I believe worldwide but as Kalenjin myself and having spoken to many althetes I know it started way back in 1980s. Mid 1980s my friend was running, and he swear almost everyone doped.
The intra-competition even within region in kenya or ethiopia is such that without doping you can easily be beaten. Majority (maybe 90%) just have to dope otherwise you get beaten. Talent - which many kalenjin naturally have- and doping. The rest of world have maybe small random talented freak but for kalenjin and oromos even within families it pretty intense and to suceed really is discipline, ambition, and top up with doping.
I believe worldwide but as Kalenjin myself and having spoken to many althetes I know it started way back in 1980s. Mid 1980s my friend was running, and he swear almost everyone doped.
Which sort of doping? Also youth athletes? It started in 1980s? The 1970s runners were clean?
I believe doping started really when althetic became big business in kenya. Previously many althetes run for the national team and that was it. There was no money and there were no foreign coaches
I believe doping started really when althetic became big business in kenya. Previously many althetes run for the national team and that was it. There was no money and there were no foreign coaches
Henry Rono and Keino are old folks- I only know from mid 1980s - likes of Kochelleas, Ngugis and others. The success and lionization of Henry Rono and Keino inspired many to take running seriously - for national fame. I think money as motivation came around 1990s when Kipketer went to Denmark and started making serious money. Wilson Kipketer showed you didnt have to run for country but for your own financial success and likes of Daniel Komen followed - and by early 1990s - althetic was making money for many kenya althetes. Most althetes come from poor background because like I said it not a special talent really in kalenjin - it the hunger for the success to endure the pain of training. I think doping was mostly started by italian doctor-coaches.
I mean it not in any doubt that kalenjin and oromos have natural middle distance running talent. You can randomly get few kalenjin in any village; put them in training; and they will run very good times. You can go and pick 5yr old kalenjin kids randomly in pre-school and see them running.
Doping I believe give you an edge - but you must have the raw material for running. It's not going to give you talent. If it was easy - countries where no testing is done - would be popping up after getting doped to the gill and win. The edge as you know in althetic can be as little as an extra second faster.
Doping I believe give you an edge - but you must have the raw material for running. It's not going to give you talent. If it was easy - countries where no testing is done - would be popping up after getting doped to the gill and win. The edge as you know in althetic can be as little as an extra second faster.
Do you belive all the current pros at the top are doping? How widespread is it?
Still going with your pathetic excuses? I said it before, but I have never seen a sport where apologists have to spout pseudoscientific, half-baked nonsense about "genetics" to try to cover up epidemic levels of doping. The culture of running is really just a culture of doping and cheating, and it ruined the sport. Well done.
I have said nothing about genetics, Coevett.
What's the reason for the astonishing Kenyan and Ethiopian Cross Country success starting immediately after they competed at the event in the early 1980s? Especially in the junior divisions.
If you say doping Coevett, explain it more detailed. Which sort of doping which was not available in the rest of the world but only in those two countries.
You are too obtuse to realise what you are saying. If it isn't doping that explains it then it is their genetics. However genetics - or any other fanciful explanation - becomes an absurd explanation when we see that doping is inextricably involved with their success.
XC is about as important as championship darts. But if it's a competition E Africans will dope for it. As they did.
So all those junior runners just were successful because they doped (and the rest didn't do so)? - stop posting again.
I didn't say that. But junior xc of it's own isn't a conclusive measure of athletic success. It is a minority pursuit. It wasn't matched by the same kind of success at a senior level on the track at that time.
Doping I believe give you an edge - but you must have the raw material for running. It's not going to give you talent. If it was easy - countries where no testing is done - would be popping up after getting doped to the gill and win. The edge as you know in althetic can be as little as an extra second faster.
Do you belive all the current pros at the top are doping? How widespread is it?
It will be so widespread that there is no point in assuming any top athlete is clean. They may be but it is just as likely they aren't. It will be little different from what happened to cycling. We can have no confidence that any professional sport today is mostly clean at the top.
Doping I believe give you an edge - but you must have the raw material for running. It's not going to give you talent. If it was easy - countries where no testing is done - would be popping up after getting doped to the gill and win. The edge as you know in althetic can be as little as an extra second faster.
