Rita Jeptoo's B-sample tests positive for EPO

[Jwolf]

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/kenyan ... --spt.html

Marathon runner Rita Jeptoo's "B'' sample tested positive, Kenya's athletics federation said Friday, confirming an earlier test that found traces of a banned performance enhancer.

Jeptoo is a three-time winner of the Boston Marathon and two-time winner in Chicago. She is one of the highest profile Kenyan athletes to fail a doping test.

...

[richie-rich]

bloom coming off the rose WRT Kenyan runners. maybe the secret isn't high altitude training after all.......

[Dstew]

Given the around 50% of elites would take a drug to guarantee them a gold in exchange for their life, it is not surprising at all that more then a few would "cheat" in order to provide for themselves and their families.

I was reading an UK trail magazine and in the Kenyan town of Iten, out of about 4,000 residents, 800 are professional runners. So this may not be a case of having to beat the rest of the world but your neighbor. I cannot recall the article but someone did a risk analysis of what is the risk of being caught, what is the punishment as compared to reward. So when clean running water versus subsistence farming/living is put into the equation, the only question is why are they all not cheating to some degree.

[Jwolf]

[quote="Dstew"]Given the around 50% of elites would take a drug to guarantee them a gold in exchange for their life.... [quote]

I find this hard to believe. If this was the result of a survey or study it must have been a very loaded question.

[ian]

Given the around 50% of elites would take a drug to guarantee them a gold in exchange for their life....

I find this hard to believe. If this was the result of a survey or study it must have been a very loaded question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman's_dilemma

[Jwolf]

Given the around 50% of elites would take a drug to guarantee them a gold in exchange for their life....

I find this hard to believe. If this was the result of a survey or study it must have been a very loaded question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman's_dilemma

Thanks for the link. The article also says:

"....but modern research by James Connor and co-workers has yielded much lower numbers, with athletes having levels of acceptance of the dilemma that were similar to the general population of Australia."

Interesting that Dr. Gabe Mirkin was one of the original "researchers". I used to listen to his radio show and he would often cite similar dubious statistics amidst his decent health and medical advice.

[Dstew]

Whatever the current percentages are, if some people are willing to risk severe adverse health risks to win Olympic medals and even stories of those doing it to win age group medals, how much more powerful an incentive is there when if one makes sure they win a few races they are set for the rest of their lives and failure to win may mean going back to work in a very poor rural farm.


Or to put this a different way, your economic future is very much in doubt and a person comes up to you and says take this pill, you are likely not to be caught, the health risks are minimized and in exchange this pill would vastly increase the odds of you being set for life, how many people are not going to take that pill? Especially if you think others you are competing against are taking that pill - a prisoner's dilemma of sorts.

[jonovision_man]

Or to put this a different way, your economic future is very much in doubt and a person comes up to you and says take this pill, you are likely not to be caught, the health risks are minimized and in exchange this pill would vastly increase the odds of you being set for life, how many people are not going to take that pill? Especially if you think others you are competing against are taking that pill - a prisoner's dilemma of sorts.

+1. Watch any of the Armstrong documentaries where they interview the former team-mates, they all tell the same tale... and use the same justification. Everyone else was doing it, it was either do it or you're out. So I did it.

jono

[5km]

So what does all this mean?

Should we return to the old days where being called a "professional" meant that you were somehow tainted by money as opposed to the "amateurs" who compete for the love of the sport?

Maybe "professionals" should be allowed to do what they want in order to win. It's their choice.

It's not the answer, I know, but it makes one think. How is doping, i.e. cheating, ever going to be stopped?

Maybe it never will be.

[Jwolf]

It can never be stopped because there will always be people that try to cheat whatever system is in place, especially when money is involved. Of course this isn't limited to sports. But that doesn't mean we should just give in and allow it. Isn't fairness an ideal that we all aspire to? And no, I don't think giving everyone the licence to abuse their body, with whatever dangerous and illegal substances they want, is the answer to fairness.

Maybe I'm naive but I think there will always be people competing (and winning) in sports at the professional level that appreciate the pure sport and the rules against doping.

[jonovision_man]

It can never be stopped because there will always be people that try to cheat whatever system is in place, especially when money is involved. Of course this isn't limited to sports. But that doesn't mean we should just give in and allow it. Isn't fairness an ideal that we all aspire to? And no, I don't think giving everyone the licence to abuse their body, with whatever dangerous and illegal substances they want, is the answer to fairness.

Maybe I'm naive but I think there will always be people competing (and winning) in sports at the professional level that appreciate the pure sport and the rules against doping.

When you say "appreciate", do you also mean "abide by"?

