I know that adding 10 brings you to the extreme limit of your arithmetic skills and that you counted to the wrong year - astonishing for someone with a IQ of almost 160.
Good point about Kelvin Kiptum. What's your explanation for this astonishing result? Doping? Only doping, nothing else? How many 23y old central Europeans could run a Marathon in 2:01:57 while using the same illegal supplements as Kiptum did (if he did)?
"I have no idea of Douglas Wakihuri was clean." - a rarity: a honest and true sentence from you (just a small mistake). How many times have you written that any Kenyan who ever competed was doped to the max.
No one argues that success is only doping; it is talent plus doping. Most dopers at the elite or championship level have talent. It is a given. But doping makes them better.
Something that threads like this cannot acknowledge is that it is typically the most talented who dope. It will not turn mediocrities into the best. It makes the best near unbeatable.
Would you have any real world data to support these statements?
If anti-doping heads like David Howman don't know who is doping, how can you say the it is the most talented that typically dope? Seems more intuitive to say it is the less talented who dope, hoping to compete with the more talented. Or it is the aging athletes after the peak of their career, trying to hang on to the top. The less talented are also less tested, so they are able to dope undetected, and they are under-represented in doping busts.
Similarly, since no expert has yet linked doping to higher elite performance, how can you say it would make the best unbeatable?
You are starting to preach to the choir. Doping, genetics, and altitude are three independent things, related to sub-2:09 marathon performances. Instead of limiting your thinking to just doping or just genetics, or just doping and genetics, you have to expand your arguments to include other factors like "a sign that they were 'getting serious'", as well as environmental circumstances like high altitude. You seem able to easily do this for the Western and Southern worlds of non-Africans, but not for Kenyans and Ethiopians and all East Africans.
Getting "serious" in Kenya obviously involves doping. It is also one of the dominant "environmental" factors.
Thanks for the clear demonstration of limiting your thinking.
After all those posts you still havn't got the subject.
So, Nyandika Maiyoro achieved his result clean? 7th at the Olympics. In 1956. How was he able to do this? The rest of the world just underperformed? In Rome 4 years later he ran faster than Zatopek ever did.
What about a 7:39.6 from Keino in 1965? Finally doping arrived and was widespread in Kenya, correct? Astonishingly, only in Kenya. Or are there other reasons for all those achievements? Reasons which are discussed since decades but obviously went unnoticed from you.
Just an info for you: everybody knows there is doping in sport and probably to some extreme amount also in Kenyan running.
7th at Melbourne in '56 means nothing. The gold would have raised questions. It also was an era that preceded blood doping and then EPO. There was no significant doping in the endurance events in running until the spread of blood doping in the early 70's. The only performance of Keino's that I would question was his 1500 at Mexico, which interestingly followed a visit to hospital.
I am not saying all performance is achieved through doping. But when the best dope, as has occurred increasingly in recent decades, then doping is inextricably related to performance. And so we see Kenya today.
7th in Melbourne means a lot. It tells us that Kenyens immediately could compete at the world stage - immediately, do you understand this? It tells us that there is enormous talent and obviously extremely good conditions for running well in the longer events. Probably better than anywhere else in the world.
Europe and North America already have had decades of competing at the highest level behind them, yet only four nations could place a runner ahead of this guy from a "third world" country.
"7th at Melbourne in '56 means nothing" - what an unbelievable nonsense.
Even disregarding the altitude adaptation, there is no need to postulate a mysterious "genetic advantage". It's obvious from the anatomy of East African runners. The ideal running anatomy is simply rarer among Caucasians.
You're looking at the anatomy of doped up runners dominating a sport which they would likely dominate simply due to participation levels and motivation, and then concluding that they have the perfect anatomy. Yeah, Kiprop had the perfect anatomy for 3:26. For a 3:35 natural level Kenyan on EPO.
The biomechanics are what they are. Many of the best non-African runners have a very similar, i.e. lanky or tiny built, there are simply far more East Africans with such an anatomy and there are good reasons for that, namely growing up for generations in that particular climate/ecology.
There are also many cases of random East African teenagers or even older ones ending up in Europe as migrants and getting to national top level of (distance) running within a very short time. They don't need to escape poverty because they are safe in a generous welfare state, neither were they formed by "Iten Fartlek" competition in their youth. Why should they dope more than French or German athletes, they are also controlled as tightly as other Europeans?
