You're going down, Starvin' Marvin!
-
11
-
Coevett wrote:
Returning to the possible connection between his manager and John Hakizimana who just got busted - I don't think there is any. Hakizimana seems quite a common name in Rwanda. I found a couple of recent articles on him and there is no mention of Kiptum's coach. So the only connection is that Rwanda obviously has a doping problem too.
How many Rwandese runners do you even know!!
Rwanda and Kenya don’t have the same culture! To dope in a small country, with strick regulations and culture, it’s almost suicide for an athlete to dope in Rwanda!I repeat it again triamcinolone acetonide doesn’t give an edge in long distance running period! Many people are treated with this for allergies, mostly skin conditions!
Now I find it funny to try to link John to Kiptum’s coach, to Kiptum being doped, to Rwanda having a problem of doping!
You guys are geniuses😂20 -
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Charlesvdw wrote:
Kiptum was a pacemaker in the Rotterdam marathon in 2019; he ran 27km pacing the winner Marius Kipserem - 2:04:11.
Right. Clearly he was a good HM runner. Maybe we shouldn’t be as shocked by 59-low HM guys being able to run 2:03. It happened in Berlin and should continue to happen. And perhaps Kiptum was more in 58-low/57-high shape by 2022. We should know more if guys like Barega, Cheptegei and Kandie translate. Mateiko was a disappointment but he did try to run a 2:01 race with Kiptum.
I agree.
A young talented guy focusing on races of about an hour then switches to two hour races and is good at it. Big surprise.
It doesn't surprise me that this works better than focusing on 14 minute races for many years and then hoping to be good at +2 hour races.
33 -
Acuminimann wrote:
How many Rwandese runners do you even know!!
Rwanda and Kenya don’t have the same culture! To dope in a small country, with strick regulations and culture, it’s almost suicide for an athlete to dope in Rwanda!I repeat it again triamcinolone acetonide doesn’t give an edge in long distance running period! Many people are treated with this for allergies, mostly skin conditions!
Now I find it funny to try to link John to Kiptum’s coach, to Kiptum being doped, to Rwanda having a problem of doping!
You guys are geniuses😂Well, according to Wikipedia, Rwanda has sent seven runners to the last three Olympics, and two of them have now been banned for anti-doping offences. 2/7 is Kenyan standards.
12 -
Coevett wrote:
Acuminimann wrote:
How many Rwandese runners do you even know!!
Rwanda and Kenya don’t have the same culture! To dope in a small country, with strick regulations and culture, it’s almost suicide for an athlete to dope in Rwanda!I repeat it again triamcinolone acetonide doesn’t give an edge in long distance running period! Many people are treated with this for allergies, mostly skin conditions!
Now I find it funny to try to link John to Kiptum’s coach, to Kiptum being doped, to Rwanda having a problem of doping!
You guys are geniuses😂Well, according to Wikipedia, Rwanda has sent seven runners to the last three Olympics, and two of them have now been banned for anti-doping offences. 2/7 is Kenyan standards.
How many Rwandans and how many Brits have been banned for anti-doping offences?
10 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Aouita 84 wrote:
Show me the POSITIVE TEST!!!
It's Soooooooo EASY to sit behind a keyboard and accuse runners who run a fast time(s) to be cheating. I'll ask AGAIN, what quality marathon time would be deemed acceptable and not considered to be "Cheating"?
Not a difficult question for those who know what their talking about.
Only 1% of tests are positive and yet it is expertly estimated that at least 20% of athletes dope, if not more. So most dopers will not be caught.
A: 1% of tests are positive
B: at least 20% of athletes dope ("expertly estimated")
C: most dopers will not be caughtAccording to you, C is a direct conclusion from A and B. Please explain the logic behind your reasoning.
12 -
Downvoter, please explain.
10 -
he will not understand wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Only 1% of tests are positive and yet it is expertly estimated that at least 20% of athletes dope, if not more. So most dopers will not be caught.
A: 1% of tests are positive
B: at least 20% of athletes dope ("expertly estimated")
C: most dopers will not be caughtAccording to you, C is a direct conclusion from A and B. Please explain the logic behind your reasoning.
20% is a conservative estimate; some experts put it as much higher - 30%-50% (and even up to 80% in some sports, like bodybuilding).
What it means is that it is estimated that many more athletes dope than are caught, as only 1% of tests return a positive. Therefore only a fraction of dopers are caught - and, thus correspondingly, most dopers will not be caught. This is acknowledged by antidoping. David Howman says it is because "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping".
11 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
he will not understand wrote:
A: 1% of tests are positive
B: at least 20% of athletes dope ("expertly estimated")
C: most dopers will not be caughtAccording to you, C is a direct conclusion from A and B. Please explain the logic behind your reasoning.
20% is a conservative estimate; some experts put it as much higher - 30%-50% (and even up to 80% in some sports, like bodybuilding).
