Half Marathon WR holder Abraham Kiptum busted by Bio Passport!!!!!!!!

I'm fully aware of what I am saying. Sometimes I wonder if you are fully aware of what I am saying. I didn't say things like "MORE serious than many think", or "if it isn't necessary (to win), then it doesn't work" or " if it doesn't work then it can't really be a problem" or "we have nothing to really worry about". Putting aside the quite complex question of which doping "works", when doping "works", for which sports, and for whom, under which preconditions, there can be other problems, like being dangerous to the health of athletes, e.g. overdosing, thrombosis, heart-stopping, blood poisoning, shortening of lifespan, etc. I don't "discredit" research and expert opinions in order to argue against "doping is a problem". "Doping is a problem" is not a "get out of jail free card" or "carte blanche" to say whatever you want, including anyone who disagrees what whatever is said, must therefore support doping. Research lacking accepted best practices like control groups or blinding have problems that limit how we can interpret the conclusions.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if you are fully aware of what you are saying. Doping, in your view, is MORE serious than many think because - you say - it isn't necessary to dope in order to win, but athletes believe - erroneously, apparently - that it is necessary. What? If it isn't necessary, then it doesn't work - and if it doesn't work then it can't really be a problem, can it? Doping is effectively harmless. If your view is correct, we have nothing to really worry about. Let the athletes and their coaches play their funny little games, imagining these drug 'placebo's' are crucial to their success. Yet, strangely, you do worry about it. A lot. You spend much of your life trying to discredit research and expert opinion that says doping is a problem, because it does work.

It seems like you are suggesting that because the gold standard cannot be achieved, that whatever conclusions we have now must be considered strong, that we must not doubt the conclusions of studies with limitations, and that what knowledge we have today is the about the best we can achieve because it's hard to do better. There are ways to improve some of the recent EPO studies to have fewer limitations. For example, structuring the "Pitsiladis" studies on Scots and Kenyans, more like the 1997 Stray-Gundersen "Live high, train low" study, with a lead in phase, a sea-level training control phase, and a control group, (and incentivizing the participants to actually race the time-trials rather than tempo them) would lead to stronger conclusions, even if some limitations remain like not being done on elite athletes or not being completely blinded (e.g. how do you blind training at altitude?). We could also consider follow up phases to see if the observed performance gaps between "clean" control groups, and groups under intervention are maintained over several seasons. How do you assess "circumstantial evidence is overwhelming"? It looks rather arbitrary.

atrackandfieldfan wrote:

There seems to be an ongoing back-and-forth here with respect to the research about the efficacy of various doping methods and substances. For anybody demanding hardcore, airtight proof of the efficacy of drug X for increasing performance, it must be said that no statistically decent double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on elite runners/other sports with a sufficient n number will ever be performed, as there are way too many confounders and ethical issues involved. So yes, for those who seek to deny the efficacy of doping, you can point and say 'the perfect study was not done,' and you'd be correct. But realize that that is a cheap point, lacking in merit. The perfect evidence will never exist, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and that will have to do here.

rekrunner wrote:

And you are going on and on and on, clinging to some kind of semantic objections on how I phrased the contradiction.

Lol - that's your specialty, comrade.

I started reading this site around 2005, with a recommendation to read the amazing "Hadd" threads. I lurked for a while, and explored the richness of many long threads about training from the likes of Hadd, Canova, Lydiard, Daniels, Kellogg, and even old posts from Tinman. Some of the long classic threads seem to have dissappeared. I started posting about a year later, maybe late 2006 or 2007, mainly posting in threads about physiology, asking awkward questions to "wellnow", and Lydiard, asking awkward questions to Antonio about why modern training is better. I think someone found, or resurrected an old thread, where I was posting about EPO as long ago as 2011. My deeper interest in doping, and performance (casual obsever -- sit down and prepare yourself), probably started after reading an excellent and lengthy interview with Michael Ashenden in "nyvelocity" discussing the famous retests of Lance Armstrongs 1999 urine samples - around the time that Landis accused Lance of doping and forcing the team to dope. NOTE: I was on the side of Ashenden and the French Labs, and against Armstrong and the UCI.

Coevett wrote:

It would be interesting to look into when Casual Observer started posting here, and Rekrunner too.

Coevett wrote:

It would be interesting to look into when Casual Observer started posting here, and Rekrunner too.

Interesting? Then why don't you spend 20 seconds to google that?

Coevett wrote:

First of all, I'm not a paid troll, unlike Casual Observer and RekRunner is, so I spend most of my waking hours either working or trying to enjoy life. Secondly, what exactly am I supposed to be rebutting?

