Well that didn't take long: Asbel Kiprop gives up fight to prove innocence - Says he doesn't have resources to fight IAAF

"According to the first investigations, various doping substances were found in the records made, such as EPO, growth hormone, insulin and testosterone. Athletes use special jargon to refer to these prohibited substances, such as "carrots" and "peas."

Now I'm not sure what I'm having dinner tonight.

ex-runner wrote:

A 3% improvement for Dave Moorcroft takes his 13:00 to 12:36. That's a whole different level. It takes Justyn Knight to 12:52. If that's what EPO does then with current testing why would Knight not just start immediately? The detection window is a few hours and less for micro-dosing.

If EPO gives a 1% improvement to elites that's absolutely huge. Takes your guy like Chelimo, getting up there but not winning, to a world beater. Removing nearly 10s in a 5k which is 65 meters.

You almost got it. Think further, and you realize that that's why so many elite runners, incl. basically all sub-13 runners for example, are such cheats.

You called "near universal lack of success stories" "simply not true". Your example of a set of improvements come from 32 runners. Take away these 32 "successes" from the universe, and what remains is not universal, but "near universal". If these 32 improvements never happened, then I could say "universal lack of success stories". That's the significance of the word "near", and that's what makes my statement simply true, despite the 32 exceptions. It doesn't matter what you were talking about. First, you did not contradict what I was talking about, so you failed to establish a lie. And second, you weren't creating the topic of conversation but joining an existing one which does not get re-defined retro-actively by you talking about something else. Just as a reminder, the topic was "why doesn't rekrunner get it?" and me answering "What I don't get". If there is any dispute between me and you about exactly what I don't get, then your only option is to ask me for the right answer. The only joke here is that somehow you are debating with me about "what I don't get", and consider yourself a better authority. I gave three examples of failures to succeed, Russian men for a decade, Chinese men in 1993, and 17 years (not 18) of non-Africans before Solinsky. Your success counter-examples of Rupp, Solinsky and Paula fail to address these examples of lack of success, as did your counter examples of improvements. Solinsky's sub-27:00 was a personal success, and a huge milestone, I get that, but it implies that ALL non-Africans before him failed, while East Africans succeeded for 17 years and brought the record down further to 26:17. That's what I said I don't get when I said EPO "failed to succeed for so many for so long", and gave the example of sub-27:00. Why don't you get that? I think you do, but you look for any opportunity just to call me a liar and a troll.

m!ndweak wrote:

so i find this interesting

so teg and solisky claim they just dabbled in this blood platelet tech in 09......nope nothing to see here folks..maybe its a form of blood doping, or a nice way to mask EPO

teg

2010 13:25.09 Eugene, OR (USA) 03 JUL 2010

2009 12:58.56 Bruxelles (BEL) 04 SEP 2009

2008 13:25.71 Bruxelles (BEL) 05 SEP 2008

solinsky

2011 13:10.22 Melbourne (AUS) 03 MAR 2011

2010 12:55.53 Stockholm (SWE) 06 AUG 2010

2009 13:18.41 Walnut (USA) 17 APR 2009

m!ndweak. PRP therapy is just not in any way "dabbling in blood doping." you're being hysterical man, just ease up a little

rekrunner wrote:

I am prepared to believe EPO can have a performance effect for everyone, but I believe estimates of 3%, 4%,

Brojos please, this needs to be 'thee' headline on the Letsrun home page. This is breaking news in the running world.

OK, since you provided data and links, I'll give my best effort honest reply without resorting to insults, mocking, or personal attacks, or condescension. Admittedly this was a quick google search, but the first thing I read about platelets is a that "platelet-rich plasma" has had the red blood cells removed, leaving platelets and plasma. Since the goal of blood doping is increasing red blood cells, at first glance, this doesn't look like it would be an effective method of blood doping. And the second comment is one I've said before -- what if Solinsky didn't dope at all, yet you still found your magic 4% in his performance progression? You are finding many patterns of 4% improvement, but you cannot correlate that to EPO abuse without more information about athletes taking EPO.

m!ndweak wrote:

sorry that your such a narcissist you refuse to acknowledge anything anyone posts on here....but i tried to answer your inquire, you seemed baffled and i gave my explanation....

but as always you prove again and again how much of an arrogant prick you are. i was civil and USED date to back up my idea. and your reply?

and since you refuse to read it or acknowledge my latest post, how can you mock it? here is what i was talking about since you werent on LR back in 09...but you claim i dont know sh*t about this sport

matt tegenkamp (you prob never heard of him) aka teg, and solinsky both were dabbling in blood platelet injections

cant find more on it, but i will keep looking

Nice. You truncated "5%-10% performance improvement for elite runners are too high."

