You and Rekrunner are so-called 'scientific racists' who claim that different races have inherent traits that others lack, such as high IQ or the ability to run marathons fast.
I don't ever look for inherent racial traits. I looked in the historical past to see who ran fast. If I attempt to look for causes, or at least correlations, I look for things that are unique to the athletes that ran fast. This could be genetics, or environment, or both. For example, altitude is an environmental difference and highly correlates to fast performance, but doping is available worldwide and does not correlate very well. The Robertson twins (New Zealand) seem to have done very well living and training at altitude. That's an experiment of 2.
By Howman's calculus it can be estimated that anywhere between 500-2000 Kenyan athletes have doped this year alone. I would say there is every chance that the best dozen or so runners will be included amongst them, otherwise it would have to be argued that amongst such a "talented" running population the doped athletes gain no advantage over their clean peers. We have seen from the busted medallists and record breakers this isn't so. Doping gives advantage.
This is not Howman's calculus, but Armstrongliv's calculus.
The flaws are many, but here is sample feedback:
- Howman said that the best anti-doping experts don't really know anything beyond the 1-2% that testing catches.
- You said "WADA's estimate", but WADA did not make any of the estimates you refer to.
- You said "most conservative" -- that doesn't mean "conservative", nor reliably accurate.
- Some of these estimates include sprinters and throwers and jumpers -- not necessarily relevant for Kenya, or other sub-2:09 runners. We know that doping varies widely by gender and by country, and by event/sport.
- 1-2% is for tests and not for athletes. Athletes may be tested multiple times before being caught. If we say that doped athletes are tested multiple times before being caught, that means the percentage of dopers caught is some multiple higher than 1-2% of positive tests.
- 1-2% is a summary for all WADA sports, not just athletics, and not just distance running, and not just men's distance running.
- You are lying and you are ignorant. Howman has said - I have heard it in interviews and read it - that the numbers doping would be at least 10 times those caught and possibly many times higher. They don't know the extent of doping for sure because it is a clandestine practice. But they do know it is far greater than the number of positive tests - because - as he concedes - "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping".
- Also, it is more likely that the numbers caught will be even less than the number of positive tests of 1-2% precisely because athletes are tested more than once. Most - including the dopers - will pass most of their tests.
- There is nothing that enables your other claim that distance running will be less afflicted with doping than other sports. Since most violations in Kenya are of distance runners the reverse is more likely to be true - and it is certainly true for Kenya. But it doesn't matter what the sport is; competitors dope for the same reason - anywhere.
- There is no way that you can argue the incidence of doping in Kenya will be proportionately lower than for other countries or in other sports, as the appalling rate of violations in Kenya is indicative of a far higher rate of drug use than where the violations are few. It is the mere tip of an iceberg.
But you are still doing what you always do, which is refusing to see doping - amongst Kenyan distance runners at least - beyond the numbers who are busted. Or you maintain that those who are doping are really only inferior nobodies, not the best athletes. Your distortions of the facts are grotesque; you are the doping equivalent of a Holocaust denier; always seeking to twist and misrepresent the data so as to reduce the calumny in question.
I knew you would miss the point about Ceylon. Actually Ceylon has had two Olympic medallists in athletics - both silver. One was in 1948 and the other was in 2000. You would have to concede that is substantially better than 7th. Yet, curiously, none of those medals presaged Ceylon taking the running world by storm. And neither did a 7th placing by an unknown Kenyan in 1956 say the same about Kenya.
However, we do know that the success Kenya has subsequently enjoyed has been aided by doping at a level not very different from the E Germans. Only Russia today and India with its huge population are worse.
Are you still doing research on 1986 World Cross Country? How did Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate by so much back then? What doping existed then? According to your fellow colleague Coevett, EPO wouldn't be widely available until 1992, and the only ones connected enough would be perhaps Aouita and the Spanish.
Why didn't doping help the Russians and Chinese and Indians, apart from the occasional Russian and Chinese women in the shorter distance events?
I am not accountable for what another commenter may say. Doping became a feature in distance running from the early 70's with blood doping. Other stimulants had been occasionally used before then (the English runner, Alan Simpson, admitted drug use at Kingston in '66).
Although doping is present in every sport not every nationality has the same interest or rate of participation in the same sports. The Russians have long doped in the sports in which they have focussed, and we have seen this subsequently with the Chinese also. The Africans have doped in what they are good at, which is running. It is only talent that explains their dominance. We also see that though doping can be found in every sport some sports are worse than others and some countries are worse than others. Running is a known dirty sport and Kenya has shown it is amongst the most egregious dopers.
