Julien Wanders' last 'special training block' before Stockholm DL. 100% PR shape

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Anyway this is not optimal training seen to the training doctrine "enough pressure - enough recovery = supercompensation" and according to scientific research the need of minimum rest time between hard fast workouts.

How TF do you know? And you are full of it saying that there is no scientific backing for this.

Marco Jäger wrote:

Julien keeps surprising me. Before Rak i assessed his training and predicted 59:30, he ran 59:13. This time i will go and say 27:15 but he might surprise me again...he's crazy.

It looks like he surprised you in a negative way this time. Looks like he left his best power at the training sessions running 27:44 (Chelimo PB 27:43) . The important factor enough RECOVERY is overlooked by many. Rhonex won in splendid isolation 26:50 ......Congrats to him!

So it looks like Wanders finished sixth at Stockholm in 27:44.

Tapered his PEDs too early?

What are the odds Rhonex will be listed by the AIU some day?

Well, there wasn't close to the volume in Cherono's workouts above as in Wanders' alleged workouts. Wanders did pr by 24 seconds on a slow day where a sub 13 guy in Chelimo only ran a second faster than Wanders. Rhonex Kipruto ran 26:50, so he is capable of a lot faster and Wanders is just not that good on the track right now but this performance in the wind and bad pacing was better than it seems. My guess is that Wanders was over-tired by workouts like that and still needs more preparation on the track to be ready for track races.

Banana Bread wrote: Don't forget Switzerland and Norway are outside the EU.

That's complete and utter bollocks. A tester walks into Switzerland and Norway legally with zero time overhead (no border, no customs) because the countries are just short of being in the EU. Look up Schengen and EEA.

Renato Canova wrote:

RITA JEPTOO :

a) She was positive two weeks before winning Chicago 2014. This is a FACT.

b) After this, she was banned for "supposed" irregularities in the BP before Boston, because it was not ethic to consider a doper as winner of the jackpot. IF THERE WAS NOT THE POSITIVE TEST BEFORE CHICAGO, THE FLUCTUATIONS IN HER BP NEVER COULD PRODUCE A VERDICT OF BAN, only some suspicion (like the list of the British newspaper).

c) Because of the FACT she was doped in September 2014, the most part of readers think she was doped also 3 or 5 or 7 years before (when already was able running under 2:20). THIS IS NOT A FACT, BUT A SUPPOSITION.

It wasn't supposed that she had "irregularities" from her Boston ABP data - it was a FACT:

(CAS 2015/A/3979)

Let's look at a couple of the findings:

Paragraph 49. d) The ABP finding:

Six ABP samples were collected from April 11, 2012 & October 10, 2014. The sample (#4) collected on April 17, 2014 (4 days before Boston) were "compatible with exogenous erythropoietic stimulation . Other pathological conditions...are quite unlikely."

(2) Multiple intentional use of EPO on other occasions.

Paragraph 151:

"The values obtained from the athlete's ABP sample exceeded the upper and lower limits expected for the athlete. The likelyhood of the athlete having such high Hgb and RET% sequences (absent any doping) was only 1 in 1000."

Note her RET% was 2.5%!

Also, paragraph 134:

"(m) Accordingly, she concealed receiving rEPO injections in both April 2014 and in September/October 2014."

Do you realize an athlete can be banned for hematological anomalies without ever having a positive drug test?

Given that Rhonex is with Adidas and Brother Colm, are you implying that they are doping this kid? Do you think Brother Colm is there firing in the EPO?

Yes, Canova has a huge problem with this truth. Every couple of months, he starts pretending that Rita was clean in Boston 2014.

I repeat again : if Rita was not doped in September 2014, before Chicago, she NEVER could be banned for irregularities in the BP.

The irregularities, alone, were not enough proof for showing doped, and that's the reason because, IN SPITE OF THE SAMPLE COLLECTED ON 14 APRIL 2014 (4 days before Boston), THERE WAS NO SANCTION BEFORE FINDING THE SUBSTANCE IN HER URINE.

This means that WADA didn't have a REAL proof of doping, till when the substance was discovered in her body.

For the reasons I already explained several times (and I agree about the final statement of WADA), that IT WAS NOT ETHIC TO GIVE THE JACKPOT OF HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO SOME ATHLETE ALREADY BANNED FOR DOPING, in "retroactive" way it was a MUST to find some reason that could justify the ban before Boston, too,

I repeat again : I agree with the sanction, under ethic point of view. But, if Rita was not caught for EPO before Chicago, SHE NEVER HAD TO BE BANNED LOOKING AT HER BP, looking at the evolution of her OOC tests.

Subway Surfers wrote:

What are the odds Rhonex will be listed by the AIU some day?

The odds Rhonex will be listed by the AIU some day = the odds you are a turd.

Jason K wrote:

i got banned wrote:

got to love how this guy claims to have way more knowledge about EPO but claims he has never f*cked around with EPO than the guys who f*ck around with EPO on the regular....classic, only on lets run do people blindly follow and believe the fakes and liars

one last time renato, how is it you claim to have SOOOO much info and knowledge on EPO yet you say you have and never will have anything to do with EPO? kinda amazing that you can claim your a guru on something you never experiment with right? lolz

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

you must be really bored...get a girl bro

Chad is married. But he is mentally challenged.

Chad's a good dude. He offers some good insight on the doping front.

Yep. Renato sure knows a lot about EPO. Whenever he talks about it, it's sorta "I've never done it, but if I did, here's how I'd have done it".

Bottom line is that Renato's athletes never got caught... I think I know why.

htrberh wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

What are the odds Rhonex will be listed by the AIU some day?

The odds Rhonex will be listed by the AIU some day = the odds you are a turd.

Chance I'll bump this when that day comes = very highly.

Priceless.

Mastered Card moments wrote:

htrberh wrote:

The odds Rhonex will be listed by the AIU some day = the odds you are a turd.

Chance I'll bump this when that day comes = very highly.

Priceless.

That will be a nice epitaph on your tombstone (many, many years from now, we all hope):

"He lived a glorious life waiting for Rhonex to be listed by the AIU. Alas, it was a fruitless wait. But he was a good man and LRC troll anyway."