I have a hard time believing anyone can win against a doped field, not in a sport like marathon running where we know doping can give a significant advantage. Kind of like cycling that way. So if this is truly prevalent, then anyone competing and winning needs to be looked at with a skeptical eye, unfortunately.

jono

[ian]

Nice article at ESPN about the rise in marathon doping busts:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/12071291/endurance-sports-marathons-falling-doping-microscope

One concrete step that could be taken to reduce (but not eliminate) the incentive to dope: pay out major cash prizes, such as the half-million that Jeptoo was about to get last month, in instalments over several decades.

[Dstew]

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runne ... es-suspect


Hutchinson


He noted an article that states between 14-40% professionals likely dope. One can see how that does get into a death spiral as did that person who beat you had some help? And with cycling, now that a few winners have been discovered, does that confirm the suspicions or questions of the competitors and so ...

I hate to be cliche but money does corrupt. I have a friend who knows a decent local runner who is a substitute teacher. She was world class back in the day and is also an accomplished Masters swimmer. She would get invites to races and could make up to $30,000 a year doing a hobby. She is slowing with age but I also believe that more and more people are not treating this as a nice hobby that can put a few extra dollars in your pocket but a way to finance a real running career. So it would almost seem inevitable that a winner of the Vancouver Sun run may be doping one day?

[Jwolf]

Of course I understand that money corrupts, but it doesn't corrupt everyone. The range of 14-40% is pretty wide, but even the worst case scenario means that the majority of elite athletes are not doping. So why should we throw up our hands and give up? I prefer to focus on the positive.

[Jwolf]

Nice article at ESPN about the rise in marathon doping busts:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/12071291/endurance-sports-marathons-falling-doping-microscope

One concrete step that could be taken to reduce (but not eliminate) the incentive to dope: pay out major cash prizes, such as the half-million that Jeptoo was about to get last month, in instalments over several decades.

That's a good idea.

Also a good article- thanks.

[Dstew]

Of course I understand that money corrupts, but it doesn't corrupt everyone. The range of 14-40% is pretty wide, but even the worst case scenario means that the majority of elite athletes are not doping. So why should we throw up our hands and give up? I prefer to focus on the positive.

Other then being able to go, tsk, tsk to someone who took a PED, there is not much more that I can do. In all honesty, I barely follow elite marathoners other then to occasionally read the blogs of some high level Canadian athletes when I am bored and so by default, do not really care whether the results are clean or dirty. I suspect that other then a miniscule portion of the population, does anyone really care what Kenyan won what major marathon? And with all of the doping stories, would they also not view any result with skepticism? And here is Amby Burfoot suggesting he would have taken PEDs under the right set of circumstances and he is questioning results from as far back as the 1980s:

http://m.runnersworld.com/elite-runners ... age=single

My interest and inspiration when I was attempting to qualify for Boston was not any elite but 40 something males working full time jobs and without the body type and build expected of a "fast" marathoner. Had a read to qualify one had to take PEDs, that would have discouraged me. To read that for every 10 to 20 professionals caught, as many as 380-390 are not and thus all results are read with skepticism, not really on my radar other then an interesting philosophical debate as to why and can anything be done to stop it. The only thing I can say with complete certainty is that I am glad I do not have to address the issue of huge reward, few or little risk associated with PEDs.

[jonovision_man]

On a related note... "USADA bans middle-aged recreational runner":
http://runningmagazine.ca/usada-bans-mi ... al-runner/

Umm, is there more to this story? Why was she being tested in the first place, seems unusual?

jono

[Jwolf]

On a related note... "USADA bans middle-aged recreational runner":
http://runningmagazine.ca/usada-bans-mi ... al-runner/

Umm, is there more to this story? Why was she being tested in the first place, seems unusual?

jono

There is more to the story-- she placed seventh overall female, and third masters. Pike's Peak had previously announced that they would be testing top 10 male and female finishers. Although the hormone replacement therapy may not have been taken to get a competitive advantage, it definitely makes you faster (and any competitive masters female runner would know this). More discussion here: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... 06&page=1#

[ian]

One concrete step that could be taken to reduce (but not eliminate) the incentive to dope: pay out major cash prizes, such as the half-million that Jeptoo was about to get last month, in instalments over several decades.

Evidently, the powers that be are lurking on this board (or so I tell myself):

The Majors will also create a pool of championship-eligible marathoners who will commit to additional out-of-competition drug testing. In a related change, the champions will receive $100,000 a year for five years instead of a $500,000 lump-sum payment.

[La]

Is that just for the Worth Marathon Majors?

Imagine if the Tour, Giro, and Vuelta did this, too?

