Was Deena Kastor clean?

It's possible.

But is there a positive test for anyone I listed including Kastor?

The answer is no.

It can only be suspicion. Give me a fact.

Forgive the double post. Sometimes letsrun spots out. My point stands.

Back in 2000 asking if Lance could be dirty brought the same responses just a whole lot angrier. A college teammate tried to fight me bc I was musing over Lance’s cleanliness. Today, with Lance’s admission and all the other evidence, it seems ridiculous to compare Deena to Lance, because we can’t imagine a clean Lance. But its the same question I was asking in 2000 - how does one compete with and even beat dopers while clean?

BTW - the personal testimonies of any athlete’s high character always remind me of a coworker I had who murdered his children in front on his wife, murdered his wife, and then committed suicide. No warning signs whatever. Extremely well like guy. Not saying reputation doesn’t matter, just saying reputation isn’t foolproof.

My take: Totally fair to muse and ask questions of any athlete, especially an American record holder who competed very well against known dopers.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

It's possible.

But is there a positive test for anyone I listed including Kastor?

The answer is no.

It can only be suspicion. Give me a fact.

But the OP never said he had proof! Never at any point (unless I missed it) did anybody say Deena Drossin/Kastor was certainly a doper. My take on the whole thread - which may be different to others' - is that it shines a light on our own prejudices. Why is Deena presumed innocent, but various others presumed dirty? The general consensus is that Deena was clean. OK, I'm fine with that; I consider myself a fan, and never particularly suspected her of doping. But at the same time, the general consensus seems to be that, to cite one example, Hicham el Guerrouj must have used EPO. Since, to my knowledge, there was never even a hint of a suppressed positive test or rumors of 1st-hand knowledge that El G doped, then why are we so accepting of that? Oh, but Morocco had a "dirty culture" in running circles, of course. And the US didn't? It's well-established that the 1984 US Olympic team had major PED issues that were covered up, so it's not like US athletes are inherently averse to cheating; are we to believe that that culture no longer existed during Deena's time?

Look, my personal feeling is, I wouldn't be surprised if Deena was clean, and I think El G was probably dirty. But I think it's worth taking a look at your own belief systems. If you're going to freak out when somebody even asks if it's okay to question the feats of a successful American woman during an almost universally-acknowledged "dirty era", then maybe you need to examine your own belief systems.

Also, a couple of points: lack of positive tests is demonstrably almost meaningless. And the earlier argument that EPO use wasn't prevalent among marathoners is also hardly even worth discussing; you have a drug that is almost universally adopted by cyclists doing tours of up to 3 weeks, and by elite 5k/10k runners, but for some reason you think the marathon world just didn't get the memo?

Preacher-bot 5000 wrote:

Also, a couple of points: lack of positive tests is demonstrably almost meaningless. And the earlier argument that EPO use wasn't prevalent among marathoners is also hardly even worth discussing; you have a drug that is almost universally adopted by cyclists doing tours of up to 3 weeks, and by elite 5k/10k runners, but for some reason you think the marathon world just didn't get the memo?

If you mean my argument, the argument was not "EPO use wasn't prevalent among marathoners", but that Olympic and World Championship Marathon medals were won 8 out of 9 times by athletes with no suspicious blood values in a fairly comprehensive blood database spanning 12 years with over 12000 blood samples from 5000 athletes. And it was not an argument so much as a reported summary observation, a straightforward mathematical calculation on a large population of sample results, by the Sunday Times of an analysis of that database by two Australian anti-doping researchers.

If EPO use was prevalent among marathoners -- a point that is hardly even worth discussing -- but arguably not amongst Olympic or World Championship medalists, maybe we should question whether EPO played a significant role in the fastest times of any marathon performances. Maybe you are right:

- they didn't get the memo

- it's worth taking a look at your own belief systems

colorunner123 wrote:

Interesting. I guess I'm not the only one one who is suspicious. I tend to see this survey as evidence that Letsrun readers are biased toward Americans rather than as evidence that Deena was clean. Also, I am surprised these percentages are so low. Nearly three quarters of Letsrun readers think Bekele was clean!?!