"athletics became worse than cycling with regards to blood-doping"

See also Ovett...

Not clear in this graph, but Tucker had a better one in his ABP series.

Tucker explained:

See also Michael Ashenden, SIAB Research Consortium:

"Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. "

"Retrospective analyses of databanks have revealed some of the cat-and-mouse nuances of the interplay between blood monitoring and athlete's responses. In the years immediately after the introduction of an enlarged blood testing programme by the International Ski Federation (FIS), the unexpected high mean [Hb] values encountered in 1997–1999 (i.e., 16.2 g/dL) declined closer to normal values (14.8 g/dL). However, in subsequent years, the [Hb] began to creep upwards again whilst reticulocyte levels fell, which the authors cautioned was likely a sign that skiers had adopted new strategies to manipulate their blood values (Morkeberg et al. 2009b). It is disconcerting to note that cycling, which also introduced blood monitoring during this period, reported a similar 'evolution' in blood values (Zorzoli 2005)."

Both, see above.

And no, we don't have any recent data - all of that is from leaks, thanks to the anti-transparency policies of both UCI and IAAF, who could easily report those data if they wanted to.

casual obsever wrote:

Not clear in this graph, but Tucker had a better one in his ABP series.

https://i2.wp.com/sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screen-shot-2011-03-20-at-7.18.png?resize=550%2C316&ssl=1

Tucker explained:

[quote]The graph shows the percentage of blood samples measured in professional cycling that had UNUSUAL reticulocyte percentages. Bear in mind that:

Interesting but this tells me that they have clearly moved from epo unless they have found a way stabilize reinfusioned blood with current blood parameters in some sort of harmonized way. It is likely they are doping on testosterone cream and painkillers/ tramadol. Perhaps selective use of gases.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Interesting but this tells me that they have clearly moved from epo unless they have found a way stabilize reinfusioned blood with current blood parameters in some sort of harmonized way.

Mostly away from EPO (aside from microdosing) because of the glowing, but regarding blood transfusions, see again Ashenden:

"Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. "

10% Hb mass increase is still safe within the ABP thresholds, but of course off-score jumps of 30% or more a la Radcliffe and Ramzi would get flagged now, likely resulting in bans.

Haha, yes, I know, you treat the evidence completely differently when it comes to cycling:

Yet the facts (see previous page):

You compare cycling and running like Coevett compares colored and white runners:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Interesting but this tells me that they have clearly moved from epo unless they have found a way stabilize reinfusioned blood with current blood parameters in some sort of harmonized way. It is likely they are doping on testosterone cream and painkillers/ tramadol. Perhaps selective use of gases.

They may be using HIFs such as FG4592 (aka/"Oxygen in a pill"). FG4592 is an oral compound that stimulates the natural production of EPO (similar to the effects of altitude training) and doesn't cause any profound alterations of the ABP. I'm sure dopers would probably figure out glow times (or if glowing OOC take a whereabouts hit instead of giving a sample), and the idea of taking something orally rather than injections is probably enticing. There's been one or two positive cases in cycling but none in athletics that I'm aware of.

Slipprier than a bar of soap. Nowhere do you concede that doping is a concern first and foremost because it confers unfair advantage. If it doesn't confer advantage then it isn't doping. If a substance is banned by WADA it is because it is a stimulant that boosts performance, quite apart from the risk to health. But debating the percentage of gain, while relevant, and subject to conditions of use, is not as important as the fact that a banned substance is believed to enable gains that aren't arrived at naturally. But the latter point is what you appear reluctant to accept.. At the very least, you seem to be saying the benefits of doping in improving performance are overrated. If that is your view then doping isn't the problem that many think it is, and the only real objection to it could be endangerment to health.

So I wonder what could the context of this cherry-picked quote be? First I started with "In the 1990's and 2000's ...". The Sunday Times does not tell us how these sports compare in the 1990s. What do you think is treated differently here? This quote was implying that since we know that all nations in cycling used EPO, I would assume that the same non-African nations used EPO in running too -- i.e. I'm treating cycling and running the same, assuming all participating nations used EPO. Then I expressed my well known expectation that, if "PEDs" are the reason for running success, large performance gains should have been universal, across all nations, to match the assumed EPO use, rather than focused on East African nations: "IF PEDs were the foundation of East African success, it's incredible (i.e. not credible) to me that a similar comparable level of success has not been successfully replicated, at least by a few runners, for decades, outside of East Africa (and to a lesser extent North Africa), except by East Africans (and North Africans) who emigrated."

