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.
No one argues that doping was invented in Africa. Your usual strawman. But the Africans have embraced the practice - the Kenyans have proved that.
But in your usual slithery way you are now also appearing to say that it isn't doping that gives Africans "significant benefit" but altitude. The doping-denier never misses his chance. Yet African athletes (and especially the Kenyans) don't appear to agree with you about that, as they continue to dope in their masses.
Rekrunner says he has observed that East Africans have slim calves and big mouths. He draws the conclusion from this, based upon his cool and rational scientific racism, that PEDs do not work, and that East African dominance is due entirely therefore to special adaptations that the likes of Jakob, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Ryun, Snell, Herb Elliott, Bannister all lacked.
Rekrunner says he has observed that East Africans have slim calves and big mouths. He draws the conclusion from this, based upon his cool and rational scientific racism, that PEDs do not work, and that East African dominance is due entirely therefore to special adaptations that the likes of Jakob, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Ryun, Snell, Herb Elliott, Bannister all lacked.
Have you counted the other "doping" of social comfort (nutrition, material support, mediatization) that were using Jakob, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Ryun, Snell, Herb Elliott, Bannister?
A runner like Ngugi should wait 12h per day the get a visa (not talking about the plane ticket) from a consulat to get a chance to take part to a meeting.
Rekrunner says he has observed that East Africans have slim calves and big mouths. He draws the conclusion from this, based upon his cool and rational scientific racism, that PEDs do not work, and that East African dominance is due entirely therefore to special adaptations that the likes of Jakob, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Ryun, Snell, Herb Elliott, Bannister all lacked.
I'm not a big fan of someone speaking on my behalf. While I'm aware of studies finding a few physical differences, like small calves higher up the leg, this is not the basis of any of my conclusions.
As a side note, if a substance is a true PED, it can only be because it works. I never say otherwise.
Over time, I have observed that, for non-Africans, all of the drugs combined from 1990-2018 (which includes the EPO era) don't seem to have helped many non-Africans run much faster than their 1980s non-African predecessors, and put that side by side with another often repeated claim that EPO works as well for East Africans as it does for non-Africans, and drew a logical conclusion about EPO for distance events from 800m to the marathon.
If you were to ask me, I think two reasons for East African success is long term altitude and low bodyweight. If more non-Africans followed the path of the Robertson twins, we might see significantly faster non-Africans.
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.
It's a measure of XC success. What's the reason for the astonishing East African domination of the World XC champs- year after year, beginning with their participation? The rest didn't care?
Your scientific racist friend Rekrunner thinks it can be explained by the size of Kenyan nostrils, or a hypothesised relationship between melanin and calf to armpit ratio. There is a simpler explanation.
1987 world cross country championships was the year Kenya really started to dominate. 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).
Your scientific racist friend Rekrunner thinks it can be explained by the size of Kenyan nostrils, or a hypothesised relationship between melanin and calf to armpit ratio. There is a simpler explanation.
1987 world cross country championships was the year Kenya really started to dominate. 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).
Top 8 juniors in 85 were from Kenya/Ethiopia - similar for the other years since Kenyas 1st appearence. What's the reason for this astonishing dominance?
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).
That's not really an answer to why Kenya and Ethiopia dominate Cross Country. Seems like if you had any knowledge, you would have shared it by now.
Sending a lot of athletes to a lot of track meets and road races costs money -- often a barrier for poor countries.
But who says they didn't start? You've already seen the names of some athletes from the '50s, '60s. Some Kenyans and Ethiopians and East Africans who started topping the ranking on the tracks and the roads: Henry Rono, Miruts Yifter, Wodajo Bulti, John Ngugi, Suleiman Nyambui, Juma Ikangaa, Belayneh Dinsamo, Ahmed Salah, Abebe Mekonnen, Djama Robleh, Ibrahim Hussein, to name a few.
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.
I don't really know what Howman said -- only what you said he has said, and you are not the most accurate source of unfiltered information.