What it means is that it is estimated that many more athletes dope than are caught, as only 1% of tests return a positive. Therefore only a fraction of dopers are caught - and, thus correspondingly, most dopers will not be caught. This is acknowledged by antidoping. David Howman says it is because "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping".
You did not understand.
Please explain how you deduce C from A and B.
11 -
he will not understand wrote:
You did not understand.
Please explain how you deduce C from A and B.
I wouldn't deduce C from A and B: too many unknowns, such as the number of tests per athlete and career, how many dopers, how many false positives, how many hidden positives etc.
But, we have seen 15 - 18% using in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 world championships, and over 40% using some kind of doping in the 12 months leading up to the 2011 world championships.
That's over 700 dopers from the 2011 worlds alone. We could cross-reference how many of those 2011 athletes got banned during their (now mostly over) careers, but surely that is under 350, most likely under 100 even. So yes, "C: most dopers will not be caught" is correct.
00 -
no mathing wrote:
he will not understand wrote:
You did not understand.
Please explain how you deduce C from A and B.
I wouldn't deduce C from A and B: too many unknowns, such as the number of tests per athlete and career, how many dopers, how many false positives, how many hidden positives etc.
But, we have seen 15 - 18% using in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 world championships, and over 40% using some kind of doping in the 12 months leading up to the 2011 world championships.
That's over 700 dopers from the 2011 worlds alone. We could cross-reference how many of those 2011 athletes got banned during their (now mostly over) careers, but surely that is under 350, most likely under 100 even. So yes, "C: most dopers will not be caught" is correct.
From the 1945 athletes at the 2011 worlds over 700 doped during their career? Please explain this more detailed.
12 -
no mathing wrote:
I wouldn't deduce C from A and B: too many unknowns, such as the number of tests per athlete and career, how many dopers, how many false positives, how many hidden positives etc.
But, we have seen 15 - 18% using in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 world championships, and over 40% using some kind of doping in the 12 months leading up to the 2011 world championships.
That's over 700 dopers from the 2011 worlds alone. We could cross-reference how many of those 2011 athletes got banned during their (now mostly over) careers, but surely that is under 350, most likely under 100 even. So yes, "C: most dopers will not be caught" is correct.
1. You cite researchers who didn’t incorporate the effect of altitude training into their estimates, and therefore can’t be trusted at all! (Not my wordings, but of Jostein Hallen, professor in training physiology, and researcher in altitude effects).
2. Even if these researchers had taken altitude problematic into account they would most likely have done it wrongly (Again according to Hallen -because the insights in altitude effects are low among researchers).
3. The researchers you cite predicted doping to decrease significantly after 2011 (because of the introduction of ABP), so if they were right your numbers are some ten years out of date…
4. Professor Hallen found, in his research, a lot of obviously wrong readings and numbers / faulty blood measurements (made by other testers) and equipment and methods.
5. To my knowledge we don’t know the prevalence of current doping in athletics -no consensus among so called experts. So it’s up to us all to speculate based on what we think are indications -but speculations it is!
11 -
no mathing wrote:
But, we have seen 15 - 18% using in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 world championships, and over 40% using some kind of doping in the 12 months leading up to the 2011 world championships.
What have "we" actually seen? Did "we" actually "see" "blood doping" and "previous doping in the last 12 months".
The 15-18% was a measure of a population of athlete's blood parameters which may, or may not, have been properly adjusted for recent altitude training (or for that matter, blood changes leading up to training for a world championship), relative to a "reference" population.
With the "over 40%", we didn't see any doping -- it was a questionnaire, with a lot of question marks, and apparently a lot of respondent apathy.
A similar questionnaire at the same 2011 World Championship estimated 9-30% (95% confidence interval) after factoring in an estimated 30% survey non-compliance.
11 -
he will not understand wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
20% is a conservative estimate; some experts put it as much higher - 30%-50% (and even up to 80% in some sports, like bodybuilding).
What it means is that it is estimated that many more athletes dope than are caught, as only 1% of tests return a positive. Therefore only a fraction of dopers are caught - and, thus correspondingly, most dopers will not be caught. This is acknowledged by antidoping. David Howman says it is because "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping".
You did not understand.
Please explain how you deduce C from A and B.
You do not understand. If the smallest fraction of dopers are caught it means most dopers aren't caught. You think you are a logician but you are a pretentious idiot.
11 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
he will not understand wrote:
You did not understand.
Please explain how you deduce C from A and B.
You do not understand. If the smallest fraction of dopers are caught it means most dopers aren't caught. You think you are a logician but you are a pretentious idiot.
Wouldn't it be great if you could go one day without insulting people?
11 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
he will not understand wrote:
You did not understand.
Please explain how you deduce C from A and B.
You do not understand. If the smallest fraction of dopers are caught it means most dopers aren't caught. You think you are a logician but you are a pretentious idiot.
The flaw in your "logic" is that it equates apples and oranges. You fail to factor in that many athletes, especially "suspicious" ones, are tested more than once.
