Practical Joker wrote:
I think JO is just clowning around with us...he likes to see what kind of rise he gets from other posters. He also seems to fill in on days rek doesn't post. 😉
Yep...and a third missed test = 4 year ban. So, you lose...try again.
rekrunner wrote:
The article says "refused a test", then "evaded a test", then later "failed to submit a sample", and that "no further details have yet been revealed by the AIU".
These are three different things.
It's correct to say that none of these are an adverse analytical finding -- you shouldn't need me to arrive at that conclusion.
Later we see this was his third missed test.
How do I lose again, when you repeated what I said, without contradicting me?
What do I say about two more Kenyans? If two more Kenyans get busted, I will say two more Kenyans got busted believing EPO could help.
This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The article says "refused a test", then "evaded a test", then later "failed to submit a sample", and that "no further details have yet been revealed by the AIU".
These are three different things.
It's correct to say that none of these are an adverse analytical finding -- you shouldn't need me to arrive at that conclusion.
Later we see this was his third missed test.
Yep...and a third missed test = 4 year ban. So, you lose...try again.
And there's 2 more Kenyans in the on-deck circle awaiting to be announced...what do you say about that? Huh?
rekrunner wrote:
How do I lose again, when you repeated what I said, without contradicting me?
What do I say about two more Kenyans? If two more Kenyans get busted, I will say two more Kenyans got busted believing EPO could help.
This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The article says "refused a test", then "evaded a test", then later "failed to submit a sample", and that "no further details have yet been revealed by the AIU".
These are three different things.
It's correct to say that none of these are an adverse analytical finding -- you shouldn't need me to arrive at that conclusion.
Later we see this was his third missed test.
Yep...and a third missed test = 4 year ban. So, you lose...try again.
And there's 2 more Kenyans in the on-deck circle awaiting to be announced...what do you say about that? Huh?
Do you realize if the 3rd missed test is upheld it's a 4 yr ban and possibly career ending for an up & coming younster like Bett in today's anti-doping climate. This would be the same outcome if he had flat out refused to provide a sample in a face to face first time contact. Your post implied that missing a 3rd test is less of a penalty than a face to face flat out refusal. Unfortunately, unless he decides to fess up and tell WADA what he was on, we'll never know if it was rEPO, roids, T, masking agent, etc.
rekrunner wrote:
How do I lose again, when you repeated what I said, without contradicting me?
C'mon...that's unrealistic to think that the dopers aren't getting any physiological benefit from EPO and just "believe" that it "could help." And look at the name brands getting bagged here recently; Kiprop, Jebet, Jepchumba....some serious speed with those three. And last month Morrocan Mousaab Hadout was also busted for EPO...a 60 min HM & 5th fastest Morrocan all-time (I figured Morroco wouldn't want to be left out of these recent busts. 😉).
rekrunner wrote:
What do I say about two more Kenyans? If two more Kenyans get busted, I will say two more Kenyans got busted believing EPO could help.
I do realize that.
My post implied no such thing, and explicitly said other things.
This looks like a reading comprehension failure on your part.
You cannot show EPO effect with uncontrolled examples that do not measure EPO effect.
Adding more uncontrolled examples cannot cure this fatal flaw.
You can talk about busts and belief, but there is no basis to show physiological benefit leading to a better performance not possible without EPO.
This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:
Do you realize if the 3rd missed test is upheld it's a 4 yr ban and possibly career ending for an up & coming younster like Bett in today's anti-doping climate. This would be the same outcome if he had flat out refused to provide a sample in a face to face first time contact. Your post implied that missing a 3rd test is less of a penalty than a face to face flat out refusal. Unfortunately, unless he decides to fess up and tell WADA what he was on, we'll never know if it was rEPO, roids, T, masking agent, etc.
...
C'mon...that's unrealistic to think that the dopers aren't getting any physiological benefit from EPO and just "believe" that it "could help." And look at the name brands getting bagged here recently; Kiprop, Jebet, Jepchumba....some serious speed with those three. And last month Morrocan Mousaab Hadout was also busted for EPO...a 60 min HM & 5th fastest Morrocan all-time (I figured Morroco wouldn't want to be left out of these recent busts. 😉).
Why in today's anti-doping climate are these recent busts involving athletes filling up with rocket fuel? Look what's a stake these days: 4 yr ban (career ending for some), potential lawsuits from sponsors, the wrath of the running community & media, etc. And EPO is old school doping - so why are they getting caught for rocket fuel when all this fancy spancy supposedly undetectable stuff is out there such as AICAR and the speed peptides? Rocket fuel must work, and work very well to go old school doping and face the catastrophic consequences of getting caught & banned.
rekrunner wrote:
I do realize that.
My post implied no such thing, and explicitly said other things.
This looks like a reading comprehension failure on your part.
You cannot show EPO effect with uncontrolled examples that do not measure EPO effect.
Adding more uncontrolled examples cannot cure this fatal flaw.
You can talk about busts and belief, but there is no basis to show physiological benefit leading to a better performance not possible without EPO.
+1
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I do realize that.
My post implied no such thing, and explicitly said other things.
This looks like a reading comprehension failure on your part.
You cannot show EPO effect with uncontrolled examples that do not measure EPO effect.
Adding more uncontrolled examples cannot cure this fatal flaw.
You can talk about busts and belief, but there is no basis to show physiological benefit leading to a better performance not possible without EPO.
