Mo Farah - very good article from Irish Independent

ex-runner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Ok - but realize that at minimum, banging at the door occurs too.

Interestingly, Farah put a video about the doorbell on youtube, but not about banging at the door...

See also from your source:

"Simms submitted video evidence to UKAD to back up the athlete's defence that he did not hear the doorbell"

So they were concerned, at minimum.

Ok but realise that Farah's house is probably quite big

How rich was Mo in early 2011? What about Tania?

Indications and Usage for Procrit

Anemia Due to Chronic Kidney Disease

Procrit is indicated for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD), including patients on dialysis and not on dialysis to decrease the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.

Anemia Due to Zidovudine in Patients with HIV-infection

Procrit is indicated for the treatment of anemia due to zidovudine administered at ≤ 4200 mg/week in patients with HIV-infection with endogenous serum erythropoietin levels of ≤ 500 mUnits/mL.

Anemia Due to Chemotherapy in Patients With Cancer

Procrit is indicated for the treatment of anemia in patients with non-myeloid malignancies where anemia is due to the effect of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and upon initiation, there is a minimum of two additional months of planned chemotherapy.

Reduction of Allogeneic Red Blood Cell Transfusions in Patients Undergoing Elective, Noncardiac, Nonvascular Surgery

Procrit is indicated to reduce the need for allogeneic RBC transfusions among patients with perioperative hemoglobin > 10 to ≤ 13 g/dL who are at high risk for perioperative blood loss from elective, noncardiac, nonvascular surgery. Procrit is not indicated for patients who are willing to donate autologous blood pre-operatively.

Limitations of Use

Procrit has not been shown to improve quality of life, fatigue, or patient well-being.

Procrit is not indicated for use:

In patients with cancer receiving hormonal agents, biologic products, or radiotherapy, unless also receiving concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

In patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy when the anticipated outcome is cure.

​In patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in whom the anemia can be managed by transfusion.

In patients scheduled for surgery who are willing to donate autologous blood.

In patients undergoing cardiac or vascular surgery.

As a substitute for RBC transfusions in patients who require IMMEDIATE CORRECTION OF ANEMIA (e.g. SEVERE ANEMIA CAUSED BY MALARIA).

WARNING: ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE

Chronic Kidney Disease:

In controlled trials, patients experienced greater risks for death, serious adverse cardiovascular reactions, and stroke when administered erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) to target a hemoglobin level of greater than 11 g/dL [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1)].

No trial has identified a hemoglobin target level, ESA dose, or dosing strategy that does not increase these risks [see Dosage and Administration (2.2)].

Use the lowest Procrit dose sufficient to reduce the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1)].

Cancer:

ESAs shortened overall survival and/or increased the risk of tumor progression or recurrence in clinical studies of patients with breast, non-small cell lung, head and neck, lymphoid, and cervical cancers [see Warnings and Precautions (5.2)].

To decrease these risks, as well as the risk of serious cardiovascular and thromboembolic reactions, use the lowest dose needed to avoid RBC transfusions [see Dosage and Administration (2.4)].

Use ESAs only for anemia from myelosuppressive chemotherapy [see Indications and Usage (1.3)].

ESAs are not indicated for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy when the anticipated outcome is cure [see Indications and Usage (1.5)].

Discontinue following the completion of a chemotherapy course [see Dosage and Administration (2.4)].

https://www.drugs.com/pro/procrit.html

I don't give a sh*t about your opinion either wiseass. Who the fvck do you think you are? Can't you put a short summary with the link(s) DS?

rekrunner wrote:

My opinion about the extent of proven IAAF corruption can be found in the detailed reports from the IAAF Ethics Commission, and the WADA IC. These reports named many actors who participated in the attempted bribery, extortion, delayed sanctions and cover-ups. They did not name Coe.

Yeah, funny how that goes. The IAAF Ethics Commission, with its Chair having been hand-picked by the IAAF President, another one of his British buddies, does not name the IAAF President as corrupt.