A doped athlete might be tested 20 times, and only fail the 20th test. The result is that A: only 5% of his/her tests were positive, and B: this sample size of 1 was 100% doped. A and B are not equivalent.
Testing coverage is also not complete. Many (most?) doped athletes will simply be below the thresholds of testing, not being in their countries National Registered Testing Pool, therefore not subject to whereabouts and OOC testing, and never finishing on the podium, so only subject to random IC testing. Most athletes may only be tested a few times, if at all -- there is little risk of their doping being caught, and they have more incentive to "go to the next level". The dopers here will not likely appear in A.
00 -
7777 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You do not understand. If the smallest fraction of dopers are caught it means most dopers aren't caught. You think you are a logician but you are a pretentious idiot.
Wouldn't it be great if you could go one day without insulting people?
When I am being pursued by pretentious idiots they deserve the response they get. You deserve more. As they say, if the heat bothers you, stay out of the kitchen.
00 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You do not understand. If the smallest fraction of dopers are caught it means most dopers aren't caught. You think you are a logician but you are a pretentious idiot.
The flaw in your "logic" is that it equates apples and oranges. You fail to factor in that many athletes, especially "suspicious" ones, are tested more than once.
A doped athlete might be tested 20 times, and only fail the 20th test. The result is that A: only 5% of his/her tests were positive, and B: this sample size of 1 was 100% doped. A and B are not equivalent.
Testing coverage is also not complete. Many (most?) doped athletes will simply be below the thresholds of testing, not being in their countries National Registered Testing Pool, therefore not subject to whereabouts and OOC testing, and never finishing on the podium, so only subject to random IC testing. Most athletes may only be tested a few times, if at all -- there is little risk of their doping being caught, and they have more incentive to "go to the next level". The dopers here will not likely appear in A.
Contrived nonsense. The enormous numbers of athletes in every sport who are tested annually will not result in the kind of skew in the figures you argue, between those tested several times and those tested less. It is unarguable is that amongst all those test results very few - 1% - produce a positive result. Expert estimates meanwhile suggest a prevalence of anywhere between 20%-40% of top athletes. In some sports it will be way higher. It means very few of those doping are caught. The view in antidoping is that "only the dumb and the careless" are caught. Your specious arguments in no way produce a credible scenario that most of those doping are caught. You are in fantasyland to imagine that. Howman has acknowledged antidoping can't eradicate doping from sport; he says the best that can be hoped for is that it can prevent an unrestrained doping free-for-all.
00 -
rekrunner wrote:
no mathing wrote:
But, we have seen 15 - 18% using in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 world championships, and over 40% using some kind of doping in the 12 months leading up to the 2011 world championships.
What have "we" actually seen? Did "we" actually "see" "blood doping" and "previous doping in the last 12 months".
The 15-18% was a measure of a population of athlete's blood parameters which may, or may not, have been properly adjusted for recent altitude training (or for that matter, blood changes leading up to training for a world championship), relative to a "reference" population.
With the "over 40%", we didn't see any doping -- it was a questionnaire, with a lot of question marks, and apparently a lot of respondent apathy.
A similar questionnaire at the same 2011 World Championship estimated 9-30% (95% confidence interval) after factoring in an estimated 30% survey non-compliance.
So if the athlete surveys don't in your opinion accurately reflect the likely incidence of doping then how many are doping? What is the incidence? The 1% of tests?
00 -
justanothercuriousdude wrote:
no mathing wrote:
I wouldn't deduce C from A and B: too many unknowns, such as the number of tests per athlete and career, how many dopers, how many false positives, how many hidden positives etc.
But, we have seen 15 - 18% using in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 world championships, and over 40% using some kind of doping in the 12 months leading up to the 2011 world championships.
That's over 700 dopers from the 2011 worlds alone. We could cross-reference how many of those 2011 athletes got banned during their (now mostly over) careers, but surely that is under 350, most likely under 100 even. So yes, "C: most dopers will not be caught" is correct.
1. You cite researchers who didn’t incorporate the effect of altitude training into their estimates, and therefore can’t be trusted at all! (Not my wordings, but of Jostein Hallen, professor in training physiology, and researcher in altitude effects).
2. Even if these researchers had taken altitude problematic into account they would most likely have done it wrongly (Again according to Hallen -because the insights in altitude effects are low among researchers).
3. The researchers you cite predicted doping to decrease significantly after 2011 (because of the introduction of ABP), so if they were right your numbers are some ten years out of date…
4. Professor Hallen found, in his research, a lot of obviously wrong readings and numbers / faulty blood measurements (made by other testers) and equipment and methods.
5. To my knowledge we don’t know the prevalence of current doping in athletics -no consensus among so called experts. So it’s up to us all to speculate based on what we think are indications -but speculations it is!
It isn't just anybody's guess. Expert estimates range from 20%-40% of top athletes.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun