Clemence Calvin - who allegedly refused a doping test last month - sets new French NR of 2:23:41 in Paris

There's no evidence that Elliott and Willis wee clean and there's no evidence that Kiprop doped before he got caught?

WTF?

So we need to assume that white athletes are dirty because there is no 'evidence' they are clean, and we need to assume that Kenyan athletes are clean even when there is evidence they doped.

O.(k.

Coevett wrote:

There's no evidence that Elliott and Willis wee clean and there's no evidence that Kiprop doped before he got caught?

WTF?

Correct, and you know it.

That does not mean we have to assume the opposite...

Coevett wrote:

So we need to assume that white athletes are dirty because there is no 'evidence' they are clean, and we need to assume that Kenyan athletes are clean even when there is evidence they doped.

Bingo. You have finally identified how absurd a statement like that is.

Now just invert it and you may realize why so many people have a problem with so many of your posts.

Bingo. Here it's coming down to:

Coevett thinks that the white runners are clean, and the black ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

El K thinks that the black runners are clean, and the white ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

Rekrunner thinks that the white and the black runners are clean (maybe with a few exceptions).

Cynics think that everyone dopes.

The evidence suggests that 30 - 60% dope.

There's no scientific promise of "3-4 minutes advantage" -- it's been suggested by some experts of up to 3%. Many factors are involved such as dosage (microdosing vs therapeutic doses) and amount infused (transfusions), individual variation, working around doping controls and the ABP, or lack thereof in some countries, used in combination with other PEDs, injuries (which EPO and blood doping doesn't prevent), different methods (see Erfurt doping case: "Operation Aderlass"). As much as you research this I'm surprised you don't understand it -- one-size-doesn't-fit-all.

On the Russian women: 6 running faster than the pre-90's average is noteworthy (when were the Russian women any good at the marathon pre-90s? ?). Their top-5 average is ~1.4% faster over the pre-90s. On one individual basis though, Shobukhova ran ~3.2% faster (your girl ran a whopping ~5.5% faster than the pre-90's average. Lol).

So, Russian doesn't have as many girls running faster the the pre-90's average than Japan - so what is that supposed to mean? I say how do you know if there isn't any doping going on there also? Are you basing it on the premise that if a nation doesn't have any athletes testing positive or blowing their passports they must clean? I don't follow Japanese athletics much -- any experts here that can shed some light on the Japanese?

And with Kenya: You're comparing Russian to a nation that produces fast runners a dime a dozen. Plus there appears to also be a doping problem with their marathoners (who would have thought). Russia is probably just trying to level the playing field with East Africans in Olympic & WC level competition (can't imagine why).

And where did you get idea that the Chinese were taking only "steroids and male hormones?" Yingjie was, in fact, popped for Androsterone. However, 2:22 marathoner Wang Jiali served a ban for an ABP hematological anomalies case and followed that up with an EPO positive last year (a true addiction to O2-vector doping. Lol). She was hit with an 8-year suspension and her coach received a lifetime ban. So much for Tokyo. Lol. So, maybe a combo of 02-vector doping & androgens.

The Russian women distance runners, particularly the marathoners, have backed off the androgens post-90s. The improved testing has discouraged much smaller amounts or none at all compared to the roided Soviet days. There's been a few hits for steroids with their middle-distance runners on some re-tests from Beijing & London. There's also been very few EPO positives. Their biggest downfall has been the gigantic number of ABP hematological anomalies cases resulting in sanctions. They are infamously the world leaders in ABP sanctions with over 60 now. Since they're blowing through their ABP thresholds with high Off-scores, that would indicate high Hgb & low Ret% from either transfusions or the off-phase of recent high EPO usage (though they're not glowing). See for yourself on the biological passport sanction list - CAS hearings are available for some of the cases.

Sorry but we weren't talking about current world records, but non-African all time bests (the ones I said moved by so little). "casual obsever" said 1968 -- if my quick calculations are correct, using times from Clarke and Clayton before 1968, is still around 1.5% - 1.9% for those events. So, yes we would have to go back even further.

might or might not wrote:

Might find 3%? Lol. Pre-1960 - apparently before blood-doping became standard, the 10000 m world record was 28:30. That's over 8% slower than the current record.

