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

I have read numerous articles about doping, EPO, and the travesty that is Kenyan doping. They are the basis for much of what I understand about doping in the sport. But I have yet to see your "studies" published - none that I have read make your claims - and if they were published I would be interested to know what support they have had from internationally recognized experts. Anything? Or have your virtuous efforts yet to make it further than your basement?

The approximate figure I have read for those caught is much the same as for positive tests - of about 1-2% of competitive athletes. Before the London Olympics there were predictions that virtually all athletes competing were doping (e.g. Victor Conte). In the sprints, weightlifting and wrestling he was probably right. In response to that claim Howman said it may not be as high as 90% but it will be greater than 10%. "Probably somewhere in between", is what he said. That would easily be around 50%.

You have sought to say that certain forms of doping, like EPO, are much less prevalent than others have said and that it hasn't had the effect on performance that they say. You claim this is based on historical comparisons you have made. But if there was any weight to your claims you could have published this material. You haven't. I have seen no expert, no study and no articles endorse your views. They are without any credible corroboration.

You said over and over again Kenyan and also GDR success is the result of doping, you never ever said anything else. You mentioned not even training (or claimed all train the same). Not even altitude for Kenya. Not nutritiun. Not general living conditions. Not tradition. Not motivation. Not the physique of the athletes. Not the extreme different participating levels. Not climate. Not even genetics. Nothing else - just doping.

But OK, you never tried to comminicate doping is the only reason? Do I understand you correct now, doping is not the only reason for Kenyan running success (and general GDR success)? This would be an enormous improvement from your side.

Without any doping, taking the best runners from Kenya and Argentina (you can choose the current best clean Kenyans (for you probably no. 500 or so? Argentinians don't dope, so there is no problem in choosing the best clean athletes) for any running competition, including sprinting. Which country would win? And why?

Which specific claims are you referring to that I make? I only recall claiming top-performing non-Africans during the EPO-era were "so few, and then by so little". I'm unaware of any study or expert that has isolated or explained such unexpected lack of improvements from non-Africans during the EPO-era. I'm also unaware of anyone, expert or not, ever contradicting that observation, or giving any counter examples of high quantity or high quality.

Your response is far short of a "catalog of internationally expert endorsed studies establishing EPO as the cause of elite East African performance".

I have read many EPO studies too, and none that I have read make your claims.

Can you name even one? Which is the best one you have read? Which conclusions did you like?

Can you name one EPO study relevant to elite performance? Maybe the Pitsiladis one where Kenyans tempoed 9 minute time trials at marathon pace? You know -- the one without a control group that did not control training, fitness, or effort?

Many of the short term EPO studies I've read on amateurs caution against projecting their findings onto long term elite performers/performances. Which cautions do you exercise?

Can you name one that explains why EPO doesn't appear to have ever had the same effect on the elite performances of athletes of other nationalities outside of Africa?

I'll wait for some specificity, as you show by example the standard you expect from me.

To say that doping enable the GDR to dominate (or Kenya) is not to say that doping was the only factor involved. It is saying that doping determined the degree of success they have enjoyed. It goes without saying that all top athletes have talent and/or are well-trained. But doping ensures a level of performance not otherwise achievable, regardless of those other factors.

What you cannot grasp - because it doesn't suit you - is that Kenyan success is undoubtedly the product of doping, regardless of whatever other features, either genetic or environmental, that have favoured them. We see from the nearly daily busts now that their participation has been built on the back of doping. If doping wasn't making a difference, why would they do it?

So you still don't acknowledge whether your researches have been published and whether they have been approved of by experts. You show this by trying to shift the question to what my views are based on, when the question I raised is what support has been given for your claimed research. Your evasion is your answer. So your "longitudinal studies" simply remain your private speculation, without any independent expert endorsement that would give them credibility.

I don't know what you have read, and I'm not convinced you do either.

Assuming for one moment that any thing you say second-hand is accurate, none of this demonstrates that any "expert" has any knowledge above 1-2%.

Recall again that you are fighting hard to prove by "appeal to authority", inherently a logical fallacy, and in and of itself, is not corroboration.

Regarding corroboration, your second-hand hearsay quotes from Conte and Howman are not corroborated, nor are estimates like 80%, 90%, or easily around 50%.

What have I said EPO prevalence has been, that others have not? I have seen others, even "experts" like Ashenden/Parisotto, say blood doping suspicion is an estimated 14%, and at least three studies corroborating the same more or less, within a range of 12%-22%. Have I ever said otherwise? It could be less, after properly correcting for altitude training.

