What is the status of Ruth Jebet and Asbel Kiprop?

Strange case wrote:

The case will be taken up in next month.

Why do you think this?

Not true. Before you embarrass yourself even more, stop lying, calm down, and look into the original source. Yes, the priority level system was defined in that likely doper list itself. Link given here repeatedly. Oh man...

This is not clear at all. On the contrary. Why don't you ask how this was meant instead of denying it? Do you really think it's a coincidence that you are so often called a drug cheat/doping apologist?

Look for example here in webster:

"Definition of apologist

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

So everything in that list qualifies you as an apologist. For example, you wrote in defense of drug cheats Baumann and Decker and Jeptoo and Kiprop etc. Point made.

Lol. NO. I occupy the middle ground here, more skeptical are for example Mr. Obvious and pop-pop and aduck and rjm etc.

For example, I correctly and factually pointed out Paula's values, to which you replied that they are "not real" [sic] and "not true" [sic!], although the IAAF itself used such values as corroborative evidence to ban drug cheats even longer. If I were an extremist like you, I could have pretended that the situation was even worse, e.g. by exaggerating her values or pretending that they had zero error - none of which I did.

Another example was just last week, where I correctly and factually cited the key findings of the Tuebingen/Harvard study from the abstract of the published article (doping prevalence of (rounded) 44%, likely underestimated according to the abstract), whereas you instead insisted that the 29% are the key message, mentioned only on page 2 of an unofficial manuscript draft (which didn't even show in the final work!) under two assumptions, as evidenced by the words "assuming ... and ..., WOULD... " If I were an extremist like you, I could have pretended that the 63% mentioned in Table 8 under one other assumption were the key message.

If you would really providing all the facts, you would have mentioned the 63%, but no, you didn't as that didn't fit your agenda.

Neither did I. Typical straw man.

And then you use that straw man nonsense to attack me. Why do you lie so much, doping apologist? Oh well, trolls will be trolls.

Regarding "+++" I see a label in the header, but no definition or explanation. Regarding apologist, I used this definition: "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial" You called me a "doping apologist". Even by Webster's definition, nothing in your long list qualifies me as a "doping apologist". If I "defend" a person, this is not defending their doping. I guess you could say "doper apologist", but no one ever does. And if I just fill in missing facts, such as the reasons the IOC, the IAAF, WADA or CAS, etc., made a decision for a reduced or no sanction after a doping finding, this is not defending the person or their doping, but providing balance and perspective to what would otherwise be a purely one-sided attack lacking perspective, often for the purpose of explaining to everyone else why you are plainly wrong, not according to me, but according to the IOC, the IAAF, WADA, or CAS, etc. If I talk about a lack of performance benefit, this is also not a defense of doping. Regarding Paula, you point out the measured values, and I correctly and factually pointed out that these measures were prone to error before rules and guidelines put in place in 2007 and 2009. Regarding the Tuebingen survey, the authors said, in their final paper, that eliminating hasty responses was something necessary to remove the concern of a significant over-estimation bias. What was 29-34% in the draft, became 31.4% in a table. I provided you three detailed quotes from the detailed appendix (which showed the details of their final work) of the final paper. They didn't argue 63% was realistic or applying that particular correction was necessary. It wasn't my agenda, but an accurate reflection of what the authors wrote when assessing how to adjust the raw value of 44%. Your conclusions from the abstract doesn't represent what the authors wrote in the final paper. Regarding the WADA IC, you wrote: "As for the IAAF corruption, you repeatedly insisted that that only involved Diack's "inner circle", and only for a short time period, although WADA's report said otherwise ("the whole council"...)." This is plainly false. First and foremost, the quote "the whole council" does not even appear in either of the WADA IC's reports. They do mention "At least some of the members of the IAAF Council", but not with any involvement in "IAAF corruption". Both the WADA IC and the IAAF Ethics Commission made it clear the persons involved in the corruption, and the illegitimate nature of the structure formed beside the legitimate IAAF structure. The IAAF Ethics report gives an indication of when the corruption started.

Wow, you really want to double down on this?

It says: "Priority Level (+ to +++)"

Yet you had to argue against Subway's innocent and correct statement:

"It is obviously their priority system/suspicion indicator and Jager is the Ace of Spades (or Chatsworth)."

Oh, and before you argue that + could be more suspicious than +++, compare the details of the + with the +++ cases.

Well, if someone calls you an apologist, that someone will use the word as he understands it, e.g. via Webster, not necessarily as you would use it. Please recall that you have also been called drug cheat apologist; if you prefer that term, I'll do my best to use that from now on.

Coincidentally, you didn't respond to:

Moving on...

Yeah, that's not news - but I as I said, you also falsely called them "not true" as well as "not real", and then as per usual continued to defend that nonsense for days.

Please try to understand the differences between a hypothesis on page 2 and an abstract in a scientific paper. Or keep embarrassing yourself, fine by me.

Or, check what the authors really think, e.g.:

"The authors also explored a host of scenarios under which the athletes might not have answered the doping question truthfully, or otherwise not complied. “In the great majority of those different scenarios it turns out we would have undershot the actual value,” said Harrison Pope Jr, a co-author of the study from Harvard University, adding that that suggests doping was likely more prevalent than the results suggest."

Get it finally? That's pretty much what's been said in the abstract ("The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6%... we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping").

So, 43.6% is the determined value, which is likely too low. You with your 29%...