I know that adding 10 brings you to the extreme limit of your arithmetic skills and that you counted to the wrong year - astonishing for someone with a IQ of almost 160.
Good point about Kelvin Kiptum. What's your explanation for this astonishing result? Doping? Only doping, nothing else? How many 23y old central Europeans could run a Marathon in 2:01:57 while using the same illegal supplements as Kiptum did (if he did)?
"I have no idea of Douglas Wakihuri was clean." - a rarity: a honest and true sentence from you (just a small mistake). How many times have you written that any Kenyan who ever competed was doped to the max.
I'm just going by the World Athletics list, though tbh, I don't think it really matters whether 40+ Kenyans had broken 2:09 in 11 years after the first or 10 years after the first. There's nothing more dumb than believing that Kenyans are a genetic offshoot of humanity because they dominate the marathon when they have 250+ busts since EPO came on the scene, and before EPO came on the scene they couldn't break 2:09.
Me too, the WA list, 34 including Boston. But you can't read.
I just want to show your absolute inability just to get the simplest data correct. You're already struggling with adding of 10. Not just here, always. And all of your reasoning is on exact this level as well. Combined with your hate we have a dangerous combination.
7th at Melbourne in '56 means nothing. The gold would have raised questions. It also was an era that preceded blood doping and then EPO. There was no significant doping in the endurance events in running until the spread of blood doping in the early 70's. The only performance of Keino's that I would question was his 1500 at Mexico, which interestingly followed a visit to hospital.
I am not saying all performance is achieved through doping. But when the best dope, as has occurred increasingly in recent decades, then doping is inextricably related to performance. And so we see Kenya today.
7th in Melbourne means a lot. It tells us that Kenyens immediately could compete at the world stage - immediately, do you understand this? It tells us that there is enormous talent and obviously extremely good conditions for running well in the longer events. Probably better than anywhere else in the world.
Europe and North America already have had decades of competing at the highest level behind them, yet only four nations could place a runner ahead of this guy from a "third world" country.
"7th at Melbourne in '56 means nothing" - what an unbelievable nonsense.
It doesn't say that. It took a other 8 years for a Kenyan to medal. That isn't the international dominance that suddenly accelerated in the 80's and 90's with the interesting coincidence of EPO. We now see that Kenyan success is built on a foundation of doping.
Something that threads like this cannot acknowledge is that it is typically the most talented who dope. It will not turn mediocrities into the best. It makes the best near unbeatable.
Would you have any real world data to support these statements?
If anti-doping heads like David Howman don't know who is doping, how can you say the it is the most talented that typically dope? Seems more intuitive to say it is the less talented who dope, hoping to compete with the more talented. Or it is the aging athletes after the peak of their career, trying to hang on to the top. The less talented are also less tested, so they are able to dope undetected, and they are under-represented in doping busts.
Similarly, since no expert has yet linked doping to higher elite performance, how can you say it would make the best unbeatable?
Just facts and data please.
It has been posted in this site previously, so I won't do it again, but the list of athletes busted for doping includes an array of Olympic and world championship medallists and world record holders. We also have the evidence of athletes in their primes across a range of sports who doped at their peak - Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Ramzi, Gatlin, Houlihan - the list is endless - because it still goes on. Athletes dope to succeed and success matters at every point in their career.
I recall the first successful Kenyan athlete with the great 800m runner Wilson Kiprugut medalling at Tokyo in '64 (and Mexico '68), but the arrival of Kenyan athletes at the top didn't truly occur until Keino (and behind him, Naftali Temu). In the 70's we saw Boit and John Kipkurgat, who were world-class but not the best, and then the remarkable Henry Rono in the late 70's. This was as I would expect from a country that had a pool of talent - a few top runners in each decade. The best in those eras, meanwhile, still generally came from other countries. This was so until the late '80's and then the '90's when there was a suddenly ballooning in Kenyan success. We continue to see that today. What changed in that time? The sudden availability of an undetectable endurance drug, as we now know. The parade of Kenyan doping busts in recent years puts an entirely different complexion on Kenyan success. It is like the rise of the former E Bloc in sports all over again - and just as credible.
