Abraham Kiptum WORLD RECORD 58:18 Half Marathon

Normally I agree with you 100%, but your example of a doper with 9 negative tests makes no sense. Dopers are being caught instantly!! Therefore they can never have a negative test.

rekrunner wrote:

Regarding your WADA statistics, you should be more careful not to confuse different measures:

- The WADA statistic of 1-2% is of samples that test positive, and not a ratio of athletes testing positive. Consider the doped athlete with 10 tests, and finally 1 sample tests positive, and how that impacts the ratio of samples testing positive versus a true doping prevalence. If he is in a pool with 9 other clean athletes, each with 10 results, the doping prevalence is 10%, while samples that tested positive is 1%.

Rekrunner, it surprises me to be corrected on the use of the expression "beg the question", because it is entirely appropriate to use that expression in respect of a claim that rests on an assumption. Yes - Kenya has a high number of elite runners, but some of them may well be elite by virtue of bring doped. That is a reasonable inference to draw when a country has an identified doping problem - as Kenya does. (And I am not saying Kenya is by any means unique in this, or is even necessarily the worst offender. It is not. It is everywhere now.)

I appreciate you and some others here are generally better informed than I am about the sport, as well as doping, and you are clearly more well-versed in statistics than I am. But this is not an issue than can be decided by statistics, or by a single definitive study of research. Doping is by its nature secretive. We are having to speculate not only about individuals (unless they test positive - which is rare) but about the true extent of the problem. The figures themselves are a kind of guesswork. We are looking for a smoking gun, and typically with a crime scene the evidence is varied and incomplete, and requires a judgment based on what is likely or probable, rather than what is known or certain.

But whether we think only a very small percentage of elite runners dope, or we think it is 90% of Olympians (as Victor Conte, formerly of Balco, claims), the problem is out there and all the indications are it is getting away from us.

My own view is that doping works, or athletes wouldn't choose to go down that path, and the authorities would not be concerned to stamp it out. It works for anybody, but not necessarily the same way or to the same extent. I also believe it works for altitude-trained athletes, such as Kenyans, or they wouldn't be using it in the apparent numbers they are. (More will be using it than those who are caught. And champions are being caught.)

Doping improves on what you start with. Jose Canseco, the American baseball player, said doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding, and an outstanding athlete invincible. (He doped and admitted to it in his autobiography). If doping couldn't improve an altitude-trained athlete then we would say Kenya doesn't have a doping problem - because doping doesn't help altitude athletes, and Kenyans live at altitude. I don't know many outside these boards that would maintain that. Certainly not the Kenyan authorities, who now appear concerned with catching the cheats.

So where does that leave us? Well, currently all elite performances will continue to have a question-mark over them, when there is such a wide disparity between the numbers of dopers who are caught (very few) and those who aren't. Testing needs to improve, along with the willingness of sports governance bodies to enforce it. It doesn't help when the body responsible for leading anti-doping appears to have lost the confidence of athletes.

That's funny! ? ?

dd sd d ds

casual obsever wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

In the UK there is a whereabouts system where for one hour every single day you have to say in advance where you will be to be available for testing.

In theory, yes. In practice, one may choose to not open the door to the tester.

Whaereve trevoe.

Never heard of false positives or false negatives?

SmartRunnr wrote:

Normally I agree with you 100%, but your example of a doper with 9 negative tests makes no sense. Dopers are being caught instantly!! Therefore they can never have a negative test.

rekrunner wrote:

Regarding your WADA statistics, you should be more careful not to confuse different measures:

- The WADA statistic of 1-2% is of samples that test positive, and not a ratio of athletes testing positive. Consider the doped athlete with 10 tests, and finally 1 sample tests positive, and how that impacts the ratio of samples testing positive versus a true doping prevalence. If he is in a pool with 9 other clean athletes, each with 10 results, the doping prevalence is 10%, while samples that tested positive is 1%.

rekrunner wrote:

The post was smart, but your response was dumb, actually failing to be on-topic.

The question posed by Armstronglivs was "how many are elite BECAUSE they have doped?"

I think you'll find this is a small number, limited to Russian women, and the odd exception like Lombard, who almost made it to the world stage.

I didn't talk about enhancing performance for elites -- theoretically this is always possible to some small degree.

In all your defenses of various anecdotes, you failed to address significant confounding factors. You need to do that to strengthen your arguments.