I do not argue the number of Kenyan dopers are not greater than 1-2%. I argue that Howman would not know if it were 5% or 50%, because his knowledge is limited to 1-2%, and that any WADA-funded estimate greater than 1-2% relies on several assumptions.
I have often said that Kenyans are likely frequent victims of an unjust system, considering the number of busts in Kenya for Nandrolone, and the fact that farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs.
We also saw in a WADA-funded 2017 study, that many Kenyans tested positive after going to the doctor when they were sick -- victims of lack of education with respect to athletes' obligations and typical medicines for routine treatments.
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.
Dominating European cross country, where times are slower, is more easily explained, and not quite the same question as dominating in World Cross country, before EPO was widely used.
I don't "believe that Kenyans dominate because of calf to butt ratios for efficient running and larger orifices for oxygen utilization".
I believe the most significant factors are long term altitude and low bodyweight, and that non-Africans would perform better by training long term at altitude, like the Robertson twins.
I don't believe doping would help, because it didn't/doesn't seem to help non-Africans.
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.
No one argues that doping was invented in Africa. Your usual strawman. But the Africans have embraced the practice - the Kenyans have proved that.
But in your usual slithery way you are now also appearing to say that it isn't doping that gives Africans "significant benefit" but altitude. The doping-denier never misses his chance. Yet African athletes (and especially the Kenyans) don't appear to agree with you about that, as they continue to dope in their masses.
Altitude is one reason why the dichotomy of doping and genetics is false.
Doping busts do not necessarily establish "significant benefit".
I'm sure many athletes don't agree with me, as they have not done the performance analysis I have, and sometimes athletes prefer to listen to bad advice based on rumors.
Your scientific racist friend Rekrunner thinks it can be explained by the size of Kenyan nostrils, or a hypothesised relationship between melanin and calf to armpit ratio. There is a simpler explanation.
1987 world cross country championships was the year Kenya really started to dominate. 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).
Top 8 juniors in 85 were from Kenya/Ethiopia - similar for the other years since Kenyas 1st appearence. What's the reason for this astonishing dominance?
Top 8 juniors in 85 were from Kenya/Ethiopia - similar for the other years since Kenyas 1st appearence. What's the reason for this astonishing dominance?
Age cheating and universal doping.
"universal" doping helps only a few tribes in Kenya and Ethiopia? Why so?
In the men's category we saw the exact same pattern: Kenyans and Ethiopians completely dominated until other East African nations closed the gap.
"universal" doping helps only a few tribes in Kenya and Ethiopia? Why so?
In the men's category we saw the exact same pattern: Kenyans and Ethiopians completely dominated until other East African nations closed the gap.
Did the men also age cheat?
Is Jakob doping? Jake? Stewart?
Does age cheating look like a reasonable hypothesis considering the number of seniors that dominated the same meetings? Where is the pool of age cheaters coming from if 9 seniors already placed in the top-50 of the senior contest?
Does universal doping look like a reasonable hypothesis when so many of the other countries were also universally doping in the '80s? In these threads I've learned about USA cover-ups. Armstronglivs found a BBC documentary where a lawyer from the Dubin inquiry suggested 80% of Olympians doped in the 1988 Seoul Olympics.
I don't get why "PEDs" can work so well for local tribes in remote villages, but at the same time these drugs are performance-neutral for the rest of the world. I saw a similar pattern with EPO for 30 years.
Your scientific racist friend Rekrunner thinks it can be explained by the size of Kenyan nostrils, or a hypothesised relationship between melanin and calf to armpit ratio. There is a simpler explanation.
1987 world cross country championships was the year Kenya really started to dominate. 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).
It seems desparate that you have to lie about what "rekrunner thinks" in three separate posts. I have a simple explanation.
What't the theory here? That doping helps a runner if his brother took it years later, or his father years earlier? That is a difficult challenge for anti-doping if they have to start testing the whole family.
I wonder if my PRs all coincide with one of my brothers drug use? I'll have to inquire about that. I don't think my dad did any drugs, except for enjoying his beer in the evenings.