There is no “genetic superiority” when it comes to distance running. Literally everyone sub 2:09 is just doping.

And what is the population of Kenya next to India - which is set to surpass China as the world's most populous nation? You so desperately clutch at straws.

And what's the number of people in India that are trying to make it pro track and road running compared to the number in one part of Kenya? The only sport with real traction in India is cricket.

If it were as simple as taking drugs and then running 2:04 in the marathon, then these other countries with resources would be doing it, too. Russia used the FSB to evade WADA measures and they still can't put a man anywhere near even the unranked Kalenjins.

Why are you so closed off to the idea that conditions over time can produce people that are on average more suited to a physical activity than others? Are you a creationist who doesn't believe in natural selection? If that's the case, then I can see why. But you write as if your average Tongan could be just as successful in distance running as your average Kalenjin if only they could do all the drugs. You completely discount the environmental and societal conditions under which their peoples have been existing for thousands of years.

The answer of someone who doesn't want to answer the question.

A smarter question is, what is the athletic population of Kenya, next to India? Even smarter is to compare the performance of Kenya, next to India.

When I looked at "top performers" for nearly three decades since 1990, the Kenyan men outnumbered India and Russia and China by a factor of infinity. One might wonder why doping is not "working" for Indian, Russian, or Chinese men.

Really. Thanks for proving yet again you can't follow an argument.

1 in 5 is not "my argument", but a result coming from a peer reviewed study.

It seems like it goes without saying that clicking buttons on a tablet is not the same as doping.

You must have alzheimers to make such stupid 'arguments' as this.

British snooker players outperform Indians and eskimos by a factor of multiverse infinity. One wonders why pints of lager are not working for Indians.

Good point.

And this while snooker is a very popular sport for the Eskimos. Just recently they ordered a myriad of snooker tables that were delivered to the North Pole. Icebears are wondering what's going on...

St Bernards are the hobby- jogger equivalent. That is why greyhounds are faster. Greyhounds compete against greyhounds - like fast runners compete against their peers, where doping will make a difference. But as a hobby jogger you probably have never experienced that.

The mods can always be trusted to reduce discussion to the level of the dullest participants. Their level.

Yet you have just said that surveys of this sort cannot be relied on because of their limitations. Yet you have just relied on the 1 in 5 figure from such a survey. Your left and right sides of the brain aren't in conversation with each other.

The answer is simple. They don't dope as much as Kenyans do in running. The busts tend to show that.

It is a stupid question. There's your answer.

Just read this thread and now realize how many of you have never raced or trained with a Kenyan. Genetic advantage is unreal. Think of a cheetah vs a Labrador, you are the Labrador.

You are completely unable to see that talent and doping are not mutually exclusive. The Kenyans have proved they aren't. They frequently go together.

However the Kenyans you trained and raced against were also likely to be doped. You could have made the same point about E Germans at one time, or Chinese women athletes.

Yes. The above post. I’m sure we’ve got some smart physiologists on here who could correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s how I understand some of this in a broad sense:

1. There’s no such thing as race from a biological standpoint, so we can’t resort to some silly racial (racist) shorthand.

2. Running is extraordinarily complex. Think of the requirements. You need durability (bone density connective tissue etc.), a certain amount of flexibility to aid stride length and maximize energy output. The right fast- and slow-twitch combination. Uncommonly strong cardiovascular system (usually measured by VO2 max). Running uses more muscle groups than any repetitive activity save cross-country skiing. You also need the mental profile to do the training (the brain is, after all, another organ and physical part of the body). All of this means that a world-beater is a rare specimen. We’ve got all kinds of people who could be decent. A good number of people can be national caliber. Not many people can tick off every physical box and combine that with the luck necessary to get to the top.

3. So, why do we see so many East Africans atop podiums? There’s speculation about cultural components. The problem is that culture itself is embodied (i.e., culture—beliefs, values, etc.—cannot be separated from the embodied material world). If running was culturally important to East Africans but they sucked at it, then we’d witness Raramuri-like running in Kenya rather than the highly competitive mass-participation track workouts that you’ve probably all seen in footage of Iten or Eldoret.

Cultural factors might explain differences between the desire among East African youth to improve their circumstances through running and the less concrete motivations of the middle-class Rupps, Fishers, and Ingebrigtsens of the world. But ultimately, I think we have to conclude that not growing up in rural, subsistence agricultural environs doesn’t make someone less motivated to succeed (Rupp is a really competitive person, right).

No, culture doesn’t give us a great explanation because it ultimately takes us right back to a question of talent concentration. Why East Africa?

I think the evolution of our species gives us a good beginning. Think about that swath of Africa from South Africa up through the Great Lakes region and into Sudan. The cradle of humanity. All human genetic diversity came from this region. Our species spread out and different physical environments helped to select different concentrations of genes in different regions of the world. But some of that diversity probably persists in humanity’s birthplace. Think of all the necessary traits that go into a world class runner. The likelihood of someone getting all of those traits if they come from a population that lacks the full genetic diversity of our species is probably not as great as it is for someone from East Africa (where we are likely to find the world’s best equipped and worst equipped runners, genetically speaking). Then think about altitude and it’s selecting effects.

So, it isn’t anything we might call “race,” but talent is all about population genetics.

I’ll leave the PED arguments to others.

Did Rekrunner try to explain away Ma's Army when it was brought up? Can't be bothered scrolling back through the last couple of pages of this thread.

Kenyans outperformed Chinese by factors of infinity. Until 1993 when a the best female talent in a small region of China were selected to train with Ma and given turtle juice, and within 2 years, they set times that those mythical Kenyans still can't get close to 30 years later. Then due to international outrage, Ma's army went as quickly as it came. Imagine if Ma had been allowed to continue for the next 30 years? Imagine if Ma had had the best talent in China to work with instead of a small region?

Does Mr Rekrunner accept that turtle juice improves performance?