Rupp's 10,000 AR (26:44.36) is underappreciated; pre-2007 performances were almost certainly boosted by EPO

Rupp is the greatest!

Armstrong was tested at around half of his competitions and on average he only had 2 OOC tests per year, which was pretty much the same for Marion Jones. Rupp was tested at every competition and usually had 2 OOC tests a month.

Plus testing now is WAY more advanced than it was back then. Not to mention those 2 athletes were the face of their sport and the governing bodies would have worked really hard to cover up a doping scandal.

casual obsever wrote:

tin can man wrote:

On average Rupp takes a drug test every 2 weeks. If he was on anything, he would have been caught.

I disagree, strongly.

Don't forget that USADA couldn't catch Armstrong during his active years either. Only after his retirement, they got him thanks to the feds and witnesses, not with positive tests.

Rupp is drug tested significantly more than his competitors, especially his East African competitors. He is objectively MORE CLEAN than others because he's been tested more and hasn't failed once.

You say there's no way to know if Rupp is actually clean, but the same also goes for his competitors.Under your own logic you can't put an asterisk over all of Rupp's performances without even more asterisks on the performances of his competitors.

tin can man wrote:

You say there's no way to know if Rupp is actually clean, but the same also goes for his competitors.Under your own logic you can't put an asterisk over all of Rupp's performances without even more asterisks on the performances of his competitors.

Not quite the same. Rupp was flagged as likely (blood)doping by the IAAF, had suspiciously elevated testo levels according to USADA, used most likely a forbidden method according to USADA, used testosterone medication as teenager, and was coached for decades by a now banned drug cheat coach.

Contrast that to the faster 10,000 m runners mentioned here: none of them had that many red flags, but yes, they did get tested less often.

Bekele for example gets a smaller asterisk, so to speak: fastest during EPO hey days, Hermens, poor OOC testing.

In conclusion, from a neutral perspective: Rupp is a lot more suspicious than Bekele and the others.

TrackCoach wrote:

Armstrong was tested at around half of his competitions and on average he only had 2 OOC tests per year, which was pretty much the same for Marion Jones. Rupp was tested at every competition and usually had 2 OOC tests a month.

You should read again what you cited from Now that's telling it like it is:

the number of tests are 100% irrelevant for those who use blood transfusions smartly.

he's talking about you too wrote:

Why does everyone keep saying Lance never failed a test? He failed 5 if you include the EPO test at the Tour of Switzerland.

Bringing up Lance in a thread about Galen makes no sense - not only the testing but they have complete OPPOSITE personalities.

What? I said no such thing. I correctly stated:

"Don't forget that USADA couldn't catch Armstrong during his active years either. "

His first four positive tests were in-competition, pre-USADA, and the EPO positives were unofficial, and also not from USADA.

The sense is that USADA couldn't catch either red-handed with a positive test.

tin can man wrote:

Rupp has for years been the most drug tested athlete in America. He's been drug tested more times than Justin Gatlin, a convicted drug cheat. In 2013 alone, Rupp was tested 28 times. That was the most out of any American athlete in ANY SPORT. Next closest was swimmer Missy Franklin with 22. Gatlin was tested 14. Tyson Gay, another convicted drug cheat, was tested 12.

Rupp is clean. Period.

It's interesting that was in 2013. Well before the reports had even started coming out (mid-2015). But it was mentioned Kara spoke up about it in 2012 so maybe that's why. He also ran quick times that indoor season and was coming off an Oly silver. Still odd though they would test him so much when there's convicted runners in the USADA database. When an athlete gets tested historically high with no known public evidence, USADA should give an explanation. Lucky for them, they don't have to.

What you fail to mention was that the results of those tests (that said he was likely doping) were COMPLETED and Rupp was found to be CLEAN. So if you want to acknowledge the tests that flagged him as likely doping you must also acknowledge the COMPLETED RESULTS from THAT SAME TEST said RUPP WAS CLEAN.

Rupp was tested a ton in 2013 and 2014 because was trying to break and did break many American records. You need drug tests to get a record certified, just ask Emma Coburn.

tin can man wrote:

What you fail to mention was that the results of those tests (that said he was likely doping) were COMPLETED and Rupp was found to be CLEAN. So if you want to acknowledge the tests that flagged him as likely doping you must also acknowledge the COMPLETED RESULTS from THAT SAME TEST said RUPP WAS CLEAN.

a) Why are you yelling?

b) No, that's not how the ABP works.

This whole thread is predicated on throwing out performances with no proof of doping. If that's the standard then Rupp is subject to the same treatment.

Even setting aside the very legitimate doping concerns, Rupp’s 26:44 is made somewhat less impressive when you consider how the race was set up with the sole intention of optimizing his AR chances. If Cheptegei, Kejelcha, Kamworor, Gebrihiwet, Karoki, Tola, or Farah had the chance to run a fast 10,000 in these circumstances (where AlSal demanded and provided financial incentives for the pacers stick to Rupp’s preferred splits), they all could have run under 26:44.

