Most of my words are defending myself against bogus claims like "defending dopers" and "EPO doesn't work".
And yet, I have seen you "defending dopers" numerous times. Examples include Decker and Houlihan and Kiprop and Jeptoo and many many more. That is evidently not a bogus claim.
As for "EPO doesn't work", that's a summary or simplification of your countless similar statements, such as that EPO doesn't work in the marathon and that the altitude effect is better than EPO and that Jeptoo and Kiprop ran slower on EPO and so on. That is evidently not a bogus claim either.
Isn't it about time Kenya got banned or at a minimum placed on probation?
It’s a runner representing Kazakhstan, so unless you’re saying athletes who train in Kenya, which includes more than just Kenyans, that doesn’t make a whole ton of sense based on this news.
This post was edited 16 seconds after it was posted.
Isn't it about time Kenya got banned or at a minimum placed on probation?
It’s a runner representing Kazakhstan, so unless you’re saying athletes who train in Kenya, which includes more than just Kenyans, that doesn’t make a whole ton of sense based on this news.
She's a Kenyan who runs for another country under a flag of convenience.
On the Bright side of the Womans Steeple Ruth Jebet ran 31:36 to win a 10k Road Race Today 2nd was 35.06 Jebet was suspended for 4 years ran a few races last year that were not Elite Times or Performances, so Today is Encouraging, I can not get Mad at Dopers anymore with Men winning Women's NCAA Titles and Girls State Track meets and representing their Womens team in the Olympics like the New Zealand Weightlifter, I need the Mens who won Women's Championships performances annulled and an apology by the Man who won the Women's competition and his Coach and those who allowed him to do that before I can justify being against Women Doping
Most of my words are defending myself against bogus claims like "defending dopers" and "EPO doesn't work".
And yet, I have seen you "defending dopers" numerous times. Examples include Decker and Houlihan and Kiprop and Jeptoo and many many more. That is evidently not a bogus claim.
As for "EPO doesn't work", that's a summary or simplification of your countless similar statements, such as that EPO doesn't work in the marathon and that the altitude effect is better than EPO and that Jeptoo and Kiprop ran slower on EPO and so on. That is evidently not a bogus claim either.
These are all dumbed down over-simplifications -- sound bites meant to mischaracterize my arguments and misrepresent my motives. Unfortunately the sound bites are most effective among a population that is not aware of, or cannot fully appreciate, or refuse to consider, all of the facts. I realize I am the salmon swimming upstream.
In a forum that encourages public discussion about all things doping, I defend things like scientific integrity and principles of due process and fair trials, by highlighting legitimate criticisms of both -- not only originating from me, but coming from field experts like researchers, scientists, anti-doping experts, sports lawyers and successful coaches of elite athletes. Both science and law can only work when the assumptions/presumptions and results can be freely and independently challenged.
The historical and current process that determines who is a "doper" is one that makes a series of presumptions about the robustness of the relevant science, the correctness of test execution by the lab and subsequent expert interpretation, and the impartiality and fairness of adjudication. It is fair, if not a duty, to point out the limitations of the science, and how presumptions and subjectivity plays a role in the determinations of "dopers".
Once the testing and adjudication process has completed, rightly or wrongly, this does not give anyone carte blanche permission to turn their brain off, and pretend that such inconvenient facts no longer exist.
I welcome those who can identify when and where any of my statements are not factually correct or logically sound, but what happens too often is that instead they resort to sound bites and name-calling and strawmans and other logical fallacies. This below the belt kick in the balls is far from the kind of cerebral discussion that could take place.
Relevant to this thread, what are the facts? This Kenyan turned Kazahkstani is not yet considered a "doper" but has only been provisionally suspended by the AIU, and according to Gault "AIU reached out to Jeruto in August 2022, she was asked to explain variations in her ABP from 2020". She is at a stage in the process, where on one side, the AIU has a 2-year head start, and a long history of experience with both the science and adjudication of the ABP. On the other side, we have an athlete in front of a steep learning curve, asked to explain some blood variation from two years ago, unlikely to be aware of all of the various factors and their influence on blood parameters, and the strengths and weakness of the ABP, under time pressure to return to competition, required to build up a competent scientific and legal team, at her own expense, while she has been cut off from her primary source of income, without free access to WADA's best ABP scientists, in a process that will presume that the lab testing and subjective expert interpretations are correct, and that the athlete is already guilty of use. What protections are afforded by WADA to the athlete to ensure that she will be properly represented, and that justice will be done?
I wouldn't take Coevett's figures and claims at face value. He has the same gift for numbers that you do.
But you are right, I haven't succeeded in stopping the steady stream of bogus claims.
Or making them, in your case.
Yet another bogus response made without substance.
Here's a recent example of Coevett's figures: "Kenyans still get popped at 20x the rate of Western distance runners combined".
Yet I see in WADA's latest ADRV report (2019) Kenyan ADRVs were just 7x the rate of the UK alone. Similarly, as recent as 2021, WADA's testing figures show Kenyan AAFs are maybe 3x that of France, and roughly equal to the USA.
You two share the same affliction -- numbers are not figures, but figures of speech.
And yet, I have seen you "defending dopers" numerous times. Examples include Decker and Houlihan and Kiprop and Jeptoo and many many more. That is evidently not a bogus claim.
As for "EPO doesn't work", that's a summary or simplification of your countless similar statements, such as that EPO doesn't work in the marathon and that the altitude effect is better than EPO and that Jeptoo and Kiprop ran slower on EPO and so on. That is evidently not a bogus claim either.