I knew you would miss the point about Ceylon. Actually Ceylon has had two Olympic medallists in athletics - both silver. One was in 1948 and the other was in 2000. You would have to concede that is substantially better than 7th. Yet, curiously, none of those medals presaged Ceylon taking the running world by storm. And neither did a 7th placing by an unknown Kenyan in 1956 say the same about Kenya.
However, we do know that the success Kenya has subsequently enjoyed has been aided by doping at a level not very different from the E Germans. Only Russia today and India with its huge population are worse.
So, you actually have had this example of a Cylonese medalist before, great. Yes, even in the past it was not forbidden for non European and non US-American countries to win medals. Most havn't.
Are Cylonese therefore predestined to run the hurdles? I don't think so.
To excel at the highest level without any background in the country still is a rarity and in the Kenyan case it's obvious that it has to do with the extremely good all-around conditions for running well.
So far I have not seen any concrete answer from you to all the other mentioned examples of great Kenyan success.
No doping available, taking an average Kalenjin and an average Scot of same age. After some preparation, who do you think is more likely to win a Marathon between them? I say the Kalenjin. And you? You can't decide?
Probably the Kalenjin. They are more likely to be doped.
And 7th in an Olympic event by one individual says nothing about what a nationality is capable of. No one watching the marathon in '56 would have rationally predicted future Kenyan dominance. No more than Ceylonese "dominance" in the sprints - despite its two silver medals.
I agree that most East Africans are doping, but I also believe they have the physical advantage of simply having smaller bodies, which is incredibly advantageous in the marathon. Also, all sub 2:09s are dirty? I don't think so. There is no evidence to suggest that Japanese marathoners are dirty.
they are skinny
they live at elevation
they have long legs
they live rough lives outside and are hardened (in a good way)
Rekrunner and the other racial science apologists - only 2% of university professors in the USA are Afro-American. Is it equally obvious to you that this is 'proof' that Afro-Americans are less intelligent than other races?
Just to be clear - I do not believe this myself. Just wondering how you can objectively apply different rules of logic here.
I wouldn't necessarily correlate a USA university with intelligence. Many intelligent people are not USA university professors.
I would use the same rules of logic. It is the different inputs that would lead to different outputs, using the same rules of logic.
You are selective with your "inputs". The only data you accept as a measure of doping is a confirmed doping violation. (Actually, you don't - even that is not enough, as we have seen with your views about Houlihan). Yet while you are prepared to see intelligence isn't manifested solely through a university degree (wherever it is from) you refuse to see doping outside its apparent "qualification", of a confirmed violation. For you, it scarcely exists outside your arbitrary data. As you show, you merely argue what is convenient for your prejudices.
You and Rekrunner are so-called 'scientific racists' who claim that different races have inherent traits that others lack, such as high IQ or the ability to run marathons fast.
I don't ever look for inherent racial traits. I looked in the historical past to see who ran fast. If I attempt to look for causes, or at least correlations, I look for things that are unique to the athletes that ran fast. This could be genetics, or environment, or both. For example, altitude is an environmental difference and highly correlates to fast performance, but doping is available worldwide and does not correlate very well. The Robertson twins (New Zealand) seem to have done very well living and training at altitude. That's an experiment of 2.
What you look for is what confirms your views. So you always find it.
Are you still doing research on 1986 World Cross Country? How did Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate by so much back then? What doping existed then? According to your fellow colleague Coevett, EPO wouldn't be widely available until 1992, and the only ones connected enough would be perhaps Aouita and the Spanish.
Why didn't doping help the Russians and Chinese and Indians, apart from the occasional Russian and Chinese women in the shorter distance events?
So now you are claiming that EPO is the only ped that works??
Yes RekRunner, 1987 world cross country championships was the year Kenya really proved that they have a genetic advantage over the rest of the world. Here are the top 3 kenyans from that year (finished 1,2,5) 1 : John Ngugi - banned for refusing to take out of competition test. 2 : Paul Kipkoech - younger brother banned for EPO positive. 3 : Some Muge - father of Mathew Kisorio, banned for testing positive for steroids at the 2012 world championships (also claimed that there was state sponsored doping in Kenya).
I did not claim that EPO is a PED, or that EPO works. I took *your* claim for granted that it wasn't widely used in 1986. I did ask "what doping existed back then?" If it is other PEDs, be my guest and explain.
