Galen Rupp most tested athlete proves he is clean.

Hfhg wrote:

Galen has been tested roughly every 25 days since 2010. Not including competitions.

Factoring in competitions — since Rupp races more frequently than almost any other runner, Galen’s been test 25-30 times per year consistently.

Damn...that's Lance Armstrong style regularity of testing! I wonder if it's same sample collector everytime which would be kind of creepy.

Btw, does these sample collectors make good money? Is a college degree required? I imagine on the job training is pretty easily. Anyone here a sample collector? Any cool (or not so cool) stories to share? I might check out USADA's site and see if the pay & benefits are decent. It sounds like an easy job if the athlete doesn't play monkey business (e.g., pretend like they're not home, duck & try to hide at airports, run out the back door, etc.).

He's a 2:06 guy.

What's up with this? wrote:

SkyRunner.Shiva.at.12633ft.com wrote:

Look at some of the women on the leaked Fancy Bears Atypical ABP Follow Up Testing list:

https://imgur.com/a/vnyIC#XNFo4IL

Mary Keitany

Meseret Defar

Sifan Hassan

Helah Kiprop

Janeth Busienei Jepkosgei

Aselefech Mergia

Jessica Augusto

Lisa Namec- banned for EPO positive test.

Total Number of American women on the leaked Atypical ABP list:

ZERO

https://www.facebook.com/hypo2/photos/a.181731141864880.32731.154386924599302/902644203106900/?type=3

The female distance runners from the USA have a great record of running clean.

Hey...wait a minute here! When I've posted that dispaly & link it gets deleted. You have preferential treatment or something?

Yes, I too sense an asymmetric bias is going on here.

That is not the case since the tests are not conducted by an independent organization nor are the samples tested by an independent lab nor are the results published for independent public review.

Hardly. "casual obsever" has a lot to say, but often puts weight on things with no real merit in an anti-doping context, as if "history with values around 12 and 13" was either 1) true, or 2) meaningful. One of his biggest complaints is that we don't have Paula's history, and half of the history we do have is 15.6, 15.1 and 16.2, "after altitude". So "history of values around 12 and 13" becomes a necessary phrase he needs to invent, then repeatedly say to help prop up his own arguments, and is also part of a typically consistent pattern to both exaggerate reality, and wrongly interpret it. His criticism of USADA is a predictable outcome of his inability to consider that he might be wrong about athletes like Wilson and Roberts, and anti-doping in general. He pretends to know more about anti-doping than USADA, with less data.

Everyone's looking for an edge wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

No, it does not. You forgot, as you did repeatedly with Paula's ludicrous >16 g/dL after her history with values around 12 and 13 (after altitude!), that the algorithms work with individualized scores.

Yes. Typical USADA: all bark and no bite. See Wilson and Roberts.

What makes you say that? After all, she trains with Jager, named as the most suspicious athlete on IAAF's "likely doping" list by a large margin. And is part of the Nike teams.

She also might (look, I am using your favourite word here) have had highly suspicious test results. So your "Apparently USADA thinks" comment should rather be written as "Maybe USADA thinks" at best, for it is not exactly apparent.

+1

Good, thorough, insightful information as usual casual observer ? (do you think rekrunner just "tasks" you with his rhetoric all the time?).

I'm inclined to agree with "Runner's World's" disclaimer: "Being frequently tested by USADA does not indicate that an athlete is suspected of doping..." An important part of being "on the top of that list" is being good enough to be in the testing pool, and placing high in competitions. Rather than "having to concede", I find drawing this kind of over-simplified conclusion a rather shallow way to reduce a complex topic, leading to an incomplete, if not wrong, understanding, and the destructive situation where simply winning is becoming synonymous with grounds for suspicion.https://www.runnersworld.com/performance-enhancing-drugs/who-were-the-most-drug-tested-runners-of-2017

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Do you know what "proof" means?

Come on Rek, even you do have to concede that the more suspicious athletes are near the top of the list.

Unless we start tagging on a $10 Testing Fee for every race entry and spectator worldwide, the current testing agencies cannot afford the enormous cost to produce certified evidence admissable in an United States criminal case. Hence today we can only speculate if current PED tests are valid or not.

Hfhg wrote:

Galen has been tested roughly every 25 days since 2010. Not including competitions.

Factoring in competitions — since Rupp races more frequently than almost any other runner, Galen’s been test 25-30 times per year consistently.