Results get annulled when anti-doping rules are violated.

WADA has not answered the question whether doping can cause you to become elite.

They also don't answer the question whether the rule violation benefitted the performance that is annulled.

I'm sure there are a significant number of sub-elites/lower-tier elites that have moved up the latter as a result from doping. Lombard is a good example you referenced going from sub-elite to national champion and Olympic qualifer. And there's Ramzi improving from 3:39 to 3:30 (~4%) in one year! His fastest time post-ban was 3:37, so I put him in a category of around of 3:37-3:38. Those times wouldn't qualify him for the Olympics or WC, but yet he goes on to win double-gold at Helsinki and Olympic gold at Beijing...some of champions are made of dope. Lol.

And yes, "results get annulled when anti-doping rules are violated." However, the ABP sanctions for hematological anomalies are unique as you don't have a positive for EPO or any other ESA, as the sanction is based soley on higher than normal Hgb demonstrated by the athlete per their passport (under the category of "Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method”).

And in these CAS hearings, once the standard defenses of altitude training, dehydration, illness, etc., are ruled out as the possible cause of the hematological anomalies, the athlete is sanctioned and medals, titles, times, etc. are annulled over the period of time of the anomalies. This is pretty significant considering there isn't a positive test result of any detected ESA. It's clear that higher than normal Hgb is performance enhancing or the performances over the period of the anomalies wouldn't be annulled. And as I alluded to earlier, world-renowned anti-doping expert, Dr. Yorck Olaf Schumacher, clearly stated in the Uragova CAS hearing that "high HGB values enhance sporting performance."

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

And as I alluded to earlier, world-renowned anti-doping expert, Dr. Yorck Olaf Schumacher, clearly stated in the Uragova CAS hearing that "high HGB values enhance sporting performance."

You mean the so-called expert. Clearly he has no idea what he's talking about, because rekrunner proved the opposite!

I've already explained what I think needs to happen to make these weak anecdotal arguments stronger. I would be prepared to accept the anecodotes of Lombard, Ramzi, Jeptoo, etc., but "not without addressing any likely significant confounders, not to mention details about which times are actually doped, and which are not, and the conditions and tactics specific to that time." After two tries (well probably more than a hundred tries), you have done nothing to address these weaknesses for any of your anecdotes. While you are content that "res ipsa loquitur" is sufficient, this ignores that the improvements can come from many factors, which must be identified, analyzed, and ruled out. There are various acceptable ways to do that, but ignoring their existence is not one of them. Your attempts to conclude from a doping positive that performance was improved by having doped are also completely misguided. Here we are in a thread about Kiptum's new world record, and the immediate mindless reflex from a small few is that this can ONLY have been achieved by doping, regardless of any real direct evidence. Here are your obstacles: - WADA bans a substance based on a "potential" to improve performance, leaving the question of whether any benefit actually occurred as a result of doping, on a case by case basis, unasked, unanswered, and unproven. Evidence of the presence or effect of banned doping or methods is enough to ban results, even if the annulled performances were significantly slower (e.g. rocket fuel Ramzi). - If we want to argue that Kiptum's WR can only be from EPO, it is not interesting to argue how much EPO benefits individuals before and after EPO, but rather how much the benefit from EPO compares to legal methods of training, such as hi-lo altitude training, which also raise Hct/Hgb, so that, lacking any real direct evidence of doping, we can rule out whether such a WR could have been achieved by legal methods without doping.

I'm not aware that Dr. Schumacher made any public statements that contradict his peer-reviewed statements. High HGB values can be achieved legally, by going to high altitude. For example, in Bolivia at 4000m: "The range of normal values was 45% to 61% for hematocrit and 13 to 21 g/dL for hemoglobin in the men and 41% to 56% for hematocrit and 12 to 19 g/dL for hemoglobin in the women."

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

And as I alluded to earlier, world-renowned anti-doping expert, Dr. Yorck Olaf Schumacher, clearly stated in the Uragova CAS hearing that "high HGB values enhance sporting performance."

You mean the so-called expert. Clearly he has no idea what he's talking about, because rekrunner proved the opposite![/quote]

Cryptic. What are you saying? Does that mean you accept his statement that "high HGB values enhance sporting performance."?