If doping was shown to be rampant in NZ after the successes of Snell, Halberg, Dixon, Quax and Walker, or the same in the UK after Ovett, Coe and Cram, I would say the same about those countries' successes as I do about the Kenyans. But as we now see, only the pariah of Russia (followed by India with its more than a billion people) appears worse than Kenya for doping.
It has been posted in this site previously, so I won't do it again, but the list of athletes busted for doping includes an array of Olympic and world championship medallists and world record holders. We also have the evidence of athletes in their primes across a range of sports who doped at their peak - Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Ramzi, Gatlin, Houlihan - the list is endless - because it still goes on. Athletes dope to succeed and success matters at every point in their career.
But you said "typically the most talented who dope", and "It makes the best near unbeatable."
A list of athletes that "includes" some of the most talented athletes does nothing to show either of your statements are likely or truthful. These same lists also includes many many more non-Olympic and non-World championship medalists and non-world record holders. No way to tell what is "typical" nor what it can do to the "best". Successful athletes don't need to dope if they are already succeeding, and even by the most extreme estimates, more often than not, choose not to dope.
I recall the first successful Kenyan athlete with the great 800m runner Wilson Kiprugut medalling at Tokyo in '64 (and Mexico '68), but the arrival of Kenyan athletes at the top didn't truly occur until Keino (and behind him, Naftali Temu). In the 70's we saw Boit and John Kipkurgat, who were world-class but not the best, and then the remarkable Henry Rono in the late 70's. This was as I would expect from a country that had a pool of talent - a few top runners in each decade. The best in those eras, meanwhile, still generally came from other countries. This was so until the late '80's and then the '90's when there was a suddenly ballooning in Kenyan success. We continue to see that today. What changed in that time? The sudden availability of an undetectable endurance drug, as we now know. The parade of Kenyan doping busts in recent years puts an entirely different complexion on Kenyan success. It is like the rise of the former E Bloc in sports all over again - and just as credible.
If doping was shown to be rampant in NZ after the successes of Snell, Halberg, Dixon, Quax and Walker, or the same in the UK after Ovett, Coe and Cram, I would say the same about those countries' successes as I do about the Kenyans. But as we now see, only the pariah of Russia (followed by India with its more than a billion people) appears worse than Kenya for doping.
We saw East African (Kenya and Ethiopia) success already "ballooning" in the early '80s, in World Cross country. Did you see my summary of the 1986 World Cross country results -- long before Coevett's 1992 milestone.
What you should also note is the large number of Russian, Indian and Chinese busts from the larger populations have not led to anything close to resembling E Bloc or East African dominance in any event. Why is doping failing so badly in these nations? Are the "typically most talented" athletes from Russia, India and China also the ones doping "to succeed because success matters at every point in their career"?
1986 was a particularly good year for Kenya. Check out this world domination:
Out of 337 runners, they placed 5 runners in the top-10 (actually top-8). In the world, only the American Pat Porter, and the Ethiopians Abebe Mekonnen (sub-2:09 runner) and Bekele Debele could beat their 5th runner. They placed 9 runners in the top-50 (actually top-45). From 8th place England, only 2 Englishmen beat Kenyan's 9th runner, Sisa Kirati. Belgium took 10th out of 39 teams, and Kenyan's 9th runner beat Belgium's first runner. Take away the top-3 Kenyans, and they still beat every country in the world, except Ethiopia (losing a close 107-141).
In addition to the seniors, Kenyan Juniors placed 2nd to Ethiopia. Out of 172 juniors, the Kenyan juniors placed 4 scoring runners in the top-11, and the 5th non-scoring runner was 28th.
That's some amazing display of depth of talent, from 9 seniors and 5 juniors, in 1986, before EPO in 1992. Ethiopia showed similar depth, placing 7 senior men in the top-36 (same as Kenya), and 5 juniors in the top-6!
What do you reckon? Foreign agents bringing their 1980s doping culture to Kenya and Ethiopia as far back as pre-EPO 1986, doping the seniors and juniors with steroids and blood transfusions in villages with one light bulb -- out-doping the rest of the world with their vast economic resources?
Bumping this requesting comment from any power of EPO-doping worshipper who wants to claim that Kenyan success only started "ballooning" when EPO entered the sport.
