Why I think Faith Kipyegon is using illegal PEDs

Why "maybe"? And by "maybe" you like 50% or like 80% clean?
And by "maybe" you're saying if someone is doping 10% of the time then it's fine? So, why "maybe"?

And also, if you're saying Muir "maybe" then you KNOW that top 3 on the list are for sure. Is that correct?

Honestly? I believe Muir is. And if she was, the womens all-time list looks a lot more palatable and in line with the distribution we see with the men (and yes I know that list is heavily impacted by doping too but at least the lineup isn't massively fragmented at the top which leads me to think if we eliminated dopers that a clean list wouldn't be either).

To that point, very simplistically if we nixed all of the sub 3.27 guys we could have a top 4 that went

Morceli 3.27.37

Ngeny 3.28.12

Tim C 3.28.28

Jakob 3.28.32

That's less than a second separating the top 4 times ever which is more in line with what seems plausible. Not over 5 seconds with that adjusted list of clear dopers removed.

Evidently, you always seem to care a great deal what I say, or you wouldn't have responded.

I still look at it like anyone, say for example an anonymous poster like "longjack", is not an expert in any relevant field, neither training, nor performance, nor doping, of elite athletes, and therefore, simply lacks the qualification to say otherwise.

Lance Armstrong was not an elite runner.

Once you factor in relevant experience, a lot of the noise should disappear.

And you're not an expert in any relevant field either; neither training, nor performance, nor doping of elite athletes!

But yet you shout from your Ivory tower that EPO doesn't work for elite athletes, criticize sports scientists & coaches who say EPO does work with elites and condemn any poster who suspects a WR performance, or any suspicious performance for that matter, of being doped.

You simply don't respect anyone else's opinion but expect people to give you their upmost respect & concession that doping doesn't work for elites.

I wonder what characteristic distinguishes the first three from Muir that would make you say that. Hmm.. no, too obvious. Nothing at all.

It doesn't mean any of the above. It is simply 'either', 'or' - they are either doping or they aren't. They aren't "partly" doped or "sometimes" doped. To me Muir doesn't cry out doping like the others do. She may be doping. Or she may not.

It means I have few doubts that the top 3 are doped. I don't have the same view of Muir.

I don't care as much as you do about what Canaday said about you, which you can't stop defending. With you I challenge your delusions, misinformation and lies. It is a public duty. There's a difference.

Since we can "factor in" that you have no "relevant experience" we can dismiss what you say also as mere noise. As always, your comments on others are a description of yourself.

You have just described a gross narcissist.

Of course it is obvious to one who doesn't have a clue. And because you don't - yes - white folks also dope.

According to this logic, since there are not similar gaps on the men's side then only the top women are doping. Is that what you believe?

Right. I'm only an anonymous follower of training, and elite performance, who reads a lot and occasionally quotes from experts, and provides publicly available data.

So that leaves really only one voice here who is a proven expert with personal experience on how to achieve elite performance, versus a lot of vocal anonymous non-experts with suspicions.

I am somewhat of an "expert" in the fields of math and science, but even then I don't expect you to take my word for it, or take it for granted.

When I make mathematical claims about performances, you don't need to listen to me, but you can confirm all of my claims for yourself, since the data, and my methods, are public and verifiable and refutable. Or you can chose to ignore them as irrelevant. But the historical data won't go away by ignoring me.

When I criticize studies for not being controlled or blinded according to the best practice for high quality studies -- you can ignore my criticisms, but that doesn't change the best practice, and doesn't cure these criticisms.

But you are also mistaken. I don't criticize "sports scientists & coaches who say EPO does work with elites", and furthermore, the few "expert" examples you gave don't really say "EPO does work with elites". They would like to, but they cannot. Again, you don't need to listen to me, but to listen better to them. They say things like "maybe" and "don't project our findings from amateurs onto elite performance". The best ones usually admit their own limitations explicitly.

I respect everyone's opinion, both expert and non-expert, to the extent there is data supporting it, and there is no other data contradicting it. If the data is lacking, I am reluctant to call such opinions "knowledge or fact", but rather "speculation, hypothesis, myth, belief, etc." This is not a lack of respect of opinion, but an indication of the quality of data behind it. I offer mine (implicitly) on the same terms. But still, everyone can take it or leave it. I'm not looking for acceptance or confirmation or belonging or popularity from anyone in this forum. I have no expectations from anyone here, except basic courtesy and honesty (as described in the Forum rules).

You see now you are the one who won't let it go?

I welcome your challenges, and even Canady's, if you(/he) can back it up with real world data and evidence and observations. Personal attacks and opinions provided without basis are not a substitute for a lack of substance and merit.

We need more respected runners and personalities like Sage Canaday to call out Rekrunner. He is harmful to the sport, period.

How is he harmful to the sport when he back up his opinions with facts?

I think you are more harmful to the sport when you tell millions of African kids they can't run fast without doping.

Fine by me, if they back it up and provide the missing information.

It's amusing you think I harm the sport. Judging by popular reactions, I don't think I have that much influence here, or on the sport.

I don't harm the sport by asking people to provide facts, and asking people not to ignore facts, and advising all athletes to not break the rules, and by advising them if they want extra EPO/RBCs -- do it naturally at altitude.