Kenyan 800m Word medallist Kipyegon Bett Suspended After Refusing Drugs Test

245456 wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

It should be clear by now that for good reasons, nobody cares what you think.

I should remind you about your "welcome" to the message boards after you prolonged absence. Nobody cares what you think, you are an asshole, and you only get support from loons like m!ndweak and Coevett.

That's not very nice ex runner, Sprintgeezer has lots of interesting insights into sprint doping.

Subway Surfers wrote:

245456 wrote:

I should remind you about your "welcome" to the message boards after you prolonged absence. Nobody cares what you think, you are an asshole, and you only get support from loons like m!ndweak and Coevett.

That's not very nice ex runner, Sprintgeezer has lots of interesting insights into sprint doping.

Is "245456" the new code for ex-runner?

Rekrunner is just trolling us for the fun of it, or on behalf of the brojos as clickbait (which would explain all the deletions in his favor). Watch this thread, like so many others before, turn into a rekrunner vs. the rest thread. Soon thereafter, some mods will start with their biased deletions for him to at least somewhat save face.

As for Canova, rekrunner loves to repeat his statements and questions, even when they are evidently nonsense and already have been answered, like here.

Last time he kept pestering me with:

"observed reality", ha, so not true, see for example doped drug cheat Jeptoo running course record and her PR in Boston winning the Majors in dominating fashion, or Sumgong winning Olympic gold.

He did the same with Coevett's trolling:

The alleged stagnation is one of his often repeated lies. No surprise that Coevett said the same nonsense.

casual obsever wrote:

Rekrunner's IT Boss - Get Back To Work NOW! wrote:

Does Rekrunner actually have any supporters on this board, apart from Canova? In fact, I think even Canova distances himself from the loon.

Rekrunner is just trolling us for the fun of it, or on behalf of the brojos as clickbait (which would explain all the deletions in his favor). Watch this thread, like so many others before, turn into a rekrunner vs. the rest thread.

Ha, you just pointed out how pathetic the running world is in terms of entertainment. Basketball has sideshow figures like Rodman, the NFL has kneelers, soccer has Suarez biting people's ears, Darts has people with Mohawks, tattoos in packed out convention centers full of drunken people, motor cross/x-games has people doing triple flips in mid air. Meanwhile, running has Rekrunner, 'it's not yet proven that epo enhances performance.' Just classic ? we really are a mundane lot.

Just Passing By wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

That's not very nice ex runner, Sprintgeezer has lots of interesting insights into sprint doping.

Is "245456" the new code for ex-runner?

Hi Coevett!

No, just you and Subway being the idiots you normally are.

Rekrunner's IT Boss - Get Back To Work NOW! wrote:

Does Rekrunner actually have any supporters on this board, apart from Canova? In fact, I think even Canova distances himself from the loon.

Actually, I think Rekrunner is like a good opposition party in Parliament. I don’t agree with his belief that EPO doesn’t help elite middle and distance athletes, but he offers an intelligent argument that is important to the discussion. I believe his stance is that there isn’t enough credible evidence to be certain without doubt that EPO makes you faster!? He doesn’t actually state that EPO doesn’t help at all! Well that’s how I understand it.

These boards need people to offer alternative possible reasons and explanations, otherwise it just becomes akin to mob rule, all chanting the same mantra.

I strongly believe that I have seen and read enough to deduce that EPO has a positive effect on endurance, which is different to Rekrunner’s views, but I respect his right to state his argument, mainly because he is always polite and well researched and doesn’t resort to personal jibes and abuse as many others do on this board. On this particular thread it has become a detracting constant.

And at least he has never claimed that EPO was being used by elite athletes in 1979!

No...but blood doping was being used in the 70s & 80s.

EPO & blood transfusions = O2-vector doping.

Same outcome...different methods. ?

I am aware of that thank you, but one poster actually claimed that EPO was already being used from 1977! The poster was quite clear on that, and wasn’t getting it confused with blood doping.

I would suggest that EPO is far more effective and long lasting than blood doping due to the fact you can keep getting topped up whenever necessary throughout a season, certainly back in the 90’s before a test was introduced, whereas autologous blood transfusions have a long down time after extraction, and I believe the benefits only lasted a few weeks!

Deanouk wrote:

Actually, I think Rekrunner is like a good opposition party in Parliament.

I literally laughed out loud. My first reflex was to respond that he obfuscates and lies way too much for that, but then I realized what that meant: opposition parties normally have an agenda and obfuscate and lie to reach it.

But "good"? More like a tiny obscure party that has next to no followers. "good" opposition parties convince so many followers (voters) that they'll soon outperform the ruling party.

Deanouk wrote:

I don’t agree with his belief that EPO doesn’t help elite middle and distance athletes, but he offers an intelligent argument that is important to the discussion.

Oh? Where is his "intelligent argument"?

He just claimed to have evidence that EPO helps less than 1%, which would mean that El G could have run a 3:26 clean, for example: 3:26.0 + 1% = 3:26.6, or Ramzi a 3:30 flat. LOL.

When pressed, he referred to his own self-chosen statistics, yet those don't show that at all. When that was pointed out, he instead referred to Solinsky as new evidence. All on the last few pages here. Ridiculo.

