of the human and capital investment now is in the form of European doctors.
We could be on the verge of a Tour-de-France 1998 mega-doping scandal.
Farmer comes out of nowhere to run 4:4x pace for 26.2 miles. It's in their genes! I guess he came from an extra special place that 100s of Kenyans who were running 2:07-8s in the 90s didn't?
You appear to be starting with a conclusion (the success of top East African endurance athletes is due to doping) and working backward in an attempt to find justifications for that conclusion while discarding evidence contradicting it.
I twice pointed out in the other thread how your conclusions were unfounded. It appears your certainty has only grown as you are now using lack of evidence of doping as evidence of doping. To wit:
--------------------------------------------
Clerk wrote:
Yet there is nothing to show that elite male distance runners are exempt; the lack of A-list positives are just part of the deeper roots of the doping culture.
[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------
FYI: men and women have the same infrastructure. The same coaches, massage therapists, managers,doctors, etc. The top female athletes are managed by the same management groups as the top men.
The East Africans are the best distance runners in the world and have been since they burst on the scene in the early 60s. The reasons for this are many, and they have been discussed at length on these boards.
Any attempt made to tighten doping controls has my support, but I suspect no more than 5-10% of Kenya's scores of world class distance runners are dopers.
Clerk wrote:
Thats why the A-listers don't get caught.
It seems Justin Gatlin, Tyson Gay, and LaShawn Merritt are not A-listers.
And the european coaches and managers and physicians entered the country to facilitate the display of that talent to the world, for altruistic reasons, or to profit from their success in the sporting world?
Clerk wrote:
agip and I were having a good discussion on the other thread. Just for some continuation:
Why the fvck do you spam this thread with more of your drivel? You two idiots should be banned.