If he is testing, they’ve found something that leaves your system in 24 hours.

Why do you think this? You didn't say he's being tested every 24 hours. Why would he need something that would leave his system in 24 hours?

I'm not forgetting about individual thresholds. That's only partly relevant to what I was asking. These thresholds are limits which might flag getting your passport analyzed as part of a first step of a sanction based on a passport violation. But before the tests, there is a testing strategy. As a suggested example, absolutely high blood values "might" be a trigger to test more frequently, for example, to build a profile with more data points, to help corroborate that these high values are "natural" (or not). I'm asking if anyone has any "knowledge", or ever come across any explanation, about how testing strategies are determined, also for athletes who have not yet triggered the ABP process, or violated these individual thresholds. We learned from Evan Jager, that his name appeared on the list as flagged by software, rather than some human committee assessing "suspicion" after some period of reflection. We have also seen from ABP examples, that at least 4 different scores are used to determine probabilities: Hgb, OFF-hre, ABPS (like off scores, but with more blood markers), and RET%. I can only guess that much of the testing strategy is computer aided with general rules implemented in software doing the initial filtering, and helping to produce lists like the ones leaked by Fancy Bears. "Blood values" might be a part of that, as well as other factors or inputs. What does "all bark and no bite" mean? That USADA'S barking shouldn't be considered trustworthy? You don't seem to mind USADA's "barking", when they declare their firm belief that Dr. Brown gave rule-violating L-Carnitine infusions, a belief offered without evidence, that you often repeat as established fact. There is strong evidence supporting Wilson, and no evidence against Dr. Brown -- you seem to often stand on the wrong side of evidence. Regarding Shalane, what made me say "that" is her comments regarding Jordan Hasay's marathon success. It was hard for her to get excited, given the uncertainty surrounding the on-going investigation into Salazar and Rupp. Yet she had no problem judging Hasay's character, by her choice of who she surrounds herself with, and what that says about her. Maybe, Shalane and Jordan score roughly equally "in USADA's eyes", not because of doping suspicion, but because of similar recent quality performances, particularly in US competitions.

casual obsever wrote:

...

No, it does not. You forgot, as you did repeatedly with Paula's ludicrous >16 g/dL after her history with values around 12 and 13 (after altitude!), that the algorithms work with individualized scores.

...

Yes. Typical USADA: all bark and no bite. See Wilson and Roberts.

...

What makes you say that? After all, she trains with Jager, named as the most suspicious athlete on IAAF's "likely doping" list by a large margin. And is part of the Nike teams.

She also might (look, I am using your favourite word here) have had highly suspicious test results. So your "Apparently USADA thinks" comment should rather be written as "Maybe USADA thinks" at best, for it is not exactly apparent.

Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

A five-second google search and I found this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24263659/

Wow...amazing study! Double blinded and everything. So, Salazar is trying to pull out all the tricks to improve performance with his athletes? I've heard somewhere that Salazar sent an email to Armstrong about IV L-carnitine and how excited how he would be at this, or something along those lines? Imagine - Lance excited about a performance enhancing substance...who would have thought. ?

L-carnitine works in some studies and does not work in other studies.

L-carnitine research goes back a long time.

Here is a study with marathon runners (instead of soccer players) from the year 1996, which showed no effect:

A double-blind crossover field study was performed to investigate the effects of acute L-carnitine supplementation on metabolism and performance of endurance-trained athletes during and after a marathon run. Seven male subjects were given supplements of 2 g L-carnitine 2 h before the start of a marathon run and again after 20 km of the run. The plasma concentration of metabolites and hormones was analysed 1 h before, immediately after and 1 h after the run, as well as the next morning after the run. In addition, the respiratory exchange ratio (R) was determined before and at the end of the run, and a submaximal performance test was completed on a treadmill the morning after the run. The administration of L-carnitine was associated with a significant increase in the plasma concentration of all analysed carnitine fractions (i.e. free carnitine, short-chain acylcarnitine, long-chain acylcarnitine, total acid soluble carnitine, total carnitine) but caused no significant change in marathon running time, in R, in the plasma concentrations of carbohydrate metabolites (glucose, lactate, pyruvate), of fat metabolites (free fatty acids, glycerol, beta-hydroxybutyrate), of hormones (insulin, glucagon, cortisol), and of enzyme activities (creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase). Moreover, there was no difference in the result of the submaximal performance test the morning after the run.