What about "all doping" prevalence? I would say, according to "experts" from a recently published study, with 95% confidence, that WCA 2011 doping was estimated as between 12.5%-30%, and another study, that says blood doping in men, with 95% confidence, was as low as 9%. All of these figures are peer-reviewed, unlike 80%, 80% and easily around 50%.

I see a lot of corroboration for many claims I make -- or rather, claims I make come pre-corroborated from the experts and peer-reviewed studies.

Which claims do you think I make which need to be corroborated? Can you be specific with exact quotes?

Without any doping, would Kenya be a successful running country, yes or no?

History tells us it would, without any doubt. Do you agree or disagree?

You are asking again why are many Kenyans doping. Again, really! Maybe to get some advantage to reach the top?

Why are people robbing a bank - even when living in a rich country? Maybe to get some money in the hope to get a better life?

I still don't know which claims you think I made that you are referring to. My look at historical performances only concluded things about the little progress of non-African performances, during the EPO-era, due to all causes combined.

I'm also waiting for you to show by example the standard you are asking of me. If not you, who else here at letsrun has ever met this standard, or been expected to? It's like you cannot debate the merits, so you invent new rules.

The data I used has been published and approved by the relevant experts.

The math I used has been published for thousands of years.

The conclusion I drew, for non-Africans, is "why so few, and then by so little" during the EPO-era? I'm unaware of anyone, expert or not, that has disapproved of this conclusion. Is there any genuine dispute or controversy, on the merits, or is your objection just this artifical barrier you've just newly constructed?

Once again -- pathological.

You say "rekrunner believes" things I do not believe and refer to "arguments of Rekrunner" that I do not make.

If you have a valid argument to make, why do you have to so obviously make up such lies about me?

I don't know why he is lying, but he is lying since he is posting in letsrun.

Is this thread for real, or satire?

Looking through I see somebody called rec runner saying stuff like EPO doesn't work and that Kenyans have aerodynamic craniums?!! And people are earnestly debating him?? Is this a LetsRun injoke or something?

Without doping Kenya would be just another country with a few top athletes, like it was in the late-'60's and '70's. Doping has greatly exaggerated their success.

Here is but one article that draws on a range of a academic sources that demonstrate the extent of the seriousness of the doping problem in sport. Their research has been published. Yours, of course, has not. You don't even seem to be aware of what researchers like these are saying.

harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com

Why the war on drugs in sport will never be won - Harm Reduction Journal

Recent exposes of drug use in sports suggest that doping might be more problematic than doping-control test results reveal. A zero-tolerance (ZT) model, which aims to eliminate the use, has dominated the thinking of sport’s p...

Link:harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com...

"The scope and scale of doping in ‘tested’ sport remains unclear. Numerous studies suggest that prevalence rates could be much higher than doping control tests reveal [1, 2]. One study based on a combination of questionnaires and statistical models of plausible biological anomalies estimated a figure of 14–39 % compared to the 0.5–2 % level of positive doping control tests [3]. Athlete and coach surveys suggest higher rates of usage as well, although respondents tend to identify doping in their peers than admit their own personal use [4, 5]. When asked about personal use—either through questionnaires or interviews—the respondent results are closer to control test levels, with higher levels of illicit drug use than of performance-enhancing substance use [6]. Doping prevalence may be even higher in serious recreational and fitness sports [7], while usage by adolescents appears to be growing [8]. The use of medications by elite athletes has also been shown to reach higher levels than the non-sporting public [9]."

"Pain, sacrifice, and psychological trauma are normal constituents in the elite athlete’s routine; risk and health problems are part of the game. The threat of sanction, however severe, pales against a cost-benefit algorithm where failure is just as unpalatable as victory is compelling [27]. And that is before any economic incentives add impetus. To compound matters, elite athletes use prohibited performance-enhancing substances to bolster training and recovery as much as to supplement in- competition performance, leaving only out-of-season testing to sidestep. Studies have also revealed that it is possible for athletes to successfully use micro-dosing strategies in order to pass tests [28]."

Sadly it's all too real. Although in a week in which another 5 Kenyans have been banned, I could understand why anybody dropping in on this thread, and reading Rekrunner and Slower's attempts at Scientific Racism to explain Kenyan success, would assume it to be satire.

The study above also quotes David Howman's estimate that elite doping will be greater than 10%.

Yeah they're all doping, but no one cares about running. Let them destroy their bodies for a $10k cheque, meanwhile soccer players earn 10 times that in one week.