Firstly, you know (or should know) that there isn't likely to be many academic tests on elites for a banned substance. WADA likely has had consultants do non-published studies where they get an 8:20 3k runner, administer it for 3 months and if the athletes drops to 8:08 and has a higher vo2, they know it benefits. They also have simulatory models that indicate if something enhances performance. Then there are testimonies from the likes of Armstrong and Hamilton that it is a massive enhancer.
Oh sure...just like the lack of reading comprehension you displayed in your recent exchanges with "Casual Observer" on the Jeptoo doping case. Lol.
rekrunner wrote:
I do realize that.
My post implied no such thing, and explicitly said other things.
This looks like a reading comprehension failure on your part.
You cannot show EPO effect with uncontrolled examples that do not measure EPO effect.
Adding more uncontrolled examples cannot cure this fatal flaw.
You can talk about busts and belief, but there is no basis to show physiological benefit leading to a better performance not possible without EPO.
Tour de Lance talking about the power of high-octane EPO (starts @ 3:05 in).
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I do realize that.
My post implied no such thing, and explicitly said other things.
This looks like a reading comprehension failure on your part.
You cannot show EPO effect with uncontrolled examples that do not measure EPO effect.
Adding more uncontrolled examples cannot cure this fatal flaw.
You can talk about busts and belief, but there is no basis to show physiological benefit leading to a better performance not possible without EPO.
Firstly, you know (or should know) that there isn't likely to be many academic tests on elites for a banned substance. WADA likely has had consultants do non-published studies where they get an 8:20 3k runner, administer it for 3 months and if the athletes drops to 8:08 and has a higher vo2, they know it benefits. They also have simulatory models that indicate if something enhances performance. Then there are testimonies from the likes of Armstrong and Hamilton that it is a massive enhancer.
3rd missed test = 4 year ban?
Used to be only one year, has that changed?
See Rollins:
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/news/brianna-rollins-handed-one-year-ban-for-whereabouts-rule-violation-60124
Oh, that's all very interesting, but it all seems like a diversion. I was asked what I would say in response to two more Kenyan busts.
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I do realize that.
My post implied no such thing, and explicitly said other things.
This looks like a reading comprehension failure on your part.
You cannot show EPO effect with uncontrolled examples that do not measure EPO effect.
Adding more uncontrolled examples cannot cure this fatal flaw.
You can talk about busts and belief, but there is no basis to show physiological benefit leading to a better performance not possible without EPO.
Firstly, you know (or should know) that there isn't likely to be many academic tests on elites for a banned substance. WADA likely has had consultants do non-published studies where they get an 8:20 3k runner, administer it for 3 months and if the athletes drops to 8:08 and has a higher vo2, they know it benefits. They also have simulatory models that indicate if something enhances performance. Then there are testimonies from the likes of Armstrong and Hamilton that it is a massive enhancer.
You're kidding...only a 1 yr ban for 3 missed tests? Wow! So, let me get this straight; an athlete who is glowing has face to face contact with the testers giving them the finger and refuses testing, he or she gets hammered with a 4 yr ban. OTOH, another athlete who also happens to be glowing everytime the testers come calling, decides not to answer the door, or hightails it out the backdoor, or ducks & hides if the testers come calling at the athlete's training facility, they get only a one year ban after 3 whereabouts violations?
casual obsever wrote:
3rd missed test = 4 year ban?
Used to be only one year, has that changed?
See Rollins:
Me too. I also expect *some* of the performance benefit. I expect some sort of diminishing returns with increasing talent.
On the outside looking in wrote:
+1
In addition, while there are no scientific studies on elite athletes with regard to rEPO, rekrunner has failed to give any reasons why we can't expect some of the performance benefits extented to elites.
Not like that at all. In that exchange, it wasn't a lack of reading comprehension, but a lack of reading. I didn't read it until it was posted in that thread, and then I think I comprehended it the same way as everyone else.
On the outside looking in wrote:
Oh sure...just like the lack of reading comprehension you displayed in your recent exchanges with "Casual Observer" on the Jeptoo doping case. Lol.
It looks like you didn't read the link. The WADA guidelines allow increasing or decreasing the standard sanction depending on the specific circumstances.
Dopers have all the luck wrote:
You're kidding...only a 1 yr ban for 3 missed tests? Wow! So, let me get this straight; an athlete who is glowing has face to face contact with the testers giving them the finger and refuses testing, he or she gets hammered with a 4 yr ban. OTOH, another athlete who also happens to be glowing everytime the testers come calling, decides not to answer the door, or hightails it out the backdoor, or ducks & hides if the testers come calling at the athlete's training facility, they get only a one year ban after 3 whereabouts violations?
This is utterly disgusting! So, if an athlete can't get their washout cycle right during their OOC doping program, it would behoove them to just not be available for testing. And if this just happens to occur 3 times in one year...no big deal, just a slap on the wrist with a ridiculous 1 yr ban, or more like a 1 yr vacation! 😂
This sport is SAD!...it encourages doping with slap on the wrist type penalties. I thought that hot shot Coe was supposed to be tough on dopers? Too fvcking funny...a 1 yr ban for missing 3 tests! 😆
Oh...shut up Gary!
rekrunner wrote:
Not like that at all. In that exchange, it wasn't a lack of reading comprehension, but a lack of reading. I didn't read it until it was posted in that thread, and then I think I comprehended it the same way as everyone else.
I'll go tell him.
I reckon you're just teasing us for kick and giggles because I seriously doubt that even you believe such nonsense.
Subway Surfers wrote:
I reckon you're just teasing us for kick and giggles because I seriously doubt that even you believe such nonsense.