[canalrunner]

Of course I understand that money corrupts, but it doesn't corrupt everyone. The range of 14-40% is pretty wide, but even the worst case scenario means that the majority of elite athletes are not doping. So why should we throw up our hands and give up? I prefer to focus on the positive.

Other then being able to go, tsk, tsk to someone who took a PED, there is not much more that I can do. In all honesty, I barely follow elite marathoners other then to occasionally read the blogs of some high level Canadian athletes when I am bored and so by default, do not really care whether the results are clean or dirty. I suspect that other then a miniscule portion of the population, does anyone really care what Kenyan won what major marathon? And with all of the doping stories, would they also not view any result with skepticism? And here is Amby Burfoot suggesting he would have taken PEDs under the right set of circumstances and he is questioning results from as far back as the 1980s:

http://m.runnersworld.com/elite-runners ... age=single

My interest and inspiration when I was attempting to qualify for Boston was not any elite but 40 something males working full time jobs and without the body type and build expected of a "fast" marathoner. Had a read to qualify one had to take PEDs, that would have discouraged me. To read that for every 10 to 20 professionals caught, as many as 380-390 are not and thus all results are read with skepticism, not really on my radar other then an interesting philosophical debate as to why and can anything be done to stop it. The only thing I can say with complete certainty is that I am glad I do not have to address the issue of huge reward, few or little risk associated with PEDs.

I think we were naive to think that marathons especially where money is involved would be immune from EPO and PEDs. If it worked in cycling, didn’t we not think it was also working in long distance running. I too love watching the elites and they are amazing athletes---they look impressive whether they are 2:07 or 2:17. I am attracted to the sport by the common man/woman efforts to qualify for Boston, to run a first marathon—to do something personally awesome. The elites are a bit of a side show. What is cool about running is that I get to line up with them on the same course and run the same race. Imagine if the Tour de France had 5,000 cyclists following them. That is us. Sad that we are starting confirm what we probably knew in our hearts. That the elites were seeking every competitive edge to win, to earn money and in doing so, a number, perhaps large, were doping.

[turd ferguson]

Of course I understand that money corrupts, but it doesn't corrupt everyone. The range of 14-40% is pretty wide, but even the worst case scenario means that the majority of elite athletes are not doping. So why should we throw up our hands and give up? I prefer to focus on the positive.

Of course it doesn't corrupt everyone. Just winners.

Can we agree that everyone was doping in the 1980s and 1990s?

What's changed since then? Have the elites stopped doping, or have they gotten better at testing negative (with undetectable substances, better doping cycles)?

If I had $100, I know which one I'd bet on. Focusing on the positive and wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it true.

[canalrunner]

Of course I understand that money corrupts, but it doesn't corrupt everyone. The range of 14-40% is pretty wide, but even the worst case scenario means that the majority of elite athletes are not doping. So why should we throw up our hands and give up? I prefer to focus on the positive.

Of course it doesn't corrupt everyone. Just winners.

.

Actually it has a chance of corrupting more. I worry about the leakage. For every Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Rita Jeptoo and Olympic weightlifter, there can be a pile of high school athletes, minor league ballplayers, minor league Kenyan marathoners, and local athletes looking for an edge and doing so with less science, less supervision and likely greater risk. The edge ranges from legal supplements to others. I always hoped that the mystic of the Kenyan athlete would hold. That pure air, natural ability, training at altitude, fundamental genetics and natural ability were the key ingredients. Sadly, there may be ingredients involved. Maybe money is motivator, maybe it is the desire to be better--and forget the cost.

[turd ferguson]

Of course I understand that money corrupts, but it doesn't corrupt everyone. The range of 14-40% is pretty wide, but even the worst case scenario means that the majority of elite athletes are not doping. So why should we throw up our hands and give up? I prefer to focus on the positive.

Of course it doesn't corrupt everyone. Just winners.

.

Actually it has a chance of corrupting more. I worry about the leakage. For every Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Rita Jeptoo and Olympic weightlifter, there can be a pile of high school athletes, minor league ballplayers, minor league Kenyan marathoners, and local athletes looking for an edge and doing so with less science, less supervision and likely greater risk. The edge ranges from legal supplements to others. I always hoped that the mystic of the Kenyan athlete would hold. That pure air, natural ability, training at altitude, fundamental genetics and natural ability were the key ingredients. Sadly, there may be ingredients involved. Maybe money is motivator, maybe it is the desire to be better--and forget the cost.

You're right, I mangled my point. In the TdF until recently, not all losers are clean, but everyone who was clean was a loser.

[Spirit Unleashed]

Turd said,

not all losers are clean, but everyone who was clean was a loser