Finally! Abraham Kiptum gest banned!

Now his results from 13 October 2018 to 26 April 2019 are DQ. That means that his Valencia 2018 HM result doesn't count

Those dastardly Brits taking away our records. Hopefully they don't catch our latest HM WR holder Kamworor.

Here's the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal - interesting case with an altitude native:

99.99% specificity level (1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped) for extremely high Hgb (20.3) and Off-score (148.30) taken a few weeks before the *world-record* at the Valencia Half Marathon on 28 October 2018, and high Hgb (18.9) with low RET% (0.57) and very high Off-score (143.70) taken 3 days after Valencia.

Expert Panel is said to have ruled out the effects of altitude in contributing to the high HGB values.

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/191105-IAAF-v-Kiptum-Decision.pdf

.

Disgraceful. He can go.

Quite interesting. Aside from the fact that it took them half a year to provisionally ban this cheat, did you notice the plots in the decision?

Since he kept his Hb above 18 (!) all the time, only his first was flagged by the generous software. Just imagine: if he wouldn't have opened the door to that tester, he would still be doping and winning. That's how stupid this system is.

casual obsever wrote:

Quite interesting. Aside from the fact that it took them half a year to provisionally ban this cheat, did you notice the plots in the decision?

Since he kept his Hb above 18 (!) all the time, only his first was flagged by the generous software. Just imagine: if he wouldn't have opened the door to that tester, he would still be doping and winning. That's how stupid this system is.

How stupid of him was it to actually agree to be tested? Meanwhile Coleman is world champion

He'd have been nabbed anyway. He was in the pool for only a short time.

Catching Kenyan cheats is like cutting off the heads of hydra - two new cheaters pop up for every one popped.

Couldn't he use the Paula Radliffe excu.... sorry explanations of "dehydration due to hot weather in Kenya", "antibiotics", "training at altitude", "badly calibrated lab equipment" etc?

The IAAF could also produce some sort of whitewash report to save Kiptum and protect the sport from the cheats.

24. The Expert Panel examined the Athlete’s ABP (which was anonymised and identified by the code “BP24DMR1”)

This is "anonymized" only in name only. Indeed, in #26 they know from Where-Abouts that it's a Kenyan residing at 2300m altitude, in #30 they knew he competed in Valencia, in #31 they knew he competed in Abu Dhabi... so how many candidates does that leave??

#55. Mr Simon McCann (instructed by Mr Simon Eastwood) appeared for the Athlete pro bono, for which the Tribunal expresses its appreciation.

Yes, the Tribunal is appreciative that this allows them to pretend it was a fair justice by having the accused "represented" by someone. Guess what, he's from the UK, fits in well with all the other Western CAS orientation.

Notable Cases

International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v VG (2019)

Representing a track athlete faced with a charge of manipulation of his race results. The case continues

International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v IK (2019)

Representing a Greek athlete faced with an anti-doping charge. The case continues

International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v AK (2019)

Representing a Kenyan long-distance runner in a blood-doping case

The game is given away in footnote 14 :

73. The Athlete has also raised an issue with the validity of the analysis given what he has previously stated were anomalies with the machines used for testing and the storage temperature of Sample 1 (‘’the Athlete’s subsidiary argument’’).

[14] The argument was not pursued by the Athlete’s counsel, but also not explicitly withdrawn.[/quote]

Why wasn't it pursued?? Perhaps because it wasn't the "right" thing to do from a pro bono lawyer working for the system, rather than the athlete?

Lesson to be Learned: if you are an Elite Athlete, don't be a blood donor to a sick friend and/or pregnant sister.

In the Doping Control Form for the Sample collected on 13 October 2018, the Athlete remarked that he had given a blood transfusion of 1 pint to a sick friend in the hospital “10 days ago”. In the Doping Control Form for the Sample collected from the Athlete on 31 October 2018, the Athlete however indicated that he had donated blood “around three months ago” and that it had been “around August”, without identifying the donee of the transfusion. During the hearing, when confronted with the inconsistency of these declarations, the Athlete testified that the reference to “10 days ago” was correct and that he had donated blood to his sister who was pregnant at the time. The Tribunal finds that these inconsistent declarations cannot be squared with each other and doubts that a sister would be described merely as a friend in any language.

And if you do, make sure they have records. The Athlete produced, despite requests, no documentation to corroborate his claim, and his explanation that the Kabsabet County Hospital was too short staffed on his visits to assist him was unconvincing.

Subway Surfers wrote:

How stupid of him was it to actually agree to be tested? Meanwhile Coleman is world champion

+1

Rookie mistake, what can you do.

But Hgb > 20, Hct well above 60%: so much for the theory that the blood gets to viscous to run fast!