Yet they named "many actors" - wait, don't you usually pretend that only very few were involved in that scandal?

And WADA? The same organization to which IAAF was reporting during that time, now declares that IAAF (mostly) acted properly during that time? Wow, what a surprise.

And WADA IC? Chaired by Coe's buddy Pound, who was WADA President at the time in question...

Oh man, do you not understand conflict of interest at all?

But even so, see for example

"Lord Coe is facing renewed pressure on his position as IAAF president after a new report ruled that the IAAF Council and his right-hand man Nick Davies must have been aware of the scale of doping in athletics."

rekrunner wrote:

It's not people -- it's just one poster. No one knows why.

Well, rjm may be the only one with such long posts including lots of links, i.e. evidence.

You on the other hand often write longer posts, but normally without links/evidence, for you prefer to make up your own "historical facts".

I'm not sure that links to tabloids, many old articles from years ago, counts as evidence. The issue here is this is a thread about an article on Farah, and rjm33 links to articles about Erupe, Coe, Paula, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Rosas, Nick Davies, Papa Masatta, and cocaine. And that is just page 7 of this thread. On the next page he adds indications of using Procrit. None of these are responsive to the main thread, nor responsive to the posts he replies to. Over the past few years, I have included many links/evidence/quotes to support my facts, as well as contradict your fabrications. Recently, I hesitate to do it, because: 1) I often already have 2) they are ignored, and weeks later, the same old fabrications that were contradicted resurface 3) the EMBEDLY feature that retrieves a preview adds clutter (see any of rjm33's posts)

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It's not people -- it's just one poster. No one knows why.

Well, rjm may be the only one with such long posts including lots of links, i.e. evidence.

You on the other hand often write longer posts, but normally without links/evidence, for you prefer to make up your own "historical facts".

This is not solving.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

I don't need a sidekick named Watson to solve this one Moriarty, the EPO in the other room was for Dibaba and Souleiman etc it wasn't part of the motel's drinks cabinet, always on offer by motel management.

Rekrunner, just out of interest is your favourite movie 'See No Evil Hear No Evil?

movie buff wrote:

Rekrunner, just out of interest is your favourite movie 'See No Evil Hear No Evil?

I would have thought "Dumb and Dumber".

I understand conflict of interest. I don't believe you do. Your feeble attempts notwithstanding, no one has showed any conflict of interest connected to the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation, or the WADA IC Investigation. How many is many? Many actors were named. A few of them were inside the organization of the IAAF. None of them were Coe. The IAAF Council includes 27 people.

By the way here is a nice quote from Ed Warner, head of UK Athletics,

'in 2016 there were over 5000 medical interventions by the organisation on 140 athletes'

...or almost 40 per athlete, per year, that seems extraordinary to me. I am/was a national class runner in the UK and have been ranked in the top 10, though I am not nor ever have been at an international level... I think I've visited a doctor 3 times in the last ten years. These are supposed to be young healthy adults, the genetic 'pick' of their generation....

Or UKA has adopted a 'medicalisation' of the sport influenced by the association of the Endurance coaches with Salazar... the number of UK endurance athletes with Thyroid and Asthma issues has rocketed... twenty years ago I would nvere ever have heard of ANY athlete with Thyroid issues.

Here is a nice article about their policies...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20150606/283072707895509

Seems like Brits get away with cheating more than Americans do.

Brits Cheat Together wrote:

Seems like Brits get away with cheating more than Americans do.

That's not what "Coevett" says.

everything in that article is common knowledge to those with an interest in running but god damn its poorly written.

he writes so badly he wouldnt even get a job at letsrun

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not sure that links to tabloids, many old articles from years ago, counts as evidence.

Here we go again. Many of those links were to the Guardian, normally not viewed as tabloid, but yeah, keep telling yourself that.

rekrunner wrote:

Over the past few years, I have included many links/evidence/quotes to support my facts, as well as contradict your fabrications.