Look closely again at these 1986 results. No matter how you slice it, both Kenya and Ethiopia showed extreme dominance and depth of talent in both the Senior and Junior men's events. In addition to producing the top-5 results, and 7 out of the top 10, out of the top-36 senior men, Kenya and Ethiopia produced 14 men, while the rest of the world from 37 other nations around the world produced 22. Their juniors produced 9 out of the top 11.
What is the credible reason for such world domination in 1986, from these two poor countries, in an event that doesn't generate much money for these athletes or their country, while distance running was still popular around the world, before EPO?
It's not just 1986. In 1981, first Ethiopia rose to world dominance, with Kenya following shortly thereafter, and the two exchanging the titles ever since.
It has been posted in this site previously, so I won't do it again, but the list of athletes busted for doping includes an array of Olympic and world championship medallists and world record holders. We also have the evidence of athletes in their primes across a range of sports who doped at their peak - Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Ramzi, Gatlin, Houlihan - the list is endless - because it still goes on. Athletes dope to succeed and success matters at every point in their career.
But you said "typically the most talented who dope", and "It makes the best near unbeatable."
A list of athletes that "includes" some of the most talented athletes does nothing to show either of your statements are likely or truthful. These same lists also includes many many more non-Olympic and non-World championship medalists and non-world record holders. No way to tell what is "typical" nor what it can do to the "best". Successful athletes don't need to dope if they are already succeeding, and even by the most extreme estimates, more often than not, choose not to dope.
Doping extends right through sports but that we see some of the very best were doping (look at the names above as but a small sample) shows that the best indeed dope. It is also how they become the best.
You don't understand why athletes dope. You have this quaint view that the best athletes are made of different stuff morally and ethically from other athletes and not just physically - and are above doping. Apart from being paragons they know they can beat any doper. Really? Against this, we see former champions who have doped - in all sports - and world records transparently set through doping - Kratochvilova, Koch, Flojo - that remain untouchable even today. Jose Canseco, the baseball player, summed it up - "doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding and an exceptional athlete invincible." And there we have its rationale.
1986 was a particularly good year for Kenya. Check out this world domination:
Out of 337 runners, they placed 5 runners in the top-10 (actually top-8). In the world, only the American Pat Porter, and the Ethiopians Abebe Mekonnen (sub-2:09 runner) and Bekele Debele could beat their 5th runner. They placed 9 runners in the top-50 (actually top-45). From 8th place England, only 2 Englishmen beat Kenyan's 9th runner, Sisa Kirati. Belgium took 10th out of 39 teams, and Kenyan's 9th runner beat Belgium's first runner. Take away the top-3 Kenyans, and they still beat every country in the world, except Ethiopia (losing a close 107-141).
In addition to the seniors, Kenyan Juniors placed 2nd to Ethiopia. Out of 172 juniors, the Kenyan juniors placed 4 scoring runners in the top-11, and the 5th non-scoring runner was 28th.
That's some amazing display of depth of talent, from 9 seniors and 5 juniors, in 1986, before EPO in 1992. Ethiopia showed similar depth, placing 7 senior men in the top-36 (same as Kenya), and 5 juniors in the top-6!
What do you reckon? Foreign agents bringing their 1980s doping culture to Kenya and Ethiopia as far back as pre-EPO 1986, doping the seniors and juniors with steroids and blood transfusions in villages with one light bulb -- out-doping the rest of the world with their vast economic resources?
Bumping this requesting comment from any power of EPO-doping worshipper who wants to claim that Kenyan success only started "ballooning" when EPO entered the sport.
Look closely again at these 1986 results. No matter how you slice it, both Kenya and Ethiopia showed extreme dominance and depth of talent in both the Senior and Junior men's events. In addition to producing the top-5 results, and 7 out of the top 10, out of the top-36 senior men, Kenya and Ethiopia produced 14 men, while the rest of the world from 37 other nations around the world produced 22. Their juniors produced 9 out of the top 11.
What is the credible reason for such world domination in 1986, from these two poor countries, in an event that doesn't generate much money for these athletes or their country, while distance running was still popular around the world, before EPO?
It's not just 1986. In 1981, first Ethiopia rose to world dominance, with Kenya following shortly thereafter, and the two exchanging the titles ever since.
Ethiopia hadn't had anything like the testing that Kenya has in recent years. Each nation has had its share of athletic talent - and still does - but their success has been inflated by doping. I wouldn't give a cent that the Dibaba's and Ayana's and co were clean.