Deanouk wrote:

I would suggest that EPO is far more effective and long lasting than blood doping due to the fact you can keep getting topped up whenever necessary throughout a season, certainly back in the 90’s before a test was introduced, whereas autologous blood transfusions have a long down time after extraction, and I believe the benefits only lasted a few weeks!

There is that. Plus, organizing and administering EPO is a lot easier.

On the other hand, blood transfusions work faster, and have no glowing time.

To be on the safe side though (unless you don't mind ending up on the likely doper list), you can't through in two 500 ml bags within a few days anymore. Much safer to spread it out via 100 ml bags every other day, and no ABP thresholds get triggered.

Likewise, nowadays one has to reduce the previously normal EPO doses, something that Kiprop, Jeptoo and Sumgong learned the hard way.

Which brings me back on topic: the Kenyan doping cases likely reached their maximum, as they will be a lot more careful from now on after all these reminders.

So, there won't be any 3:26s or 12:40s in the near future (until a new undetectable drug comes along). Not because the athletes will be clean, but because they will respect the EPO glowing time and the ABP thresholds.

Deano, no EPO wasn't around until 1988. It was developed in 87.

It was probably used in cycling from 88 or 89 onwards.

EPO is not a performance enhancer, nor is any type of blood boosting.

We have bioenergetic limits due to heat production, thermoregulatory limits, which can't be exceeded. by training or with drugs. This is actually basic physiology. But you won't find any physiologist on this website who either knows this or cares.

As I have pointed out many times, but people don't want to hear it, Lance Armstrong's power outputs were in the normal range for an elite cyclist regardless of how much doping he did. They want to believe in magic potions giving super human power. It's like the belief that alchohol makes you happy, it's social conditioning, a construct.

The power outputs attributed to EPO doped cyclists has been greatly exaggerated, because people want a mythology. But there are millions of data points showing the reality that all of the hype about so called PEDs is just hype and mythologising.

But that's what people want; a mythology.

Who here really belives that any young Kenyan showing great ability really needs any drugs to be world class?

Are you sure about that with Morroco & Russia? ?

casual observer, if you spent a bit of time learning some physiology instead of obsessing over drugs, you might have something new to say?

Why don't you do that? What are you afraid of?

If it was "less than 1%," I don't think the athletes would bother using it. The consequences of the punnishment of getting caught these days far outweigh any marginal gain from a one-percenter PED. Rekrunner is just clowning around with us. ?.

All of this was addressed in the other thread. If you have something new -- bring it up over there. If it is not new, don't even bother. As I've been harshly reminded, this thread is about Kenyan busts.

Survey Says.... wrote:

What evidence do you have that EPO was widely abused and globally undetectable? Wasn't a test implemented in Sydney and the first ban was a positive from the 2001 WCs? And wasn't OOC testing started in the mid-00s for most of Europe & the U.S.?

Further, what are you defining as widely abused? If you're basing off of EPO positives and ABP hematological sanctions then by and large that would be #1) Russian Athletics (especially the women & men RWs - over 80 combined EPO bans & ABP sanctions!) and #2) Morroco (over 40 EPO positives & 11 ABP sanctions). No other nations come close to these numbers.

Mindweak, you answered my question with a general vision of training.

My question was different, and I go to formulate the same question in different way.

I have an athlete who doesn't use any drug, looking at training only (I think that, in spite of what you suppose, somebody clean in the world there is...).

This athlete run 10000m in 31' and a Marathon in 2:20.

He trains with a volume of 60 miles per week, including one track session based on 400m and 600m for a total volume of 6 km a little faster than the pace of the race (for example, 10 x 600m in 1'50" with 1'30" recovery) and one session on the road long at maximum 15 miles a little bit slower than his Marathon Pace.

After two months, his long run becomes faster (at his Marathon pace) or longer at the same speed used before (till 18 miles). His track session becomes longer, using in alternated weeks or a higher number of repetitions (for example, 15 x 600m with the same time and the same recovery used before) or longer tests (for example, 7 x 1000m in 3'05"). His total weekly volume raises till 80 miles per week, and at the end he runs 30'20" and the Marathon in 2:18.

After some month, he uses a total volume of 100 miles per week, including a session of 18 miles at Marathon pace, and a session of 22 miles at 85% of Marathon Pace. On track, he goes for a total volume of 12 km, alternating long tests (for example, 3 x 2000m in 6' + 6 x 1000m in 2'55" with 2' recovery) and short tests faster for a total volume of 6 km (15 x 400m in 65" recovering 1').

At the end of this period, he is able running in 29'40" and the Marathon in 2:15.

Finally, the next year he goes for a total volume of 120 miles per week. His long run easy is at 80% of his Marathon Pace, but becomes longer (till 30 miles), the long-specific run for Marathon (used only 3 or 4 times) developed at Marathon Pace becomes 18 miles - 20 miles - 22 miles - 24 miles, his longest track sessions arrive at 15 km including longer tests (for example, 2 x 3000m in 9' + 4 x 2000m in 5'55" + 5 x 1000m in 2'52"), and when are of 6-8 km are very much faster (15 x 500m in 1'20" - 1'22" with 1'30" recovery).