You are not alone, but you are very much in the minority, putting yourself in a group containing the most extreme sceptics.

Rather than defending your right to be suspicious, you might want to spend some time trying to understand why 86% don't agree.

To their credit, "letsrun" identified several kinds of bias that came out of the polling results, depending on ethnicity (of both athlete and pollster), education, gender, age, and age of record.

I think the bias in this case is not because she is American, but because of her slower performance not being world record quality, but 4 minutes slower.

My "bias" I suppose for Deena is the same reason I also believe Des Linden is clean.

Performance consistency.

There is no mystery surrounding how Deena achieved a particular time because none of her races resulted in an outlier of a time standard.

What do i mean?

The 1:53 and change in the 800m by Kratochvilova is still an outlier of a performance. It was nothing seen by Kratochvilova before, and it has never been close to reached again.

The 2:15 and change by Radcliffe still seems to be beyond a standard that has been reached again in the marathon.

The more recent 10k by Almaz Ayana (sp?) came out of almost nowhere.

Deena (and similarly Linden) doesn't have these issues.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

My "bias" I suppose for Deena is the same reason I also believe Des Linden is clean.

Performance consistency.

There is no mystery surrounding how Deena achieved a particular time because none of her races resulted in an outlier of a time standard.

What do i mean?

The 1:53 and change in the 800m by Kratochvilova is still an outlier of a performance. It was nothing seen by Kratochvilova before, and it has never been close to reached again.

The 2:15 and change by Radcliffe still seems to be beyond a standard that has been reached again in the marathon.

The more recent 10k by Almaz Ayana (sp?) came out of almost nowhere.

Deena (and similarly Linden) doesn't have these issues.

Every WR is a bit of an outlier, I suppose.

Radcliffe ran 2:17 twice and 2:18 once. Her 2:15 was less than 2 minutes better than her previous PR.

Kratochvílová ran 1:54 once and low 1:55 once. 1:53 wasn't a massive outlier.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

My "bias" I suppose for Deena is the same reason I also believe Des Linden is clean.

Performance consistency.

There is no mystery surrounding how Deena achieved a particular time because none of her races resulted in an outlier of a time standard.

What do i mean?

The 1:53 and change in the 800m by Kratochvilova is still an outlier of a performance. It was nothing seen by Kratochvilova before, and it has never been close to reached again.

The 2:15 and change by Radcliffe still seems to be beyond a standard that has been reached again in the marathon.

The more recent 10k by Almaz Ayana (sp?) came out of almost nowhere.

Deena (and similarly Linden) doesn't have these issues.

Sure that works in many cases -- the Chinese women stand out in this regard.

But I'm not sure how much I would read into consistency.

Others have argued that long term consistency just means long term doping.

Every performance pattern in history fits someone's idea of doping.

Compare the long term prolific history of El G (33 out of the top 100 1500m performances spanning 7 years and 7 out of the top 10 miles) versus the erratic performance from Webb, or Manzano or the one-time performance from Andrew Wheating, and describe any bias you may have.

Geb, Bekele (before injury), Kipchoge, Lagat, and El G are among the most long term consistent athletes in history.

While you suggest Paula's 2:15 outlier is significant, I have often asked why, assuming widespread doping, and significant effect, no one else ran sub-2:18 in the next 14 years. Instead, in this thread we lower the bar even further, and discuss a possibility that 2:19:36 is too fast to be clean.

rekrunner wrote:

While you suggest Paula's 2:15 outlier is significant, I have often asked why, assuming widespread doping, and significant effect, no one else ran sub-2:18 in the next 14 years.

And you have often received the answer: because doping isn't an equalizer. On the contrary, it adds one more variable, as some respond better to doping than others (which is also documented in many studies you have read). See Ramzi for example, who quickly became next to unbeatable.