In case you missed it, here is the recap:
If you scroll a few pages back, it was Armstronglivs who explicitly linked EPO to Kenyan dominance: "... the international dominance that suddenly accelerated in the 80's and 90's with the interesting coincidence of EPO."
My claim, if any, is that both Kenyan and Ethiopian world dominance (1981) does not coincide, but predates EPO (1992) by over a decade.
In response to Armstronglivs' suggestion of "coincidence", I asked "any power of EPO-doping worshipper who wants to claim that Kenyan success only started "ballooning" when EPO entered the sport" to explain the 1980s World Dominance by both Ethiopia and Kenya that started in 1981.
Later I broadened it to all doping, again in specific response to Armstronglivs' trivial assertion about "the existence of doping in the sport", by asking "What doping existed in Kenya and Ethiopia and worldwide in 1986?"
You answered that athletes like Aouita and the Spanish might be connected enough to score EPO as early as 1986. Aouita didn't run in 1986, and Spain placed 7th. Their top runner was 1 second, and 1 place, ahead of Kenya's #6, and 50 seconds behind the winners.
Now are you suggesting that if your brother or son dopes, that's the same as proving you took a PED, and it worked. Or if you don't understand OOC testing, and you refuse to pea in a cup for a total stranger, that helped you run fast 7 years earlier?
I'm not seeing a strong case for 1980s doping in East Africa explaining world dominance over all the non-African countries that were also doping. Recall in the East and the West, the '80s was the decade of steroids and blood transfusions and national federation cover-ups.
So, you actually have had this example of a Cylonese medalist before, great. Yes, even in the past it was not forbidden for non European and non US-American countries to win medals. Most havn't.
Are Cylonese therefore predestined to run the hurdles? I don't think so.
To excel at the highest level without any background in the country still is a rarity and in the Kenyan case it's obvious that it has to do with the extremely good all-around conditions for running well.
So far I have not seen any concrete answer from you to all the other mentioned examples of great Kenyan success.
No doping available, taking an average Kalenjin and an average Scot of same age. After some preparation, who do you think is more likely to win a Marathon between them? I say the Kalenjin. And you? You can't decide?
Probably the Kalenjin. They are more likely to be doped.
And 7th in an Olympic event by one individual says nothing about what a nationality is capable of. No one watching the marathon in '56 would have rationally predicted future Kenyan dominance. No more than Ceylonese "dominance" in the sprints - despite its two silver medals.
If no doping is available. It would be almost certainly the Kalenjin.
It was in the 5000m. We have to look for some reports after the event, but I'm pretty sure after this the athletics cummunity started to rethink their idea that "blacks" can't run fast over the longer distances.
This is not Howman's calculus, but Armstrongliv's calculus.
The flaws are many, but here is sample feedback:
- Howman said that the best anti-doping experts don't really know anything beyond the 1-2% that testing catches.
- You said "WADA's estimate", but WADA did not make any of the estimates you refer to.
- You said "most conservative" -- that doesn't mean "conservative", nor reliably accurate.
- Some of these estimates include sprinters and throwers and jumpers -- not necessarily relevant for Kenya, or other sub-2:09 runners. We know that doping varies widely by gender and by country, and by event/sport.
- 1-2% is for tests and not for athletes. Athletes may be tested multiple times before being caught. If we say that doped athletes are tested multiple times before being caught, that means the percentage of dopers caught is some multiple higher than 1-2% of positive tests.
- 1-2% is a summary for all WADA sports, not just athletics, and not just distance running, and not just men's distance running.
- You are lying and you are ignorant. Howman has said - I have heard it in interviews and read it - that the numbers doping would be at least 10 times those caught and possibly many times higher. They don't know the extent of doping for sure because it is a clandestine practice. But they do know it is far greater than the number of positive tests - because - as he concedes - "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping".
- Also, it is more likely that the numbers caught will be even less than the number of positive tests of 1-2% precisely because athletes are tested more than once. Most - including the dopers - will pass most of their tests.
- There is nothing that enables your other claim that distance running will be less afflicted with doping than other sports. Since most violations in Kenya are of distance runners the reverse is more likely to be true - and it is certainly true for Kenya. But it doesn't matter what the sport is; competitors dope for the same reason - anywhere.
- There is no way that you can argue the incidence of doping in Kenya will be proportionately lower than for other countries or in other sports, as the appalling rate of violations in Kenya is indicative of a far higher rate of drug use than where the violations are few. It is the mere tip of an iceberg.