In conclusion:

1) Acute oral administration of 4 grams of L-carnitine did not affect the metabolism or improve the physical performance of the endurance-trained athletes during the run and did not alter their recovery.

Coach Alberto and Dr. Jeffrey Brown used an intravenous dose of L-carnitine which turned out to be... a little bit higher than the oral dose of 4 grams used in this study.

For example:

There were 4 x 100 mL L-carnitine IV bags prepared at the pharmacy for Dr. Jeffrey Brown the day before the infusion.

The worksheet showed that they were prepared with a concentration of 9.67 grams of L-carnitine/45 mL of saline = 0.2149 grams per mL = 214.9 mg/mL.

An IV infusion of just 1 of the 100 mL bags would be a total dose of 21.49 grams (= 21,490 mg) of L-carnitine. They administered 1 to 4 bags total.

A 100 mL IV of any concentration of L-carnitine without a TUE is an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV).

A typical IV dose of L-carnitine is 50 mg/kg. = 3,000 mg (= 3 grams) for a 60 kg. person.

L-carnitine can be given by a slow IV injection over 2 to 3 minutes. The total dose of 3,000 mg is only a 15 mL injection of L-carnitine at 200 mg/mL.

There is no need for an IV L-carnitine infusion of over an hour duration.

Did they inform the 5 NOP athletes of any possible risks or side effects of the L-carnitine infusions?

Did they inform the 5 NOP athletes that the L-carnitine infusions were over the 50 mL limit... without a TUE...which would make the infusion an ADRV?

It is recommended that a plasma carnitine concentration be obtained prior to beginning this parenteral therapy. Weekly and monthly monitoring is recommended as well. This monitoring should include blood chemistries, vital signs, plasma carnitine concentrations (the plasma free carnitine concentration should be between 35 and 60 micromol/L) and overall clinical condition.

Some of the NOP athletes had extremely high plasma carnitine concentrations of over 2,000 micromol/L after the IV L-carnitine infusions administered by Dr. Brown for COACH Alberto Salazar...which were about 40X normal levels.

Coach Alberto and Dr. Brown administered the 100 mL bags. They administered 1 to 4 bags. They did not administer 15 mL ( = 3,000 mg of L-carnitine) because that dose does not raise plasma carnitine concentrations from 35-60 micromol/L to 2000 micromol/L after the IV infusion of L-carnitine.

The IV infusion had a duration of over 1 hour.

Even though L-carnitine is available in the US as pills or powder for oral use, L-carnitine for intravenous injection or infusion is a prescription drug.

The idea for the L-carnitine infusions came from Alberto Salazar and not from Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown just does what Alberto tells him to do and he is paid by someone (Nike?) to see all the NOP athletes.

Coach Alberto has played doctor and practiced medicine without a license on many occasions.

He has dispensed the prescription NSAID drug Celebrex to athletes without a prescription for Celebrex, which is illegal because Alberto is not a doctor or a pharmacy.

He has had Mo Farah, Dathan Ritzenhein and other runners on the prescription drug calcitonin... until Pete Julian found out that it might increase cancer risk.

Whoops.

The athletes were then told to stop taking calcitonin...after Dathan Ritzenhein had already been taking it for 4 years.

Alberto Salazar dispensed the schedule III controlled substance and prescription drug Androgel (testosterone gel) to his 2 experimental subjects (his 2 sons) when he did the "Possible Galen Rupp Sabotage with Androgel Experiments" with measurement of testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) levels to see what amount would trigger a positive doping test. That is against various federal and state drug laws because Alberto is not a doctor or pharmacy and neither of his 2 sons had a prescription for Androgel. It is illegal to dispense a schedule III controlled substance and prescription drug Androgel to any person who does not have a prescription for Androgel.

Alberto Salazar has also emailed Galen Rupp and told Galen to increase his dose of the prescription thyroid hormone drug Levoxyl (T4) and to start on the prescription drug Cytomel (T3) right away. He then offers to drive the prescription thyroid hormone drug Cytomel over to Galen.

Alberto Salazar is coach, doctor and pharmacy all in one.

In a Dec. 20, 2011 email to Galen Rupp from Coach Alberto Salazar:

"Take a full extra Levoxyl tonight and start on Cytomel right away.

"P.S. I've got Cytomel. If you don't have it, call me and I'll drive it over."