You wish. Neither do I fabricate, nor do you provide evidence. The above sentence is typical for you.

rekrunner wrote:

Recently, I hesitate to do it, because:

1) I often already have

2) they are ignored, and weeks later, the same old fabrications that were contradicted resurface

3) the EMBEDLY feature that retrieves a preview adds clutter (see any of rjm33's posts)

0) Not recently, but almost always, and not hesitate, you simply don't do it. Period.

1) Wrong.

2) Wrong and wrong.

3) Sad but true.

Kenyan Malaria Man with a 2:05 marathon PR: wrote:

Indications and Usage for Procrit

Anemia Due to Chronic Kidney Disease

Procrit is indicated for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD), including patients on dialysis and not on dialysis to decrease the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.

Chris Froome had kidney failure and severe asthma in last year's Vuelta so if he was taking EPO for his kidney failure along with his very high dose asthma medications I doubt that people could accuse him of actually doping - he was just being treated medically so that he could keep on a level playing field with his competitors who were not so unfortunate to be suffering from these severe medical conditions.

rekrunner wrote:

I understand conflict of interest. I don't believe you do.

I proved you wrong last time, two years ago, with links to the conflict-of-interest policies from Stanford and NSF and FIFA. I still have them...

rekrunner wrote:

Your feeble attempts notwithstanding, no one has showed any conflict of interest connected to the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation, or the WADA IC Investigation.

"feeble attempts"? My argument was, in part, that the Chair of the IAAF Ethics Commission was installed by Coe, and is a long time (British) buddy of his. Again, read up on typical conflict-of-interest policies; for example I am not allowed to review any work of any of my "acquaintances", and rightfully so. Coe on the other hand thrives on this, and actively creates such scenarios. Same with WADA, creating a so-called "independent" committee led by their last president.

Since you can't argue against that, you throw in an insult, and bring zero arguments as per usual. Honestly, this is getting boring.

Team Lie wrote:

Kenyan Malaria Man with a 2:05 marathon PR: wrote:

Indications and Usage for Procrit

Anemia Due to Chronic Kidney Disease

Procrit is indicated for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD), including patients on dialysis and not on dialysis to decrease the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.

Chris Froome had kidney failure and severe asthma in last year's Vuelta so if he was taking EPO for his kidney failure along with his very high dose asthma medications I doubt that people could accuse him of actually doping - he was just being treated medically so that he could keep on a level playing field with his competitors who were not so unfortunate to be suffering from these severe medical conditions.

That's probably true...Froome doesn't look very healthy.

And many are links to tabloids -- accusations, allegations, and opinions which didn't pan out or were later debunked. And they are usually way off-topic. I don't get this new accusation that I don't provide links or references. I have linked to many reports, papers, textbooks, IAAF website, WADA website, medical websites, results websites, CAS rulings, altitude studies, EPO studies, etc., and when I haven't linked, I have provided quotes. It looks like some kind of new social experiment to test if you repeat a fabrication often enough, others will eventually believe you.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not sure that links to tabloids, many old articles from years ago, counts as evidence.

Here we go again. Many of those links were to the Guardian, normally not viewed as tabloid, but yeah, keep telling yourself that.

rekrunner wrote:

Over the past few years, I have included many links/evidence/quotes to support my facts, as well as contradict your fabrications.

You wish. Neither do I fabricate, nor do you provide evidence. The above sentence is typical for you.

rekrunner wrote:

Recently, I hesitate to do it, because:

1) I often already have

2) they are ignored, and weeks later, the same old fabrications that were contradicted resurface

3) the EMBEDLY feature that retrieves a preview adds clutter (see any of rjm33's posts)

0) Not recently, but almost always, and not hesitate, you simply don't do it. Period.

1) Wrong.

2) Wrong and wrong.

3) Sad but true.