Doping extends right through sports but that we see some of the very best were doping (look at the names above as but a small sample) shows that the best indeed dope. It is also how they become the best.
You don't understand why athletes dope. You have this quaint view that the best athletes are made of different stuff morally and ethically from other athletes and not just physically - and are above doping. Apart from being paragons they know they can beat any doper. Really? Against this, we see former champions who have doped - in all sports - and world records transparently set through doping - Kratochvilova, Koch, Flojo - that remain untouchable even today. Jose Canseco, the baseball player, summed it up - "doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding and an exceptional athlete invincible." And there we have its rationale.
Sure the belief in doping sometimes impacts talented athletes too. They are not immune. But you said it was "typical", and then you said something much less that "lists include ...". And you keep saying things like "it is also how they become the best". Producing a list of names which includes better runners does not establish "typical" or "how they become the best" -- especially of that list is from athletes from other sports or events. None of the names you provided - Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Ramzi, Gatlin, Houlihan, Kratochvilova, Koch, Flojo, Jose Canseco - have run a sub-2:09 marathon.
7th in Melbourne means a lot. It tells us that Kenyens immediately could compete at the world stage - immediately, do you understand this? It tells us that there is enormous talent and obviously extremely good conditions for running well in the longer events. Probably better than anywhere else in the world.
Europe and North America already have had decades of competing at the highest level behind them, yet only four nations could place a runner ahead of this guy from a "third world" country.
"7th at Melbourne in '56 means nothing" - what an unbelievable nonsense.
It doesn't say that. It took a other 8 years for a Kenyan to medal. That isn't the international dominance that suddenly accelerated in the 80's and 90's with the interesting coincidence of EPO. We now see that Kenyan success is built on a foundation of doping.
"It doesn't say that."? What doesn't say what?
That's right, Kenyans in 1956 weren't dominant on the world scene. What an observation, congratulation.
Kenyans IMMEDIATELY could compete against the best in the world (they had a higher level than maybe 150 countries have today, over 60 years later).
What was the reason for this? Doping? It seems we agree here that doping was not the reason.
It's not one reason, it's many reasons. They are discussed since decades. And those same reasons enables one tribe to dominate the Marathon in astonishing fashion today. Doping obviously is also a factor. Trying to make it seem like doping is the only reason for this is a disgrace.
2:01:57 in a Marathon debut at age 23 - how many Europeans, US-Americans, Australians could do this while using the same doping (if he did) as Kelvin Kiptum? I say none. And you?
East African runners would probably still be the best - they are doping to differentiate themselves from each other.
The sport is in a sad state of affairs, where no performance can be believed. Shoes do help, but is the curtain that covers up the doping problem that is rife.
Bumping this requesting comment from any power of EPO-doping worshipper who wants to claim that Kenyan success only started "ballooning" when EPO entered the sport.
Look closely again at these 1986 results. No matter how you slice it, both Kenya and Ethiopia showed extreme dominance and depth of talent in both the Senior and Junior men's events. In addition to producing the top-5 results, and 7 out of the top 10, out of the top-36 senior men, Kenya and Ethiopia produced 14 men, while the rest of the world from 37 other nations around the world produced 22. Their juniors produced 9 out of the top 11.
What is the credible reason for such world domination in 1986, from these two poor countries, in an event that doesn't generate much money for these athletes or their country, while distance running was still popular around the world, before EPO?
It's not just 1986. In 1981, first Ethiopia rose to world dominance, with Kenya following shortly thereafter, and the two exchanging the titles ever since.
Ethiopia hadn't had anything like the testing that Kenya has in recent years. Each nation has had its share of athletic talent - and still does - but their success has been inflated by doping. I wouldn't give a cent that the Dibaba's and Ayana's and co were clean.
This wasn't an invitation for you to continue your sermons, but a specific request to address and explain Kenyan and Ethiopian dominance at the World level in 1986, and more generally in the '80s, long before EPO is believed to have entered the sports of track (and cycling). If these East Africans can do it in Cross Country for a decade before Coevett's 1992 "widely accepted" milestone, why wouldn't that non-EPO caused world depth of dominance carry over to the tracks and the roads, as it has obviously done, rather than attributing track and road dominance to when "EPO entered the sport"?
Nobody was tested for EPO in the '80s. Not Kenya, not Ethiopia, not anyone else in the world.