But you are still doing what you always do, which is refusing to see doping - amongst Kenyan distance runners at least - beyond the numbers who are busted. Or you maintain that those who are doping are really only inferior nobodies, not the best athletes. Your distortions of the facts are grotesque; you are the doping equivalent of a Holocaust denier; always seeking to twist and misrepresent the data so as to reduce the calumny in question.
It sounds like you, and/or Howman is ignorant and/or lying. Assuming he said it, and you heard it correctly, and reported it correctly, how can he credibly say 10 times when he doesn't know how many dopers there are? Could be 5x or 2x for all he really knows, because the best anti-doping "experts" don't really know what the true doping prevalence is. Keep in mind that Howman is in charge of organizations looking for funding, and it's in his interest to make the problems sound bigger than he really knows.
You got your "more likely" math backwards. If 10 runners are each tested 10 times, and two test results (i.e. 2%) are positive, testing caught 20% of the runners. Assuming 40% doping prevalence, the 2% positive test rate result caught 50% of the dopers. The real world is more complex, because testing distribution is not uniform -- many dopers are too slow to be tested (e.g. not in OOC testing pool so can dope with less risk), while faster runners are target tested more frequently. This non-uniform testing strategy creates a performance bias by largely excluding the slowest runners, and a perceived bust rate bias from a large number of concentrated groups of highly talented runners.
I don't need to argue Kenyan doping is lower, thanks to two Australian anti-doping "experts" who compiled 12 years of blood data reported by the Sunday Times. At least with respect to blood doping -- something widely believed to be powerful for distance running -- "unofficial" Kenyan and Ethiopian blood test results from 2001-2012, and again in 2011 and 2013, ranged from "less than global average" to "average", with both countries below the top-10.
I don't refuse to see doping. It is the link between doping and elite performance that I cannot see and you cannot show. You continue to think it is sufficient to establish existence of doping, but you cannot conclude performance benefit without assuming it first.
but you cannot conclude performance benefit without assuming it first
What are you talking about?
Do you think you've ever persuaded anybody here as to your 'thesis' that there is no link between doping and performance enhancement. Has anybody in the 20 years or whatever you've been spending 6 hours every day parrotting the same walls of texts, had their opinion changed in the slightest? Do you realize you might be the only person in the entire world who believes that PEDs do not enhance performance, and that when you die, nobody on Earth will believe that PEDs do not enhance performance?
Rekrunner 'rope a dope' style arguments garner scores of attention yet again. And again for everyone out there; in professional, organised track and field events PED's are illegal - it doesn't matter if they work or not, they just are. Many athletes get caught. Many long distance runners get caught (small fish and big fish alike). Most are Kenyan. Many runners are posting undreamed of times. There is no such thing as magic, therefore?
but you cannot conclude performance benefit without assuming it first
What are you talking about?
Do you think you've ever persuaded anybody here as to your 'thesis' that there is no link between doping and performance enhancement. Has anybody in the 20 years or whatever you've been spending 6 hours every day parrotting the same walls of texts, had their opinion changed in the slightest? Do you realize you might be the only person in the entire world who believes that PEDs do not enhance performance, and that when you die, nobody on Earth will believe that PEDs do not enhance performance?
Now what are you talking about? I am firmly in the camp that thinks that PEDs enhance performance.
Maybe some are persuaded, or some will be in the future. Maybe not. I haven't given that much thought, and probably won't be giving it much further thought. I am pretty certain there are a handful of firm believers here who can no longer be persuaded, who get all emotional when I ask them to explain seeming contradictions.
But it's an odd question. Do you think you are persuasive? What do you think have been your biggest successes here in persuasion?
Probably the Kalenjin. They are more likely to be doped.
And 7th in an Olympic event by one individual says nothing about what a nationality is capable of. No one watching the marathon in '56 would have rationally predicted future Kenyan dominance. No more than Ceylonese "dominance" in the sprints - despite its two silver medals.
If no doping is available. It would be almost certainly the Kalenjin.
It was in the 5000m. We have to look for some reports after the event, but I'm pretty sure after this the athletics cummunity started to rethink their idea that "blacks" can't run fast over the longer distances.
The revision of views about African potential did not change until the ascendancy of Keino a decade later.
So now you are claiming that EPO is the only ped that works??