Are you suggesting the ABP didn't work out of generosity, or it worked by luck? I imagine if he evaded the first sample, by "not opening the door", the second sample would have been flagged due to high Hgb. Or the third, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh. All of the samples, except the 5th would have been flagged by Off-Score too. Not opening the door three times would also be an automatic violation. The ABP isn't perfect, but it's smarter than you suggest. According to the report, the Adaptive Model flagged the very first point with both Hgb and Off-Score exceeding 99.99% specificity. According to Zorzoli 2011, exceeding 99% for one parameter is enough to trigger expert review. It looks like it not only worked, but the first sample was a red flag that triggered an intense targeting resulting in 7 samples collected within 2 1/2 months. That seems like a lot from someone that was previously a "no-name". To make it more sensitive, the Adaptive Model can flag abnormal samples in several ways. The Model can flag violations of the thresholds not only from various parameters in a single sample (indicated by the red lines), but also from a statistical assessment of these parameters over the complete sequence (Zorzoli 2011).

casual obsever wrote:

Quite interesting. Aside from the fact that it took them half a year to provisionally ban this cheat, did you notice the plots in the decision?

Since he kept his Hb above 18 (!) all the time, only his first was flagged by the generous software. Just imagine: if he wouldn't have opened the door to that tester, he would still be doping and winning. That's how stupid this system is.

casual obsever wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

How stupid of him was it to actually agree to be tested? Meanwhile Coleman is world champion

+1

Rookie mistake, what can you do.

But Hgb > 20, Hct well above 60%: so much for the theory that the blood gets to viscous to run fast!

No kidding - and as the expert panel noted all levels are "supraphysiological hemoglobin mass" as the result of doping. The huge 61% drop in RET% (1.25/0.48) from Dec 2 to Dec 9 (2018) while maintaining elevated Hgb (18.4/18.7) is classic off-phase use of an ESA.

Kiptum ran 2:04:16 at the Abu Dhabi marathon on Dec 7 where he finished 2nd to Kipserem by a few seconds (the course was supposedly 200m short but should still be around 2:05).

In reference to his very high Off-scores the expert panel noted:

"The probability of a male athlete recording an OFFscore of 145, even in the

worst case at altitude, is less than 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 99.99% specificity)"

Many of these explanations only work before 2009, before processes were standardized that reduced variability making the ABP feasible as a reliable measurement tool. Note that "dehydration due to hot weather" is not a very accurate or complete explanation. The 2-hour rule, waiting 2 hours post-exercise before taking blood, is required to avoid measurement distortion from "hemoconcentration", or "hypovolemia", induced by prolonged intense physical activity, such as a 1 -hour run at 90% VO2max intensity, even at cooler temperatures. The "Wikipedia" page for "hypovolemia" includes this warning: "Hypovolemia refers to the loss of extracellular fluid and should not be confused with dehydration."

doping watcher wrote:

Couldn't he use the Paula Radliffe excu.... sorry explanations of "dehydration due to hot weather in Kenya", "antibiotics", "training at altitude", "badly calibrated lab equipment" etc?

The IAAF could also produce some sort of whitewash report to save Kiptum and protect the sport from the cheats.

[/quote]

Yet the IAAF used pre 2009 data as evidence for establishing length of sanctions:

Last December, the IAAF stated that: “When they are available, the IAAF has used the blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping”.

Quote from the "so-called" doping "experts" Ashenden and Parisotto:

"In our opinion, if the pre-2009 data are considered sufficiently reliable to extend a sanction, then they are also sufficiently reliable to undertake our analyses."

Yes this happens so often like with Lance Armstrong in the 2009 Tour de France. A shame the UCI threw his explanations under the bus ...

1) I 100% believe the a hospital in Kenya might not have records of him having given a transfusion.

2) I 'm shocked if he didn't actually give a transfusion that he wouldn't be able to bribe a doctor or someone to say he did.

3) I'd be shocked if a distance athelte was given blood - at least in the US. If you need a blood transfusion in Kenya, do you have to give it a relative as there are no blood banks?

All of those thoughts are from just reading this thread. I haven't actually read the decision.

casual obsever wrote:

Quite interesting. Aside from the fact that it took them half a year to provisionally ban this cheat, did you notice the plots in the decision?

Since he kept his Hb above 18 (!) all the time, only his first was flagged by the generous software. Just imagine: if he wouldn't have opened the door to that tester, he would still be doping and winning. That's how stupid this system is.

+1

Kiptum was caught because got careless. Since the ABP has an accepted range wide so wide that you could drive a truck through it, it’s easy to see how so many dopers can slip through the cracks.