2:15, extreme outlier among the extreme talents --> high responder to doping (in addition to the talent of course) is the most likely answer. Otherwise there would be a high responder with less talent who could have run 2:15 as well.

In addition, Paula was not exactly an extreme talent until turning 25, as documented by her several 4th and 5th places until Munich. Plus twice outrageously high off score jumps within days in 2003/2005, and flagged as likely doping in 2012, and her lying about it, and changing her stance to now oppose transparency.

Now contrast that with Deena: zero of the above flags. No mid career performance jump, no unbeatable times, no off score jumps, never flagged as likely doping (that we know off), and no lies about her tests either.

I have often received several kinds of responses, reflecting different personal pet theories, many conflicting with each other, but none that struck me as "the answer". Your answer struck me as just one person's partly informed, and partly misinformed, speculation.

Your answer is an interesting one, not like the others, because it accepts that a significant difference between Paula and the rest is extreme talent. Once you've accepted that, what seems more likely is that doping effect in the marathon must be a rather small variable, compared to other non-doping factors like extreme talent and training, and race day variables, like weather, pacing, course, etc., combined with a lack of opportunities or attempts. This is inline with other observations: relatively small number (when compared to other events) of known doping among the very top (e.g. top-100) marathon performers, men and women, and relatively small percentage (when compared to other events) of suspicious medal wins for Olympic and World Championship marathons over 12 years.

While "high responders" do exist, and are documented in many studies, it's unclear how, or even if, that applies here to the women's marathon:

- I'm unaware of any doping studies on the marathon showing any effect from any doping on any athletes, elite or non-elite. Therefore, I don't know what the expected magnitude of a high doping response could be for extremely talented runners. Keep in mind that the marathon is sub-VO2max, so the value of the main expected mechanism of blood doping, increased oxygen delivery, is highly questionable. Other proposed mechanisms, such as increased training loads, are equally unstudied. It is known and well documented that other non-aerobic factors can limit a marathon performance, such as heat dissipation, and energy management.

- It is unclear if Paula (or Deena) even doped, so it seems premature to accept as "the answer" that Paula received a high doping response.

It's similarly premature to say Ramzi is a high responder to doping, without clean performance data, and without considering the response to other non-doping changes. But in any case, we are talking about the marathon, and not the 1500m, so it is also not relevant. What may be true for the 1500m may not apply to the marathon. This is also inline with observations (e.g. compare Sunday Times statistic of 54% to 11%).

Your list of flags would make more sense if Paula was the rare extreme talent that also doped. This seems to contradict your repeated insistence that likely more than 44% of elite athletes dope, and that high responders exist among the extremely talented runners.

You have also often received "the answers" to your list of flags:

- Paula demonstrated extreme talent as a junior, winning World Cross Country

- The outrageous jumps in 2003/2005 could be a measure of blood changes, or could be a measure of faulty processes. This is well documented.

- The high blood value in 2012 was plausibly the result of high altitude. This is well documented.

- We have no blood data for her world record marathon performances

- Paula's alleged lies, or alleged change of stance on transparency is irrelevant, as the plausibility of non-doping causes can be established independently.

I think your list of flags is more a function of "fans" of the sports, and investigative "journalists", looking for flags.

The attempts to show that Paula doped, and that it mattered, are far from settling that her exceptional performances can likely be explained by doping.

But even assuming for argument that the matter with Paula was settled, it is logically unsound to hold up one single outlying exception as the general rule.

I agree wholeheartedly with your detailed take on Paula's time.

But given that, without any of that dialogue even started on Deena at any time, it is evident where the likelihood of Deena being clean is extremely high.

This is why most people do talk clean and Deena in the same sentence.