At the end of this period, the athlete is able running 29' and 2:12 in Marathon.

My question is : WHY INCREASING TRAINING HE CAN INCREASE HIS PERFORMANCE ?

What you explained about training is correct but is very simple. The problem is that, increasing training, we continue to increase the physiological modifications in our body, and this is the reason because the athlete can run faster.

You wrote :

"The mean Hct of the six subjects before rhEpo treatment was 45.7 ± 0.5%, increasing to 48.3 ± 0.8% within 1 week with the 35000 IU dose of rhEpo. After the 8 week intervention period, the mean Hct for the whole group was increased significantly to 51 ± 1% (Figure ​(Figure1).1). Three of the six subjects received full treatment dosage with a total of 70.000 IU rhEpo over 8 weeks, while two subjects were administered 67.500 and 62.500 IU, respectively. The remaining subject exhibited a strong response to the rhEpo injections, and received a total of 50.000 IU. Epo treatment increased VO2 max by 8.3 ± 2% from 54 ± 3 to 58 ± 3 ml·kg−1·min−1 (Table ​(Table1).1)."

I don't know if you understand that these 6 subjects, without any rhEPO but increasing their basic training, could not only reach the same results (not about the level of Hct, but about the level of their VO2 max, which can reach with LOWER HCT than the level they had before training).

So, what this research (of course carried out for normal people, not trained) can show ? That with EPO people NOT trained can reach, without training, the SAME level they can reach with some basic training, without any doping.

You clearly underrate the effects (and not the AFFECTS) of training, thinking anything depends on the strength of some drug.

But the history of methodology in any sport can show that training changes the physiology of every human, the real question is TILL WHERE WE CAN CHANGE.

I know, for personal experience, that with high talented athletes is possible to change TILL THE WR.

I don't have any proof that, giving EPO, they could run also faster. But, looking at how fast talented athletes training in clean way are able to reach the highest levels, frankly I doubt that, at that level of talent and training, EPO can add some fuel to the engine.

And, for being clear, the real APOLOGISTS of doping are all people OVERRATING the effect on the improvement of performances, because the FAITH they have in absurd percentages of improvement with different types of doping caused a widespread idea that ONLY WITH DOPING IT'S POSSIBLE TO BE COMPETITIVE AT TOP LEVEL.

If this is true in all the events where the muscle strength is the most important quality (like throwing, for example, where we don't have any new WR after 1988, when the doping with steroids was common in the most part of Countries), it's not true when we speak about middle and long distances.

The fact some of the best (but in very low percentage, compared with the percentage of sprinters who used some illegal substance) was doped, doesn't mean they couldn't run the same time in clean way, and in many cases this is exactly what happened BEFORE their doping.

So said, I'm really disappointed for all the Kenyan using doping.

It's not the case to be ironic about what I said time ago : really, till 2012, I NEVER heard in Kenya some athlete asking for supplements or external aids, while now many are asking for this kind of help, and when there is this mentality the borderline between legal and illegal is very thin.

I don't like this situation, and I'm happy if who goes to cheat is banned.

But, what I can't accept, is to think that there are big advantages : in middle distances, the athletes using blood doping replace a part of training they don't develop, being LAZY (and lazy are their coaches, because don't try to educate the athletes in the right way). So, I want these athletes banned for the following reasons :

a) They think to have advantages using doping, and seek at that solution in order to run faster. In this way, they don't respect the rights of the athletes who train in clean way. So, also if they DON'T HAVE REAL BIG ADVANTAGES, their mentality is against the ethic in the sport and in the life.

b) Because the advantages are very few (if not nothing), they are STUPID believing in some cheater who abuse of them for personal advantages. And I prefer NOT TO HAVE IN ATHLETICS STUPID PEOPLE, who can become a bad example for Young generations.

c) Their illegal actions affected all the top Kenyan athletes, also if the majority use clean training, and this provoke a general reaction against the Country and all the athletes, creating the base for looking (of course, with a wrong stereotype) at a "category" instead than at "individuals" (the category is to be Kenyan).

That is the right question -- it's a positive sign to start looking outside of doping and testing to find the various causes of elite performance. David Epstein wrote a book called The Sports Gene which begins to address parts of this question.

Survey Says.... wrote:

Follow-up question from the first post: What would be these "regional factors unique to Africans," especially with the Morrocans?

"I have an athlete who doesn't use any drug" - an assumption that is impossible to prove, and therefore difficult to accept in the current climate. But, I accept it for sake of argument only.

"WHY INCREASING TRAINING HE CAN INCREASE HIS PERFORMANCE ?" - because of well-known training adaptations, if clean.

"So, what this research (of course carried out for normal people, not trained) can show ? That with EPO people NOT trained can reach, without training, the SAME level they can reach with some basic training, without any doping. You clearly underrate the effects of training, thinking anything depends on the strength of some drug." - while the first point is correct, the second does not necessarily follow from the first. It has never been shown that training adaptations (no matter how great) and doping effects are mutually exclusive. Testimony from trained athletes who have used suggests the opposite is true.