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I am prepared to believe EPO can have a performance effect for everyone, but I believe estimates of 3%, 4%,

5%-10% performance improvement for elite runners are too high.

Brojos please, this needs to be 'thee' headline on the Letsrun home page. This is breaking news in the running world.

rekrunner wrote:

5) What explains domination in cross-country, pre-EPO, and domination on the roads? I see a lot of floating estimates for the start of EPO and the end of the EPO era, so what does "perfectly coincide" mean? It also perfectly coincides with the introduction of organized training in East Africa, money on the track, then money drying up on the track. It's funny how for Western decline, you can find a hundred reasons, but for East African decline, you can only find one.

...Or we could just say EPO works and Africans can and are more likely to take it.

Yet you haven't been able to explain with all that pre-epo era cross country dominance, why Rono was the fastest Kenyan/Ethiopian until Yobes came along and why cross country King, John Ngugi, the 1988 5,000m champion, only had a best of 13:11 or something, which is like a second quicker than Quax was a decade+ earlier and we know that Ngugi refused an OOC drug test one day (he was probably hot for roids).

ex-runner wrote:

TL:DR EPO does offer a significant advantage, but less so to elites than scrubs (WADA knows this and has stated that young upcoming athletes are the biggest risk group for them) and it's not as much as 4%.

We know for certain that epo was at the 1988 Winter Olympics (thanks to good research) so the fastest 10,000m prior to epo was 27:13.81 by Mamede, then through uncontrolled use the best melted to a truly staggering 26:17.53 or 3.43% improvement and there is nobody on here that could realistically rule out for certain Mamede using blood transfusions to smash Rono's record. Heck Ron Clarke ran 27:39 on a potentially inferior track in 1965, so in 23 years the best fell 26s max and realistically half that amount. Then over 16 years the WR fell 56s. The marathon improvement is very close to 4%.

casual obsever wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

A 3% improvement for Dave Moorcroft takes his 13:00 to 12:36. That's a whole different level. It takes Justyn Knight to 12:52. If that's what EPO does then with current testing why would Knight not just start immediately? The detection window is a few hours and less for micro-dosing.

If EPO gives a 1% improvement to elites that's absolutely huge. Takes your guy like Chelimo, getting up there but not winning, to a world beater. Removing nearly 10s in a 5k which is 65 meters.

You almost got it. Think further, and you realize that that's why so many elite runners, incl. basically all sub-13 runners for example, are such cheats.

No I agree that there are probably a lot of cheats, and those 1% differences make a huge difference. But how slow exactly do you want to allow runners to go before you say that their performance is impossible. If sub 13 is impossible then do you expect 13:10 to be allowed? Or maybe nobody can break the Olympic qualifying standard clean of 13:20? Just is a stupid line of thought IMO.

Anyway if you say lots of these elites are benefitting from a 5%+ boost from EPO then you are bringing these elites down to the standards of ordinary athletes, not even pros. I think that's extremely naive.

I would never go around saying that if I had taken drugs I'd have run 1:42/1:43 or that the only difference between me and Boris Berian or Adam Kzszot is that they take drugs and if they didn't they'd only be decent club runners. It's very, very naive and works off the principle that either all elites are dopers who would be no better than high school kids if they didn't dope, or that they are all clean apart from a few cheats who would be scrubs.

I think those theories are both pretty stupid and the more likely theory is that a vast number of elites dope and those 1% differences are what make the 3:30 guys 3:28 guys and the 3:32 guys 3:30 guys. But still clean they'd run times well out of my reach or decent college kids reach. I do not accept that these top top runners would be slower than I was without dope, it's just too big a difference.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

TL:DR EPO does offer a significant advantage, but less so to elites than scrubs (WADA knows this and has stated that young upcoming athletes are the biggest risk group for them) and it's not as much as 4%.