It has become farcical how the defenders of Kenyan "natural talent" look for every reason to justify Kenyan success but the one that stares us in the face, that their athletes have doped in their droves for decades. It didn't just begin out of nowhere this year.
Not everyone is as gullible as you were, just accpepting what you were told when you were young and impressionable and unwise.
Speaking of farcical, I looked for you to give any reason to justify East African world dominance in the 1980s, and your response was that XC is not an Olympic event.
All of my assumptions just took the spectrum of your stated range of 10-40% for granted. No matter how you slice it, you got the math backwards.
Just to clue you in further, every indirect estimate above 1-2% rests on a bed of assumptions.
Your math is based on your assumptions - as you have made clear. It cannot be precise. Howman's estimates are not assumptions but an expert and informed assessment of a practice that he knows cannot be constrained. But you know nothing about that.
The math is exactly precise. In all cases, there is no scenario where the direction of your math was not wrong.
To the extent they are Howman's estimates (they are not), they are all based on a set of assumptions. If you possessed a deep understanding of the assumptions, the measures, and the limitations, you would understand that indirect estimates are indirect. This is what the best informed experts do, when they lack direct knowledge.
Still going with your pathetic excuses? I said it before, but I have never seen a sport where apologists have to spout pseudoscientific, half-baked nonsense about "genetics" to try to cover up epidemic levels of doping. The culture of running is really just a culture of doping and cheating, and it ruined the sport. Well done.
The only ones who reduce it to "genetics" are people like you and Coevett and Armstronglivs, as if ridicule is a valid method to debunk genetics, and due the law of false dichotomy, debunking genetics somehow helps prove doping provides a significant benefit.
Genetics is not just for East Africans. Non-Africans also possess the genetics to respond to altitude.
The culture of doping existed outside of Africa long before African dominance.
It has become farcical how the defenders of Kenyan "natural talent" look for every reason to justify Kenyan success but the one that stares us in the face, that their athletes have doped in their droves for decades. It didn't just begin out of nowhere this year.
Not everyone is as gullible as you were, just accpepting what you were told when you were young and impressionable and unwise.
Speaking of farcical, I looked for you to give any reason to justify East African world dominance in the 1980s, and your response was that XC is not an Olympic event.
So why were the Kenyans not dominant on the track at that time? It shows that success in xc doesn't automatically equate to track (and the roads).
Your math is based on your assumptions - as you have made clear. It cannot be precise. Howman's estimates are not assumptions but an expert and informed assessment of a practice that he knows cannot be constrained. But you know nothing about that.
The math is exactly precise. In all cases, there is no scenario where the direction of your math was not wrong.
To the extent they are Howman's estimates (they are not), they are all based on a set of assumptions. If you possessed a deep understanding of the assumptions, the measures, and the limitations, you would understand that indirect estimates are indirect. This is what the best informed experts do, when they lack direct knowledge.
But you would know nothing about that.
Howman has said the numbers doping will be considerably higher than those caught. Clearly, that means the numbers doping in Kenya will be far greater than those busted. But you argue against that. So how many Kenyans are actually doping? Only those who have been caught?
However, as you keep insisting that convicted dopers like Houlihan are innocent victims of an unjust system, consistency requires that you say the same of the Kenyans convicted of doping. They must be "victims", not dopers.
Not everyone is as gullible as you were, just accpepting what you were told when you were young and impressionable and unwise.
Speaking of farcical, I looked for you to give any reason to justify East African world dominance in the 1980s, and your response was that XC is not an Olympic event.
So why were the Kenyans not dominant on the track at that time? It shows that success in xc doesn't automatically equate to track (and the roads).
After yet another East African 'European' X country champ busted, are you demanding we also answer why East Africans (until Jakob) dominated the European X country in recent years?
Rekrunner believes that Kenyans dominate because of calf to butt ratios for efficient running and larger orifices for oxygen utilization. The rest of can see that - 'they are doping' - is a simpler and more reasonable explanation than his (pseudo) scientific racism.