Why should I concede that? Here's what WADA says can cause a substance to be banned: "The WADA Prohibited List may include any substance and methods that satisfy any two of the following three criteria: 1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance; 2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete; 3) It violates the spirit of sport (this definition is outlined in the Code)." Enhancing performance is one consideration, but not a necessary one. WADA can decide a substance merely "has the potential to enhance", in order to ban it -- how's that for slippery? WADA can decide to ban a performance neutral substance, if it is a health risk, and against the spirit. Or a substance may be proven to significantly enhance performance, but if it is not determined to be a health risk, or against the spirit, WADA might not decide to ban it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Slipprier than a bar of soap. Nowhere do you concede that doping is a concern first and foremost because it confers unfair advantage. If it doesn't confer advantage then it isn't doping. If a substance is banned by WADA it is because it is a stimulant that boosts performance, quite apart from the risk to health. But debating the percentage of gain, while relevant, and subject to conditions of use, is not as important as the fact that a banned substance is believed to enable gains that aren't arrived at naturally. But the latter point is what you appear reluctant to accept.. At the very least, you seem to be saying the benefits of doping in improving performance are overrated. If that is your view then doping isn't the problem that many think it is, and the only real objection to it could be endangerment to health.

rekrunner wrote:

This quote was implying that since we know that all nations in cycling used EPO, I would assume that the same non-African nations used EPO in running too -- i.e. I'm treating cycling and running the same, assuming all participating nations used EPO. .

See, this is where you and Casual Observerski are making massive assumptions (perhaps fearing being 'racist').

Cycling has been a professional team sport since the late 19th century. Athletics remained a largely individual amateur sport up the late 20th century. It's quite plausible to believe there was a different ethos in the two sports (that might even still exist in Europe and the USA etc), and there is some evidence for that as well, given that cyclists have been dropping dead for decades due to peds, and tend to have a much higher rate of early deaths even in the amateur ranks than Olympic athletes.

You and others here assume that Lance Armstrong 'proves' that Nick Willis is doping. I believe Asbel Kiprop getting busted proves that Asbel Kiprop is doping. I believe that bust after bust in Kenya, despite still abysmal testing standards, proves that doping in East Africa is a problem.

Africans suddenly started dominating distance running almost exactly at the time EPO becomes available, and times in African countries (with the exception of events on the road where testing is even more infrequent) have plunged almost exactly in line with the improvement in testing for EPO.

It's obvious to the lay person why this is. Athletes in corrupt Third World countries took advantage of EPO on a much bigger scale than in the West. Any idiot can see this.Of course, both RekRunner and Casual Observski think this is a racist claim, despite both ostensibly having completely opposing views on doping, and both being apparently experts in the subject who devote hours each day to discussing it.

Isn't "-ski" Polish? It is mildly curious that you think I'm making a bigger assumption about non-Africans doping. In addition to the reputations of countries like Spain and Russia, one only need peruse annual lists of currently banned athletes to see that doping does occur in non-African countries. I think Nick Willis is clean, and that Lance Armstrong only proves Lance Armstrong. I've asked you before if you can be more precise about what you mean by "almost exactly". Over the course of these threads, I was told 1990 was too late (I had to go back at least to 1987) to assume EPO was not yet being used, yet the East African times on the track only started to plummet around 1993 and later. After you sort that out, then you can explain the incredible depth of East African dominance as early as the 1981 World Cross Country Championships, with Ethiopian Mohammed Kedir sandwiched between Craig Virgin and Fernando Mamede. With 6 men counting, Ethiopia beat a strong USA team, and Kenya took third, in a competition with 27 nations in total. Ethiopia's #7 placed 32nd overall.

rekrunner wrote:

Isn't "-ski" Polish?

Tovarish Coevettski ne govori po ruski.

And so you consistently seek to minimise either the incidence of doping or its effects in enhancing performance. Your objection appears mainly to the health consequences. Which means you don't really think doping is cheating or that many are doping.

What I sought was to correct your statement "If a substance is banned by WADA it is because it is a stimulant that boosts performance", by showing you WADA's published criteria. I didn't actually raise any objections, or indicate which of the three points is a main concern. In all cases, 2 out 3 criteria must apply. I think the incidence of doping is high, because, to borrow WADA's words, many athletes/coaches/managers believe in the "potential to enhance ... sport performance" a belief which is based on incomplete knowledge.

Armstronglivs wrote:

And so you consistently seek to minimise either the incidence of doping or its effects in enhancing performance. Your objection appears mainly to the health consequences. Which means you don't really think doping is cheating or that many are doping.