We know for certain that epo was at the 1988 Winter Olympics (thanks to good research) so the fastest 10,000m prior to epo was 27:13.81 by Mamede, then through uncontrolled use the best melted to a truly staggering 26:17.53 or 3.43% improvement and there is nobody on here that could realistically rule out for certain Mamede using blood transfusions to smash Rono's record. Heck Ron Clarke ran 27:39 on a potentially inferior track in 1965, so in 23 years the best fell 26s max and realistically half that amount. Then over 16 years the WR fell 56s. The marathon improvement is very close to 4%.

3.43% is not 4%. A 4% improvement would be 26:07. All runners are not the same, it's a bit dense to not accept that times will generally improve over time as training methods and medicine improve. Also have to consider the wider adoption of the sport across the world, leading to a bigger talent pool.

I don't doubt that Bekele's 26:17 was enhanced. But Bekele was not a 27:15 runner clean. It's just silly to think that. Times sub 26:40 are feasible IMO. Sub 26:30 is probably not possible.

If you consider the pathway by which EPO acts then you'd understand that the effect in the marathon would not be as great as in the 5k. Can't be 4% for everything.

Hahaha, seems Moroccans get their success from a healthy Mediterranean diet of Italian carrots and peas, whereas Kenyans prefer to eat their own home grown potatoes....

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

TL:DR EPO does offer a significant advantage, but less so to elites than scrubs (WADA knows this and has stated that young upcoming athletes are the biggest risk group for them) and it's not as much as 4%.

We know for certain that epo was at the 1988 Winter Olympics (thanks to good research) so the fastest 10,000m prior to epo was 27:13.81 by Mamede, then through uncontrolled use the best melted to a truly staggering 26:17.53 or 3.43% improvement and there is nobody on here that could realistically rule out for certain Mamede using blood transfusions to smash Rono's record. Heck Ron Clarke ran 27:39 on a potentially inferior track in 1965, so in 23 years the best fell 26s max and realistically half that amount. Then over 16 years the WR fell 56s. The marathon improvement is very close to 4%.

+1

I used 4% cause it was the easiest math, instead of trying to use 3.59 or 3.88 or 4.14 etc.....

But again and again subway, casuall, and coevett, keep backing me up with PROOF that its the reality

Definitely your research is impressive, and yes those are some knowledgely guys you referenced.

I think the key might be an "average" of 4% - certainly low responders and low dosing, i.e. microdosing would bring that percentage down. Conversely, a doper going with very high dosing and demonstrating a high-response to an increase in 02 capacity of the blood (from a low baseline Hct), IMO, could go significantly higher than 4%.

Woah. Who put those goalposts up way over there? They weren't ever there before. I don't believe anyone has ever asked me to explain these things. Ironically, my would be explanation is already in the quote.

And as far as their continued cross country domination is concerned, as I pointed out earlier, the coach of the Kenyan cross country team for the last 7 years is an individual named David Letting.

Who just happens to have been the coach of Asbel Kiprop all his career (I believe they grew up together).

No, I was building on your thought ("why would Knight not just start immediately? The detection window is a few hours and less for micro-dosing"). That was discussed before. If safe EPO doping turns a 13:00 runner into 12:40 or 12:50 (and obviously we don't really know which is right, not to mention that the responses are individualized), how could a 13:00 guy resist? Knowing that many of the 12:55 guys beating him do it? Knowing how easy it is to avoid detection?

" If sub 13 is impossible then do you expect 13:10 to be allowed? "

I didn't say that. My point had nothing to do with not being able to run 13:00 clean. You yourself gave Chelimo as an example, but I'd go a step back: what makes you think he hasn't started already?

Of course I never said that.

rekrunner wrote:

Woah. Who put those goalposts up way over there? They weren't ever there before.

I don't believe anyone has ever asked me to explain these things. Ironically, my would be explanation is already in the quote.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Yet you haven't been able to explain with all that pre-epo era cross country dominance, why Rono was the fastest Kenyan/Ethiopian until Yobes came along and why cross country King, John Ngugi, the 1988 5,000m champion, only had a best of 13:11 or something, which is like a second quicker than Quax was a decade+ earlier and we know that Ngugi refused an OOC drug test one day (he was probably hot for roids).

But you have used the cross country dominance line to argue that East African domination existed prior to epo and thus minimize a perfectly legitimate discussion, yet I have just shown that their best 5,000m & 10,000m times were no different from those of the "5 continents" then circa 1993 a massive divergence occurred. Shortly after "the Italian job" (and Hermens and MacDonald).

As for shifting the goalposts, well it is World Cup season, don't forget. ⚽