These are all dumbed down over-simplifications -- sound bites meant to mischaracterize my arguments and misrepresent my motives. Unfortunately the sound bites are most effective among a population that is not aware of, or cannot fully appreciate, or refuse to consider, all of the facts. I realize I am the salmon swimming upstream.
In a forum that encourages public discussion about all things doping, I defend things like scientific integrity and principles of due process and fair trials, by highlighting legitimate criticisms of both -- not only originating from me, but coming from field experts like researchers, scientists, anti-doping experts, sports lawyers and successful coaches of elite athletes. Both science and law can only work when the assumptions/presumptions and results can be freely and independently challenged.
The historical and current process that determines who is a "doper" is one that makes a series of presumptions about the robustness of the relevant science, the correctness of test execution by the lab and subsequent expert interpretation, and the impartiality and fairness of adjudication. It is fair, if not a duty, to point out the limitations of the science, and how presumptions and subjectivity plays a role in the determinations of "dopers".
Once the testing and adjudication process has completed, rightly or wrongly, this does not give anyone carte blanche permission to turn their brain off, and pretend that such inconvenient facts no longer exist.
I welcome those who can identify when and where any of my statements are not factually correct or logically sound, but what happens too often is that instead they resort to sound bites and name-calling and strawmans and other logical fallacies. This below the belt kick in the balls is far from the kind of cerebral discussion that could take place.
Relevant to this thread, what are the facts? This Kenyan turned Kazahkstani is not yet considered a "doper" but has only been provisionally suspended by the AIU, and according to Gault "AIU reached out to Jeruto in August 2022, she was asked to explain variations in her ABP from 2020". She is at a stage in the process, where on one side, the AIU has a 2-year head start, and a long history of experience with both the science and adjudication of the ABP. On the other side, we have an athlete in front of a steep learning curve, asked to explain some blood variation from two years ago, unlikely to be aware of all of the various factors and their influence on blood parameters, and the strengths and weakness of the ABP, under time pressure to return to competition, required to build up a competent scientific and legal team, at her own expense, while she has been cut off from her primary source of income, without free access to WADA's best ABP scientists, in a process that will presume that the lab testing and subjective expert interpretations are correct, and that the athlete is already guilty of use. What protections are afforded by WADA to the athlete to ensure that she will be properly represented, and that justice will be done?
And so another 5000 words are added to the 10,000,000. And they all say the same thing. So much self-justification.
Yet another bogus response made without substance.
Here's a recent example of Coevett's figures: "Kenyans still get popped at 20x the rate of Western distance runners combined".
Yet I see in WADA's latest ADRV report (2019) Kenyan ADRVs were just 7x the rate of the UK alone. Similarly, as recent as 2021, WADA's testing figures show Kenyan AAFs are maybe 3x that of France, and roughly equal to the USA.
You two share the same affliction -- numbers are not figures, but figures of speech.
You think you are being up to date when you quote figures from 4 years ago. You have missed the avalanche of doping positives since then. You are always ridiculous.
Yet another bogus response made without substance.
Here's a recent example of Coevett's figures: "Kenyans still get popped at 20x the rate of Western distance runners combined".
Yet I see in WADA's latest ADRV report (2019) Kenyan ADRVs were just 7x the rate of the UK alone. Similarly, as recent as 2021, WADA's testing figures show Kenyan AAFs are maybe 3x that of France, and roughly equal to the USA.
You two share the same affliction -- numbers are not figures, but figures of speech.
You think you are being up to date when you quote figures from 4 years ago. You have missed the avalanche of doping positives since then. You are always ridiculous.
What is more ridiculous is your inability to speak with numbers. "Avalanche" is another one of these colorful emotional terms that describe how you feel, but are unable to put a number on it, and gain a proper perspective.
The WADA's 2021 Testing Report (two years ago) suggests roughly the same rates of busts as 2019.
And the AIU's 2022 (last year) first instance decisions similarly suggests a similar rate of Kenyan busts. In fact, the AIU's Kenyan Decisions peaked in 2017, and 2018 (with 24 busts) and declined in 2019 (22) despite the increased enforcement of "Whereabouts Failures", and again in 2022 (20), beside reporting an increase in positive tests for "triamcinolone acetonide", after changes in its status from WADA from being permitted in some cases, to being banned.
It only seems like an avalanche to the impressionable as each Kenyan suspension, and then sanction, makes the headlines twice per athlete, while busts in the rest of the world rarely make headlines at all. Without looking at official centralized and global data sources, you could easily get a distorted perception.
You think you are being up to date when you quote figures from 4 years ago. You have missed the avalanche of doping positives since then. You are always ridiculous.
What is more ridiculous is your inability to speak with numbers. "Avalanche" is another one of these colorful emotional terms that describe how you feel, but are unable to put a number on it, and gain a proper perspective.
The WADA's 2021 Testing Report (two years ago) suggests roughly the same rates of busts as 2019.
And the AIU's 2022 (last year) first instance decisions similarly suggests a similar rate of Kenyan busts. In fact, the AIU's Kenyan Decisions peaked in 2017, and 2018 (with 24 busts) and declined in 2019 (22) despite the increased enforcement of "Whereabouts Failures", and again in 2022 (20), beside reporting an increase in positive tests for "triamcinolone acetonide", after changes in its status from WADA from being permitted in some cases, to being banned.
It only seems like an avalanche to the impressionable as each Kenyan suspension, and then sanction, makes the headlines twice per athlete, while busts in the rest of the world rarely make headlines at all. Without looking at official centralized and global data sources, you could easily get a distorted perception.
Lord Coe - "Kenya incurred 40% of doping positives in the sport in 2022". Up to date enough for you? But you will try to say his figures are wrong - like you always do when they make you look like an ass.