5000: 13:35, almost 8% slower than currently.

Marathon: 2:15:17, 11% slower than currently.

Raddison wrote:

Coevett wrote:

So we need to assume that white athletes are dirty because there is no 'evidence' they are clean, and we need to assume that Kenyan athletes are clean even when there is evidence they doped.

Bingo. You have finally identified how absurd a statement like that is.

Now just invert it and you may realize why so many people have a problem with so many of your posts.

But a lot of people don't have problems with my posts. A small handful of dopers and likely paid shills who use multiple handles do - like you. When you reply to yourself at least avoid using identical language like 'bingo', you doping apologist imbecile.

Pretty sure Rekrunner and Casual Observer are a double act working for some sel-interested group connected to doping. Every single thread on doping gets hijacked by them and turned into an interminable statistical discussion between on the one hand,somebody who believes doping doesn't matter because peds don't work, and on the other somebody who claims that doping doesn't matter because everybody dopes.

Your "one size doesn't fit all" thing doesn't make sense. By my choosing the best times, over large populations, over several decades, all these individual variations and other factors that would cause slow times don't matter, because I'm only picking the fastest times from the whole group. Unless these variations and variable factors were in fact not so variable, and were always bad for the entire population, over the whole period, which is not impossible, but seems unlikely. From my previous longish post, if we picked one new thing, I think the Russian and Japanese comparison is highly significant. We know from many sources that Russia was doping a lot, with high doses, and going to great lengths to hide doping, doctor tests, replace or destroy samples, bribe the IAAF, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, nobody talks about the Japanese doping. As much as Russia was doping, they did not have enough depth of quality (i.e. top-5 over 3 decades) to match the Japanese at the top, in terms of both quality and quantity.

well said sir wrote:

Bingo. Here it's coming down to:

Coevett thinks that the white runners are clean, and the black ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

El K thinks that the black runners are clean, and the white ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

Rekrunner thinks that the white and the black runners are clean (maybe with a few exceptions).

Cynics think that everyone dopes.

The evidence suggests that 30 - 60% dope.

Bingo. Again a false equivalence between my arguments and the buffon El K's . El K thinks white runners dope because Kenyan runners are getting popped. I think Kenyan runners dope because Kenyan runners are getting popped. Not to mention the lack of testing and tea money etc.

I compared runners who may or may not have blood-doped and used steroids and amphetamines and whatnot with runners who may or may not have done that and EPO, but I didn't see that as a problem. Every conclusion, speculation, hypothesis, opinion needs to be understood with the uncertainty that, with very few exceptions, we do not know who doped, or how much that mattered. I think I never denied that. Note my measured progress for non-African men was 0.3% (for 1500m) to 0.8%.

ass u me wrote:

Likewise that's rekrunner's problem too. He compares runners who may or may not have blood-doped and used steroids and amphetamines and whatnot with runners who may or may not have done that and EPO. From the improvements of 1-2% (men, more for the women) based on the data he handpicked, he then concludes that his opinion that drugs don't work is accurate,

Coevett wrote:

well said sir wrote:

Bingo. Here it's coming down to:

Coevett thinks that the white runners are clean, and the black ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

El K thinks that the black runners are clean, and the white ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

Rekrunner thinks that the white and the black runners are clean (maybe with a few exceptions).

Cynics think that everyone dopes.

The evidence suggests that 30 - 60% dope.

Bingo. Again a false equivalence between my arguments and the buffon El K's . El K thinks white runners dope because Kenyan runners are getting popped. I think Kenyan runners dope because Kenyan runners are getting popped. Not to mention the lack of testing and tea money etc.

And what's wrong if someone thinks some white runners dope even though they're not getting popped like the Kenyans are? Are you familiar with the recent blood doping ring out of Erfurt? (aka/"Operation Aderlass"). Those are all white athletes involved and no one from that doping club ever tested positive or had suspicious passports flagged. And if wasn't for a disgruntled athlete whistblowing on the operation it would be business as usual.