Some of you Rupp apologists are so dense. A test cannot establish definitively that anyone is “CLEAN.” It can only show that the taker did not fail that particular test. I.e., the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent.”

anacondarunner wrote:

tin can man wrote:

What you fail to mention was that the results of those tests (that said he was likely doping) were COMPLETED and Rupp was found to be CLEAN. So if you want to acknowledge the tests that flagged him as likely doping you must also acknowledge the COMPLETED RESULTS from THAT SAME TEST said RUPP WAS CLEAN.

Some of you Rupp apologists are so dense. A test cannot establish definitively that anyone is “CLEAN.” It can only show that the taker did not fail that particular test. I.e., the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent.”

You are WRONG. They test to see if his levels are above the legal limit, and they were BELOW the legal limit. If you are pulled over and the cops gives you a breathalyzer and you hit 0.000000000 then you are innocent.

Besides, if you want to assume people who have passed every drug test are suspicious, then why do we even have drug tests? Under your viewpoint we should just let everyone dope as much as they can because it will at least be a level playing field.

he's talking about you too wrote:

Why does everyone keep saying Lance never failed a test? He failed 5 if you include the EPO test at the Tour of Switzerland.

Bringing up Lance in a thread about Galen makes no sense - not only the testing but they have complete OPPOSITE personalities.

+1

I cringe when people say "Lance never failed a test". He failed 4 tests in 1999 for cortico-steroids, and 6 samples from 1999 failed in EPO testing conducted in 2004, with 2 more samples obviously positive, but below the criteria.

This is 10 failed tests from 1999 alone.

You can say he was not sanctioned, but it is wrong to say he never failed a test.

(The Tour de Swiss test was flagged, but apparently did not meet the criteria at that time).

I cringe when people say things like "Rupp was the most tested, and never failed a test."

While such a claim might have worked pre-Lance, this defense is one of the things Lance took away from all future clean athletes. And Rupp was subject to so much more investigation then a series of doping tests.

Recall Lance was not taken down by testing, but by whistleblowers and an USADA investigation, involving many witnesses giving testimony -- teammates, former teammates, former employees, friends, etc.

A much stronger defense of Rupp's cleanliness is that Rupp survived heightened targeted testing, and heightened scrutiny as part of a 5-year long USADA investigation into NOP, Salazar, and Rupp, and testimony from around 30 whistleblowers, teammates, employees, former teammates, former employees. The result of that investigation, described by Tygart as "leaving no stone unturned", was no charges or sanctions against any NOP athlete. According to Reuters, in comments regarding an IOC requested WADA investigation into NOP athletes:

"Plans by the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) to look into athletes who trained under banned coach Alberto Salazar will have no result as the U.S. Anti-doping Agency has already done that, USADA chief Travis Tygart said on Wednesday."

"USADA did not sanction any of his athletes after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing by them."

Summary: Rupp has been through some of the most intense testing and scrutiny that drug testers can do and he came up CLEAN.

casual obsever wrote:

We have a learned a lot in the last ten years about doping in athletics:

1) For years, the IAAF accepted bribes in exchange for covering up positives.

2) In total, about 44% of the elite are dopers.

3) Among the endurance athletes, 15 - 20% use blood doping.

4) NOP's coach was a cheat, and is now banned.

5) Aden's group used EPO on a large scale, yet nobody tested positive.

6) Russians used hard core state doping, only discovered via whistle-blowing.

a) Some of their hard core EPO users like Poistogova never got flagged by the ABP.

7) Kenyans are testing positive en masse, since regular blood testing started there, including:

a) World and Olympic champ Kiprop, this decade's fastest 1500 m runner;

b) Kiptum, previous half marathon world record holder

c) Olympic champ Sumgong

d) Majors winners Jeptoo and Daniel Wanjiru

e) about a dozen of Rosa athletes

f) etc. etc. , including the provisionally banned Kipsang

We learned a little bit more than that.

1) It is misleading to say "the IAAF". The IAAF also pushed hard to sanction the very same positives.

2) It is misleading to say we learned that about 44% of elite are dopers, from a survey that did not measure non-compliance to the instructions.

5) Aden's group used EPO on a large scale? Is that something we learned? How?

6) It is wrong to say "only discovered via whistle-blowing"

7a) Kiprop was busted by a urine test (so unrelated to regular blood testing)

7f) Kipsang was provisionally suspended for whereabouts failures, and tampering (related to whereabouts)

tin can man wrote:

Summary: Rupp has been through some of the most intense testing and scrutiny that drug testers can do and he came up CLEAN.

While I won't argue with your summary, I also wouldn't go that far.

I agree with USADA's consistent position, as to how to judge Rupp, after this process, and how to judge those that judge Rupp:

"Importantly, all athletes, coaches and others under the jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Code are innocent and presumed to have complied with the rules unless and until the established anti-doping process declares otherwise. It is unfair and reckless to state, infer or imply differently."