But yeah, keep siding with the IAAF against the scientists.

Indeed, the exact wording is "the IAAF council". I should have written "IAAF" instead of "whole".

As for who was involved etc., start here for example:

Finally, why did you lie about me claiming that "the corruption extended to East Africans"? Just for trolling purposes?

research wrote:

Strange case wrote:

The case will be taken up in next month.

Why do you think this?

I dont think. I know.

I see the label "Priority level", but then you say "more suspicious". Where does that come from? I can think of several criteria to determine testing priority.

You called me a "doping apologist", and then listed many examples where I did not defend "doping", even using Webster's definition, to support why I'm the most extreme doping apologist.

You could say "drug cheat apologist" but generally that would also be wrong. I don't see any difference between which way you choose to be wrong.

If a measured value is incorrect, then the incorrectly measured value will be different than the true value or the real value. This is basic English.

I have already addressed why people call me a "doping apologist": it's an ad hominem designed to avoid addressing the merits of the discussion. It's working because we are talking about apologetics now.

"could not have been unaware of the extent of doping and the non-enforcement of applicable anti-doping rules" is not "involvement with corruption".

You brought up IAAF corruption in the context of Coevett's two options of Kiprop and bribing the DCO, where you responded that I would believe the IAAF as authoritative (despite a history of corruption). Kiprop is East African. This looks like you making the link between IAAF corruption and the East African Kiprop.

The Tuebingen authors wrote in the final paper, in the Appendix dated July 6, 2017, (which can be found in the Supplementary Information):

- that including fast responders (i.e. to get 43.6%) would result in a group "contaminated by automatic responding"

- that automatic "yes" responding (a known issue for these kinds of surveys) "would theoretically cause substantial overestimates of the prevalence of doping,"

- but "this is not a serious problem because our exercise of deleting up to 30% of fast responders"

This is what the authors told us: To avoid this serious problem of theoretically over-estimating doping prevalence, the authors recommend to delete the results of the fastest 30% of responders.

Looking this up in Table 4, the corresponding value is 31.4%. Adding +/- 1 SE, the range is 28.9%-33.9%, or what was reported in the draft, 29-34%.

Regarding the key message of the authors, they wrote in Section 3, "The major findings from our primary analysis of the UQM results are summarized in Table 4." They don't say "Table 8".

43.6% is the UQM result, but according to the authors, this is not the major finding from their primary analysis.

It would appear that the abstract leaves out some important details.

As I have observed repeatedly, leaving out important details is not a problem for you.

Incidentally, when Ramzi lost to Lagat in the 2007 World Championships 1500m, by a quarter second or so, it may have been because Ramzi was boxed solidly until Lagat burst well ahead in the last 50m. Ramzi then had the room to get outside and beat the others to the line easily--he eased off at the finish. This race also featured a young Asbel Kiprop in the lead with Webb on the last lap but having moved up effortlessly earlier from last, foreshadowing things to come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjqIaRd-FU

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Incidentally, when Ramzi lost to Lagat in the 2007 World Championships 1500m, by a quarter second or so, it may have been because Ramzi was boxed solidly until Lagat burst well ahead in the last 50m. Ramzi then had the room to get outside and beat the others to the line easily--he eased off at the finish. This race also featured a young Asbel Kiprop in the lead with Webb on the last lap but having moved up effortlessly earlier from last, foreshadowing things to come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjqIaRd-FU

Wow...what a race! Did Lagat have boosters in the home stretch or what (coming off the outside of lane 2). And out kicking Rocky Fuel Ramzi is no easy task.

Lightning Fast Lagat wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjqIaRd-FU

Wow...what a race! Did Lagat have boosters in the home stretch or what (coming off the outside of lane 2). And out kicking Rocky Fuel Ramzi is no easy task.

I wonder what Ramzi's off-score was here, anyone know?

You mean in-season?

Subway Surfers wrote:

I wonder what Ramzi's off-score was here, anyone know?

If they took any blood they're not disclosing any info on off-scores. Remember the IAAF report on his off-scores at Helsinki (157.8/148) where they mention Ramzi was tested "no less 21 times" from Helsinki up through Beijing. I would imagine one of those drug controls was from Osaka but whether or not blood was taken from any of 21 controls there's no mention in the IAAF report.

Speaking of the 05 & 07 WCs, in 2013 WADA retested all the samples from Helsinki & Osaka with the latest technology and found 32 samples from 28 athletes glowing (all from Helsinki surprisingly). Apparently the names won't be released but they say most are retired and some have already been sanction from doping positives at other events. I'm wondering if one of those positives from Helinski is Ramzi? ?

"In March 2013 the IAAF announced six retrospective positives from the samples, which had been stored “in anticipation of new scientific developments”, and a second analysis “using the latest technology available” has now revealed 32 previously undetected adverse samples from the 28 athletes."

"They are refusing to name them publicly, however."

“Due to the legal process, none of these athletes can be named yet,” today’s IAAF announcement said."

“A large majority of the 28 are retired, some are athletes who have already been sanctioned, and only very few remain active in sport.”

Well what I'm saying is we know that his off-scores at Helsinki were 157.8/148 but I have never heard what levels he was at in Osaka, where only Lagat a 3:26 man could beat him. Was he only 120-130 ("cleaner" ?) etc and losing so he decided to take extreme risks in 2008, which got him busted.