Let's be fair about this wrote:

And what's wrong if someone thinks some white runners dope even though they're not getting popped like the Kenyans are? Are you familiar with the recent blood doping ring out of Erfurt? (aka/"Operation Aderlass"). Those are all white athletes involved and no one from that doping club ever tested positive or had suspicious passports flagged. And if wasn't for a disgruntled athlete whistblowing on the operation it would be business as usual.

Well I'd say that somebody who thinks a doping ring in cycling in Europe proves that European runners are doping as much as Kenyan runners, who are getting busted despite absymal doping testing standards, that you are either very poor at reasoning skills or you have a doping aplogist agenda.

Let's be fair about this wrote:

Bingo. Here it's coming down to:

Coevett thinks that the white runners are clean, and the black ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

El K thinks that the black runners are clean, and the white ones cheat (maybe with a few exceptions).

Rekrunner thinks that the white and the black runners are clean (maybe with a few exceptions).

Cynics think that everyone dopes.

The evidence suggests that 30 - 60% dope.

Bingo mate. Coevett's just a racist 25 minute Parkrunner who doesn't know anything about elite athletics. Don't forget the Sunday pub Rugby team in New Zealand that had a couple of players arrested for selling steroids. The silence from Coevett on that is deafening. How can Coevett the racist think that Nick Willis is clean after that? There's no proof that Nick Willis hasn't been taking EPO since he was in his mother's womb, and there's no proof that Kiprop was doping for more than 24 hours before the test he failed. Well said mate. Cogito ergo sum, Kiprop is as innocent as Willis, and anyone like Coevett who denies this is just a racist troll.

In 2011, the IAAF wrote a paper, limited to blood doping, with doping estimates (samples) broken down by men, women, distance, and non-distance events. Also in the same year, there were two doping surveys (covering all forms of doping, and not just blood doping), one at a World athletics event, and one at a Pan Arab multi-games event. What I think about how many runners (black, brown, white, red, yellow, whatever) are clean, for the respective participants, doping scope, and events, are guided by these papers.

well said sir wrote:

Rekrunner thinks that the white and the black runners are clean (maybe with a few exceptions).

...

The evidence suggests that 30 - 60% dope.

Coevett wrote:

Well I'd say that somebody who thinks a doping ring in cycling in Europe proves that European runners are doping as much as Kenyan runners, who are getting busted despite absymal doping testing standards, that you are either very poor at reasoning skills or you have a doping aplogist agenda.

Operation Aderlass was not about cyclists, try again.

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry but we weren't talking about current world records, but non-African all time bests (the ones I said moved by so little).

"casual obsever" said 1968 -- if my quick calculations are correct, using times from Clarke and Clayton before 1968, is still around 1.5% - 1.9% for those events.

Did (s)he?

[quote]casual obsever wrote:

If you were to take a pre-blood-doping era, like up to 1960 or maybe even 1968, and compare it to the blood-doping era, then everything would look very different.

non-African pre 1960 vs. post:

28:30 vs. 26:44 --> 6.5% slower.

2:15 vs. 2:05 post --> 8% slower.

A lot more than your "might" 3%.

Are you saying that there was a huge jump in performance from 1959 to 1967, while blood-doping became increasingly popular? Interesting observation.

rekrunner wrote:

I compared runners who may or may not have blood-doped and used steroids and amphetamines and whatnot with runners who may or may not have done that and EPO, but I didn't see that as a problem. Every conclusion, speculation, hypothesis, opinion needs to be understood with the uncertainty that, with very few exceptions, we do not know who doped, or how much that mattered. I think I never denied that. Note my measured progress for non-African men was 0.3% (for 1500m) to 0.8%.

But how can you then conclude that blood-doping helps less than 3%?

That would only be a valid assumption if you postulate that blood doping for non-African men went from nonexistent pre 1990 to everywhere post 1990. If blood-doping remained constant (whether high or low), then your 0.3 - 0.8% say nothing about the efficiency of blood-doping.