VIOLAH JEPCHUMBA, a 65-minute half-marathoner and Ken-born athlete. busted for EPO.

Hate to be conspiratorial

but

when the 3 French decathletes no

Jumped in long jump at Europeans .

If remember correct

Thought was suspect and maybe told to

especially in mayers case as being told to save energy reserves for record attempt on French soil with links to new dope ..

Do exactly as told ., let the German athlete take the glory in home town this one and be rewarded with Nike sauce .

Similarly with kipchope , do Nike's bidding , stupid 2 hour stunt

And be rewarded if possible later on

increase absurdity of clean sport with stupid time when pushing cleaning it up in home country .

Nike they mock you .

The improvement was bigger across the board than your original study, face it 10s westerners instead 6/7s which just so happens to double numbers, 30s for North Africans and massive gains for an avalanche of Africans.

Yes, and how our knowledge of the effects of altitude make these values plausible.

Correct. Any notion that Pound was acting under pretense comes from you, and not that article. This is your brand of embellishment. Phrasing it that way then allows you to judge Pound.

The article says that event transformed Pound from romantic to cynic overnight.

I'm wondering which Pound you are close to, and which Pound you are not fond of: The naive romantic who believes athletes are clean and don't lie, or the cynic who realized that cheating athletes lie and deny, and indicts athletes before the process is over.

I've seen you repeatedly allege many things about UKAD and USADA when you didn't agree with them. Maybe, maybe not. The system is set up so that everyone can appeal decisions by national federations and doping agencies, which should address any failures in self-policing. UKAD and USADA do not have the final say. This issue is not self-policing, but ensuring independence in reviewing cases.

I relied in the two WADA IC reports.

Lol. It's more like the boxer who inadvertently stepped into wrestling ring, against a tag-team wrestlers in costume.

threadreader wrote:

Rekrunner getting clobbered again on these boards. This last post by CO was the equivalent of a huge Mike-Tyson uppercut. In fact, if this thread was a boxing match it would be too painful for me to watch.

You failed the test.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Let's test your understanding:

Piss off

Right.

aduck2022 wrote:

Hate to be conspiratorial

Again, exactly what I said would happen. You lower the reference and the numbers get predictably bigger. The conclusion "so few by so little" remains the same, if not made stronger, when comparing non-Africans to Africans.

Crazy Gary is still talking to himself on this thread?

Even Jon Orange isn't quite at that level.

Ha ha, Gary -- that just never gets old. It's this mature witty humor that keeps me coming here. I noted the timeliness of the release of Ben Johnson's lab report 30 years later. While he did admit to long term steroid use in the Dubin inquiry, (arguing that his expert knowledge of steroids means his urine should have been clean), and should be punished like any steroid user, it does seem that there were several irregularities in his 24-hour turn-around prosecution, with no chance for appeal, including one of Carl Lewis's friends present in the anti-doping area, at a time when he didn't really belong there. Recall the time was 1988, long before WADA tried to standardize things at a global level, and that many other sprinters in the same race were subsequently busted, yet not demonized as much as Ben Johnson. Perhaps this event also influenced Dick Pound, in more ways than turning him from romantic to cynic overnight, to create a WADA that allowed the athletes to have their lab reports, to be present for B-sample testing, and allowing the ability to appeal to another body.http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9034566

ranting on street corner wrote:

Crazy Gary is still talking to himself on this thread?

Even Jon Orange isn't quite at that level.

rekrunner wrote:

Correct. Any notion that Pound was acting under pretense comes from you, and not that article. This is your brand of embellishment. Phrasing it that way then allows you to judge Pound.

Well, either you have to judge him as a blind idiot for not realizing that Johnson was doped to the gills since years (remember that Pound was an insider, and a smart lawyer), or as a pretender.

So yes, it was pretending in my opinion, but feel free to call this my "brand of embellishment". The other option is actually a lot less flattering to Pound.

Yes Pound is incredibly naive but at least he is smart enough to state that they are only catching 1% of cheats. Our Gary (hehehe) still hasn't accepted that one. As for BJ, those red eyes will haunt the Olympics forever, he actually was "doped up to the eyeballs."

Everytime I see 1-2%, it is with respect to number of samples testing positive. I have not seen a reliable estimate of how many "cheats" are caught. Many athletes are tested many times a year over a period of many years.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Yes Pound is incredibly naive but at least he is smart enough to state that they are only catching 1% of cheats. Our Gary (hehehe) still hasn't accepted that one. As for BJ, those red eyes will haunt the Olympics forever, he actually was "doped up to the eyeballs."

I'll feel free to call "blind idiot" another embellishment, while wondering rhetorically what "Pound is an insider" means to you. A more interesting question is whether either of these dichotomies can be considered moderate, or popular. Has anyone of note judged Pound either as a blind idiot, or a pretender, based on his role in defending Ben Johnson? Seems like the neutral position is to go with what few facts you have and resist the temptation to make judgements.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Correct. Any notion that Pound was acting under pretense comes from you, and not that article. This is your brand of embellishment. Phrasing it that way then allows you to judge Pound.

Well, either you have to judge him as a blind idiot for not realizing that Johnson was doped to the gills since years (remember that Pound was an insider, and a smart lawyer), or as a pretender.

So yes, it was pretending in my opinion, but feel free to call this my "brand of embellishment". The other option is actually a lot less flattering to Pound.

rekrunner wrote:

Everytime I see 1-2%, it is with respect to number of samples testing positive.

I have not seen a reliable estimate of how many "cheats" are caught.

Many athletes are tested many times a year over a period of many years.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Yes Pound is incredibly naive but at least he is smart enough to state that they are only catching 1% of cheats. Our Gary (hehehe) still hasn't accepted that one. As for BJ, those red eyes will haunt the Olympics forever, he actually was "doped up to the eyeballs."

Mind you I haven't seen reliable pre & post epo era analysis done either ?

Fine, call him a naive romantic if you prefer. As I said, I don't believe in that option.

As for his inside knowledge, start with his wiki page, for example. Experienced functionary since years, already back in 1988. He knew.