I wouldn't say there's a "relatively small number" of convicted dopers among the top-100 women unless you think 9 that were actually caught is trivial. Here's the 9 from the current top-100 list:

(9) Shobukhova (RUS) 2:18:20*

(15) Jeptoo (KEN) 2:18:57*

(23) Wangui (KEN) 2:19:34

(26) Sun (CHN) 2:19:39

(31) Chepchirchir (KEN) 2:19:47

(52) Sumgong (KEN) 2:30:48

(68) Kirwa (BRN) 2:21:17

(74) Duliba (BLR) 2:21:29*

(99) Hamera-Shmyrko (UKR) 2:22:09*

* denotes the time was annulled due to IC doping. There's also 3 other Russians in the top-10 who are highly suspicious and escaped detection - so I didn't list them (#'s 51, 74, 77).

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

I wouldn't say there's a "relatively small number" of convicted dopers among the top-100 women unless you think 9 that were actually caught is trivial. Here's the 9 from the current top-100 list:

(9) Shobukhova (RUS) 2:18:20*

(15) Jeptoo (KEN) 2:18:57*

(23) Wangui (KEN) 2:19:34

(26) Sun (CHN) 2:19:39

(31) Chepchirchir (KEN) 2:19:47

(52) Sumgong (KEN) 2:30:48

(68) Kirwa (BRN) 2:21:17

(74) Duliba (BLR) 2:21:29*

(99) Hamera-Shmyrko (UKR) 2:22:09*

* denotes the time was annulled due to IC doping. There's also 3 other Russians in the top-10 who are highly suspicious and escaped detection - so I didn't list them (#'s 51, 74, 77).

Plus at the very very top Radcliffe (2:15), Keitany (2:17) and Merga (2:19) with suspicious ABP, to put it mildly, and Dibaba (2:17) from EPO-Aden.

Sumgong (PR 2:20:48 of course) btw, didn't "just" win the last Olympic marathon, but also London and Rotterdam, and came second in Boston, Chicago (behind Jeptoo...), and New York City (behind Keitany). Looks like the female marathon is currently one of the worst events.

Correction on Sumgong's time: *2:20:41*

Additionally, all but two (Wangui & Sun) of the convictions are for EPO or ABP hematological-anomalies.

One of the reasons for her success was her consistency and toughness, but I have seen plenty of evidence that she was in fact dirty!

https://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/news-photo/deena-drossin-of-usa-in-action-during-the-womens-long-race-news-photo/1102128

but I don't believe she was a drug cheat!

Stoppit Smith wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with your detailed take on Paula's time.

But given that, without any of that dialogue even started on Deena at any time, it is evident where the likelihood of Deena being clean is extremely high.

This is why most people do talk clean and Deena in the same sentence.

I agree wholeheartedly with your take on Deena.

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

I wouldn't say there's a "relatively small number" of convicted dopers among the top-100 women unless you think 9 that were actually caught is trivial. Here's the 9 from the current top-100 list:

(9) Shobukhova (RUS) 2:18:20*

(15) Jeptoo (KEN) 2:18:57*

(23) Wangui (KEN) 2:19:34

(26) Sun (CHN) 2:19:39

(31) Chepchirchir (KEN) 2:19:47

(52) Sumgong (KEN) 2:30:48

(68) Kirwa (BRN) 2:21:17

(74) Duliba (BLR) 2:21:29*

(99) Hamera-Shmyrko (UKR) 2:22:09*

* denotes the time was annulled due to IC doping. There's also 3 other Russians in the top-10 who are highly suspicious and escaped detection - so I didn't list them (#'s 51, 74, 77).

I said relative small compared to other events. For example, how does it compare to the 1500m?

I count 8 in the top-100 performances annulled in the women's 1500m, and #9 is 102.

I didn't count the dopers who kept their performances, including any from the 22 women of the 1980s, or the 16 Chinese women in just 2 events in the 1990s, or anyone you might think was suspicious in the 2000's and 2010's, but got away with it, considering that 54% of medals in the 1500m were won by suspicious athletes between 2001-2012.

Not sure if 30:50 , 1:07:34 would produce ...2;19:36