Yes RekRunner, 1987 world cross country championships was the year Kenya really proved that they have a genetic advantage over the rest of the world. Here are the top 3 kenyans from that year (finished 1,2,5) 1 : John Ngugi - banned for refusing to take out of competition test. 2 : Paul Kipkoech - younger brother banned for EPO positive. 3 : Some Muge - father of Mathew Kisorio, banned for testing positive for steroids at the 2012 world championships (also claimed that there was state sponsored doping in Kenya).
I did not claim that EPO is a PED, or that EPO works. I took *your* claim for granted that it wasn't widely used in 1986. I did ask "what doping existed back then?" If it is other PEDs, be my guest and explain.
In case you missed it, here is the recap:
If you scroll a few pages back, it was Armstronglivs who explicitly linked EPO to Kenyan dominance: "... the international dominance that suddenly accelerated in the 80's and 90's with the interesting coincidence of EPO."
My claim, if any, is that both Kenyan and Ethiopian world dominance (1981) does not coincide, but predates EPO (1992) by over a decade.
In response to Armstronglivs' suggestion of "coincidence", I asked "any power of EPO-doping worshipper who wants to claim that Kenyan success only started "ballooning" when EPO entered the sport" to explain the 1980s World Dominance by both Ethiopia and Kenya that started in 1981.
Later I broadened it to all doping, again in specific response to Armstronglivs' trivial assertion about "the existence of doping in the sport", by asking "What doping existed in Kenya and Ethiopia and worldwide in 1986?"
You answered that athletes like Aouita and the Spanish might be connected enough to score EPO as early as 1986. Aouita didn't run in 1986, and Spain placed 7th. Their top runner was 1 second, and 1 place, ahead of Kenya's #6, and 50 seconds behind the winners.
Now are you suggesting that if your brother or son dopes, that's the same as proving you took a PED, and it worked. Or if you don't understand OOC testing, and you refuse to pea in a cup for a total stranger, that helped you run fast 7 years earlier?
I'm not seeing a strong case for 1980s doping in East Africa explaining world dominance over all the non-African countries that were also doping. Recall in the East and the West, the '80s was the decade of steroids and blood transfusions and national federation cover-ups.
Africans - and others - doped before the existence of EPO. But the advent of EPO helped cement African domination of distance running.
I wouldn't necessarily correlate a USA university with intelligence. Many intelligent people are not USA university professors.
I would use the same rules of logic. It is the different inputs that would lead to different outputs, using the same rules of logic.
You are selective with your "inputs". The only data you accept as a measure of doping is a confirmed doping violation. (Actually, you don't - even that is not enough, as we have seen with your views about Houlihan). Yet while you are prepared to see intelligence isn't manifested solely through a university degree (wherever it is from) you refuse to see doping outside its apparent "qualification", of a confirmed violation. For you, it scarcely exists outside your arbitrary data. As you show, you merely argue what is convenient for your prejudices.
That is surprisingly astute. I am both selective and deselective with inputs. If there is a solid basis in facts, evidence, and controlled observations, these are the inputs I select with preference. If they are a set of baseless assumptions, or some extrapolation of one observation onto another context, or something contradicting reality, I deselect these inputs, until a stronger basis can be established, or the resulting inconsistencies can be better reconciled. This is true whether the input comes from the most ignorant poster, or the most esteemed renowned "expert". Everyone must support their views with bases and foundations in reality.
My views regarding Houlihan apply the same selective approach, relying on facts and evidence, and downplaying presumptions and extrapolations and baseless opinions.
Same approach with "confirmed doping violations". I will draw the conclusions on the merits to the extent there is evidence to support it.
With respect to confirmed doping violations, I have no doubt that there exist both false positives and false negatives. You keep wanting to debate the meer existence of doping -- something I never question. I firmly believe doping exists wherever the belief in its power exists, something I repeatedly concede is broad and deep and goes to the top. But here we are yet again in a thread that is primarily about two potential candidates for what causes performance, and you want to persuade whomever will listen (and maybe ultimately yourself) that doping is a potential candidate, without providing any inputs meeting robust selection criteria.
"Now what are you talking about? I am firmly in the camp that thinks that PEDs enhance performance".(quote)
No, you aren't. You repeatedly say it is only "faith" or "belief" that they enhance performance, or a "placebo" effect - or, alternatively, that it works for Russian women but not Kenyan marathon runners. What you don't accept is the link between doping and high level distance-running - in your view the best either don't dope or it doesn't work for them (in which case they are the only athletes it doesn't work for). You are a doping-denier who hides behind smokescreens of obfuscation.