Coach Alberto Salazar should not be "playing doctor" with Galen Rupp by telling him to increase his dose of Levoxyl and to start on Cytomel at the same time, which could cause side effects.

Coach Alberto Salazar should also not act like a pharmacy delivery service for Galen Rupp.

Whoops. Here is the correct link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8803503/

A double-blind crossover field study was performed to investigate the effects of acute L-carnitine supplementation on metabolism and performance of endurance-trained athletes during and after a marathon run. Seven male subjects were given supplements of 2 g L-carnitine 2 h before the start of a marathon run and again after 20 km of the run. The plasma concentration of metabolites and hormones was analysed 1 h before, immediately after and 1 h after the run, as well as the next morning after the run. In addition, the respiratory exchange ratio (R) was determined before and at the end of the run, and a submaximal performance test was completed on a treadmill the morning after the run. The administration of L-carnitine was associated with a significant increase in the plasma concentration of all analysed carnitine fractions (i.e. free carnitine, short-chain acylcarnitine, long-chain acylcarnitine, total acid soluble carnitine, total carnitine) but caused no significant change in marathon running time, in R, in the plasma concentrations of carbohydrate metabolites (glucose, lactate, pyruvate), of fat metabolites (free fatty acids, glycerol, beta-hydroxybutyrate), of hormones (insulin, glucagon, cortisol), and of enzyme activities (creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase). Moreover, there was no difference in the result of the submaximal performance test the morning after the run. In conclusion, acute administration of L-carnitine did not affect the metabolism or improve the physical performance of the endurance-trained athletes during the run and did not alter their recovery.

What's wrong with you? After three years of debating these values, you now claim that they aren't true? They are both true and meaningful.

Read and weep, again:

"What are the implications of these changes for the off-score? Well, if we start on the assumption that Paula Radcliffe went into that half marathon in Portugal with a hemoglobin level of 12 g/dL (she said this herself, in her autobiography), "

"The interpretation of blood data in athletes in an immensely complicated and technical business, but an off-score of 82 recorded on October 2, 2003 meant an off-score of 115 two days later wasn’t down to altitude (or else the 82 would have been far higher); and an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 meant an off-score of 109 the next day wasn’t down to altitude for the same reasons. "

Oh well. As you know, the Hb values of 12 and 13 g/dL came in 2003 and 2005 after her altitude stays, when her off-scores were 82 and 92, respectively, just before the races after she had the 15ish values. Last time you claimed the 15.6 g/dL (and jump in off-scores) came from hemoconcentration (while Paula blamed dehydration), not from altitude... Less biased people know that blood transfusions are much more likely to raise Hb so quickly and significantly than dehydration after racing 10 K or 13 miles in the low 70s.

And that is why her 16.2 g/dL after altitude without hemoconcentration sticks out even more than it would with the average female runner. The higher RET-% is further evidence. Which is why that was flagged by the individualized APB algorithm. Get it? Individualized!

Again, why do you hate Paule so much that keep trolling me to repeat these facts?

In any case: you are boring me again. Troll with something new please, or I'll ignore you again for a few weeks.

Hardly. Those are facts, not my inventions. Stop making up such ludicrous stories.

As for Wilson and Roberts with their positive A and B tests, those are also facts.

not understanding wrote:

Hfhg wrote:

Galen has been tested roughly every 25 days since 2010. Not including competitions.

Factoring in competitions — since Rupp races more frequently than almost any other runner, Galen’s been test 25-30 times per year consistently.

If he is testing, they’ve found something that leaves your system in 24 hours.

Why do you think this? You didn't say he's being tested every 24 hours. Why would he need something that would leave his system in 24 hours?

Did Lance Armstrong ever fail a drug test?

Phony Tests I suspect wrote:

Did Lance Armstrong ever fail a drug test?

No...he didn't. And he sure rubbed it in back then. ?

And what he has to say is insightful & informative, IMO. You, OTOH, spin things so much that I don't if you really don't get it or you're trying to be argumentative to spice up some of these doping threads.

Baloney...I don't see any exaggeration but correctly interpreted facts.

Maybe he does know more about anti-doping than USADA ?. USADA is in the habit of cover stories and diversion. They'll buy these silly excuses from some of the big name athletes testing positive but yet they'll throw the book at a little old masters race walker testing positive for T in an event in which he was the only competitor! Talk about a waste of money!