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Coevett wrote:

I think the reason he appeared to leave this place for a while recently was because his IT manager gave him a final warning. Now he's found himself unable to give up his addiction and is slinking back in to post his treatise over and over again. Hopefully his boss is still checking on these boards and will tear up his contract, possibly leaving him homeless and without an internet connection. Maybe I'll pass him in the street next time I'm in London and I'll throw a few coins into his begging bowl, to which he'll probably berate me for committing some Wikipedia listed logical fallacy for assuming he's homeless and in need...

That's funny! ? ?

lol Coevett talking to Coevett.

You are ridiculous.

rekrunner wrote:

- WADA bans a substance based on a "potential" to improve performance, leaving the question of whether any benefit actually occurred as a result of doping, on a case by case basis, unasked, unanswered, and unproven. Evidence of the presence or effect of banned doping or methods is enough to ban results, even if the annulled performances were significantly slower (e.g. rocket fuel Ramzi)

WADA bans a substance based on a premise that it only has "potential to improve performance?" Do you have any evidence from WADA to support this? (if I recall correctly, doesn't their site state somewhere that EPO improves performance in distance events - or something along those lines?)

Furthermore, didn't WADA double the ban on an EPO positive from 2 to 4 yrs? (sometime maybe around 2007 or 08?). Doubling the time frame of a sanction on a certain PED suggests it's more than just "potential" to improve performance, wouldn't it?

Do you support WADA's ban on EPO and sanctions for ABP hematological anomalies? If you do, then what's with your platform that 02-vector doping is ineffective, or marginally effective with elites? You can be very ambiguous with your position on this. At times it sounds like you don't support WADA's punitive action on EPO positives/ABP sanctions, but yet you have stated that you do. Or do you have a position that EPO/blood manipulation is ineffective for the most part with elites but should be banned nonetheless? (kind of a weird position but I've talked to other people who believe that).

sgjsyj wrote:

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

That's funny! ? ?

lol Coevett talking to Coevett.

You are ridiculous.

So when the boards are cheering these superhuman performances, that's all genuine, but commenters expressing scepticism can only be one person. That, too, is ridiculous.

I would be curious to know what you considered a likely doped performance, since no feat by any Kenyan seems to raise any red flags for you. Take Kiptum's run. If 58' doesn't do it for you, what time - by him - (or anyone?) - would? Sub 58? 57? If not 58', why not?

2:15 for sure.

sgjsyj wrote:

I think the reason he appeared to leave this place for a while recently was because his IT manager gave him a final warning. Now he's found himself unable to give up his addiction and is slinking back in to post his treatise over and over again. Hopefully his boss is still checking on these boards and will tear up his contract, possibly leaving him homeless and without an internet connection. Maybe I'll pass him in the street next time I'm in London and I'll throw a few coins into his begging bowl, to which he'll probably berate me for committing some Wikipedia listed logical fallacy for assuming he's homeless and in need...

That's funny! ? ?[/quote]

lol Coevett talking to Coevett.

You are ridiculous.[/quote]I'm not "Coevett"...."Barrel of Laughs" is one of several usernames that I use - too bad you're not very perceptive. ? But don't you think that's a funny post nonetheless? (unless of course you're rekrunner posting under a different username).

Truly mentally disturbed individuals, this pair.

Looks like I mangled the quotes, but what I was saying was in response to: "You mean the so-called expert. Clearly he has no idea what he's talking about, because rekrunner proved the opposite!", as I was falsely attributed to have proved the opposite of something: I'm saying: - I didn't call Schumacher a "so called expert", nor ever question his expertise. - I didn't prove "the opposite". - If high HGB values are the ultimate goal, really high values can be achieved without doping, for example, by going to Bolivia. None of these statements means I accepted or rejected Schumacher's statement. If you ask me now, I will say "sporting performance" is too vague, and the benefit could be positive, negative, or zero. The benefit varies with the sport -- even for different events within the sport; the current state of training of the athlete; and how high the HGB values are. For example, if the HGB values are low, after the second week of a grueling Tour de France, a blood transfusion will likely enhance the performance of the third week, not by providing a super-human performance, but by delaying a decay of the level of performance. But if the hematocrit is already high, like 65%, adding more HGB could have a detrimental effect on performance.

casual obsever wrote:

Cryptic. What are you saying? Does that mean you accept his statement that "high HGB values enhance sporting performance."?