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

rekrunner wrote:

Coevett wrote:

No, that it's obvious that doping is a near universal problem in East Africa and that it's both absurd and offensive for you to insist that the domination of their runners can be explained by scientific racism and the crazy unsupported belief that peds do not work.

Despite all the headlines, when you remove all the hype and emotion, it's still not all that obvious that Kenyan doping is worse than the global average. I haven't seen any bust rates as a percentage of the athletic population. The Kenyan doping busts just makes more headlines. Some unofficial figures for blood doping that I have seen are admittedly getting old, so it's possible that doping has ramped up in recent years, slowing the Kenyans down so stars like Jacob and Jake can finally compete on the world stage.

Doping is a universal problem, not confined to a few regional tribes in East Africa. In fact, many people blame foreign coaches and managers for corrupting the East African athletes, by importing their foreign doping culture into Africa. Kenya was a British colony until 1963 -- it probably will take a few generations to wash out the stains of corruption that left behind.

What is it that I insist? Contrary to your repeated lies, I think East Africans exceed because of living and training long term altitude and an average low bodyweight. This has nothing to do with race. Athletes like the Robertson twins seem to confirm this, along with Ryan Hall (grew up at Big Bear) and Sondre Moens, after 8 months training at altitude.

And I thought I put this other old myth to bed. Of course I believe PEDs work. It couldn't be called a PED if it didn't work. The open questions are whether a banned substance is a PED, and whether a PED is a banned substance.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No one argues doping busts of themselves prove benefit - another of your usual straw men. It is what doping is perceived to do, allied to its known effects on human physiology by those who use it, that establishes benefit.

So you have done the "performance analyses" - when you don't know which athletes are doping and which aren't - and that makes you more knowledgeable about the effects of these drugs than the athletes who use them? You could not be a more arrogant windbag than you show there.

So your fantasies and Coevett's imagination are based on perceptions? Effects on physiology may or may not translate to better performance. That's why we still need controlled observations on the right subjects.

I know historical performances from dopers and non-dopers combined, and I know that athletes that use them will lie to the public and possibly lie to themselves, and I know that gullible fans and tabloids will fall for the lies because they want to believe in scandals, not to mention magic potions that we find in comic books, from Popeye's spinach to Asterix's potions, to Captain America, to the Witcher. You are still falling for the logical trap of "appeal to authority" -- without any controlled data. Sorry -- as I said, I am not that gullible.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Howman's knowledge is not limited to the 1-2% of athletes caught. Unlike you, he is an expert on doping and antidoping and knows that many many more athletes dope than are caught. But, unlike him, you are an "expert" in that which you have absolutely no experience of.

But - as expected from you - the Kenyan dopers are "victims" of their circumstances and an unjust system. Like poor Shelby.

It's also unlike you. Howman is an "expert" that knows the real limit of his knowledge is 1-2%. How much does Howman actually say "many many" is? The double?

You are too gullible and too easily persuaded by what you believe experts must know, and that that matches what you want to believe, without demanding any supporting facts and evidence and controlled observations. This could be excused if you were still a young impressionable newbie, but with age is supposed to come wisdom.

I am not so gullible to fall for your wishful arguments that "appeal to authority". This is a common logical fallacy. "Experts" are especially bound to back up their opinions with data, to separate them from the quacks.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'll explain this so that one who has the mind of a child can understand. It is just as much "knowledge" to know that doping is a very substantial black market in which few are caught as to know how many on this black market are caught. Howman "knows" the black market is much greater than the numbers caught, because he understands how it is practiced and how athletes avoid detection. What he doesn't know is exactly how much greater - no one does - because it is a black market. It is a form of corruption that is known to be widespread without it being known which individuals are involved. Howman has estimated it may be ten times greater than the numbers caught or even much more than that. Because you are terminally stupid, you refuse to see the we can know the existence of that which cannot be definitively measured. You are like the dolt who cannot see he is walking on a beach unless every grain of sand is counted.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So your fantasies and Coevett's imagination are based on perceptions? Effects on physiology may or may not translate to better performance. That's why we still need controlled observations on the right subjects.

I know historical performances from dopers and non-dopers combined, and I know that athletes that use them will lie to the public and possibly lie to themselves, and I know that gullible fans and tabloids will fall for the lies because they want to believe in scandals, not to mention magic potions that we find in comic books, from Popeye's spinach to Asterix's potions, to Captain America, to the Witcher. You are still falling for the logical trap of "appeal to authority" -- without any controlled data. Sorry -- as I said, I am not that gullible.

You don't know who is doping and who isn't - so you can't have done studies of the two. Your stupid conclusions are mere guesswork.

Coevett wrote:

slowwer wrote:

When I don't dispute you you are not so sure to be correct?

What's the reason for the enormous success from Kenya and Ethiopia in cross country immediately after they started to compete? First from the men and the juniors, a few years later also from the women. So far the only "reason" you gave is: the rest doesn't care, which obviously is just avoiding to give an serious answer.

Craig Virgin's win from 1980 is still discussed here, so when did this non-interest start?

Rekrunner and Slowerr claim that there were no peds before 1992. Both Rekrunner and Slowwer belive the answer lies in scientifc racism. Kenyans have larger nostrils. Ethiopians have smaller big toes. The craniums of Ugandans are shaped like cycling helmets. Fortunately, we don't have to bring psuedo-science into it.

Here are the top 3 kenyans from the 1987 world xcountry championships (finished 1,2,5)
1 : John Ngugi - banned for refusing to take out of competition test.
2 : Paul Kipkoech - died aged 32 of a mystery illness, 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).