And since they got exposed by the Fancy Bears leaked info, what's USADA doing about Jager's "likely doping" classification? A bunch of target testing? Big deal - we all know how drug testing turns out these days. ? Why hasn't a passport case been opened yet? A 5 level (+++++) highest priorty "likely doping" classification and no passport case? What kind of nonsense is this? (I bet if it was a Russian athlete WADA would throw the book at him!). I really don't see why you're such a big fan of USADA given the current climate.

Bottom line: I look foward to reading casual observer's posts and learning a few things. ?

casual obsever wrote:

"The interpretation of blood data in athletes in an immensely complicated and technical business, but an off-score of 82 recorded on October 2, 2003 meant an off-score of 115 two days later wasn’t down to altitude (or else the 82 would have been far higher); and an off-score of 92 on August 5, 2005 meant an off-score of 109 the next day wasn’t down to altitude for the same reasons. "

Again, why do you hate Paule so much that keep trolling me to repeat these facts?

There was a song in the Karate Kid 2 movie that went, "I am the man who will fight for your honor." What would expect from Rekrunner, he is trying to defend the credibility of his wife, the mother of his kids, little Johnny and Sarah (in this case Gary Jr and Paula Jr) can't grow up knowing their Mother is one of the greatest cheats is sports history.

Dr.SkyRunner.Shiva.at.12633ft.com wrote:

Whoops.

The athletes were then told to stop taking calcitonin...after Dathan Ritzenhein had already been taking it for 4 years.

Alberto Salazar dispensed the schedule III controlled substance and prescription drug Androgel (testosterone gel) to his 2 experimental subjects (his 2 sons) when he did the "Possible Galen Rupp Sabotage with Androgel Experiments" with measurement of testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) levels to see what amount would trigger a positive doping test. That is against various federal and state drug laws because Alberto is not a doctor or pharmacy and neither of his 2 sons had a prescription for Androgel. It is illegal to dispense a schedule III controlled substance and prescription drug Androgel to any person who does not have a prescription for Androgel.

Have these allegations been investigated by Federal agencies (i.e., DEA/FDA)? If not, then why? Like you said, transferring a schedule III controlled substance to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed is a serious offense. If the no investigation is being conducted is this becsuse of preferential treatment? I would imagine that if it's anyone of us we would get thrown at us!

"The history of 12 and 13" is not true, and it is not meaningful. Ross Tucker and the Daily Mail cannot save that. Calling it "history of 12 and 13" comes from you -- this is your own personal fabrication -- an exaggerated interpretation to make your prejudged conclusions seem as if it were an outcome of data, reason, and logic. Read your own Daily Mail link, and Paula points to the low value as "something not right", as if the haemoglobin value was uncharacteristically low, compared to her personal history. This makes complete sense if the measurement was bad -- something we know happened frequently in the early years of blood testing. Why do you ask now, what is wrong, as if I've changed my stance? I've consistently said all of this from the beginning -- the values before 2007 and 2009 rule changes are not real, subject to large errors for many independent and cumulative reasons that are as true today as they were when IAAF explained all of this in their first rebuttal. Therefore the differences between two values are also not real, for the same reasons. The IAAF said "no competent expert would proceed beyond this point". And to date, no competent expert has. Even Ashenden and Parisotto did not compare the differences in athletes' values. Another correction, I said Paula's 15.6 comes from hemoconcentration AND altitude (AND potentially many other non-doping factors). It's not either/or. This consistent false dichotomy is one of the many reasons you continue to be wrong today, just like years ago. While you pin your hopes and bad will on blood transfusions to explain wild swings, it ignores the scientifically established reality that uncontrolled measurements can lead to even bigger swings -- and false positives. We've been at a stalemate for years, both saying nothing new, because you chose to ignore half the facts, and make wrong interpretations (like 0.7 is a high RET% when the normal range is 0.5% to 1.5%) that were rebutted and debunked years ago by the half of the facts you ignore. As for Wilson, and Roberts, a finding of "no fault", after reviewing all of the evidence, is also fact. We can only arrive at your conclusions when we chose to ignore half of the established facts.

Except for four tests in 1999 for cortico-steroids, and 6 tests in 2004 of 1999 samples for EPO, for a total of 10 failed tests from 1999 alone.

Urine Specimen wrote:

Phony Tests I suspect wrote:

Did Lance Armstrong ever fail a drug test?

No...he didn't. And he sure rubbed it in back then. ?