We also know from the study that these Kenyans were "63' half marathoners and 2:12 marathoners". ...
Historical "experts" tell us that the best USA high school girls in the 1970s were running 9:00 for 3000m, but never 63 minutes for the half and not 2:12 for the full marathon. Mary Cain also ran 8:58 for the 3000m.
...
So many lies.
1) "these Kenyans were "63' half marathoners and 2:12 marathoners" - no, most of them were not. Most of them were slower, which is relevant when looking at their average 3000 m performance.
2) "Historical "experts" tell us that the best USA high school girls in the 1970s were running 9:00 for 3000m" - no, none of them were running 9:00. Which experts? Why do make stuff up? Answer? Will you run away again?
The observation that "doping doesn't work" follows from your claim that Kenyan success has not been built upon doping, when we know it is one of the worst offenders. So why have they doped in such numbers if it did nothing for them?
No, this is not a valid conclusion.
You wrongly said Kenya before 1980 was "just another (distance running) country". I clearly showed you that your statement was nonsense.
At the top, Kenya already few years after they started to compete internationally clearly was the no. 1 (male) distance running nation. In depth, UK and USA probably were still ahead. Kenyans also didn't run the Marathon in these days.
Was this enormous early success the result of doping? That means, Kenyans doped whereas all the other nations didn't, or didn't do with such successful methods. If you think yes, explain which sort of doping they used which the rest didn't know.
I have never said doping doesn't help or doesn't help Kenyans. I assume it does - maybe not all and we are very uncertain to which amount. But rekrunner is much better informed here.
If today not a single Kenyan would dope anymore (and the rest of the world still would be unchanged), Kenya still would be a major running force, that's clearly to see from the statistics of the last seven decades.
Your conclusion is complete nonsense, as I have explained to you now several times.
You have explained nothing. You merely waffle on and avoid the glaring contradiction in your position, which you have failed to resolve. Blood doping has been practiced since the early '70's. If Kenyans have doped - and we know that they have and it didn't begin this week - it has either contributed to their success or it hasn't. So which? If it hasn't then doping does not aid performance. It cannot be otherwise.
We also know from the study that these Kenyans were "63' half marathoners and 2:12 marathoners". ...
Historical "experts" tell us that the best USA high school girls in the 1970s were running 9:00 for 3000m, but never 63 minutes for the half and not 2:12 for the full marathon. Mary Cain also ran 8:58 for the 3000m.
...
So many lies.
1) "these Kenyans were "63' half marathoners and 2:12 marathoners" - no, most of them were not. Most of them were slower, which is relevant when looking at their average 3000 m performance.
2) "Historical "experts" tell us that the best USA high school girls in the 1970s were running 9:00 for 3000m" - no, none of them were running 9:00. Which experts? Why do make stuff up? Answer? Will you run away again?
???
1) 1:03 and 2:12 were the average PBs. Some were even faster. "Eighteen subjects were long distance runners (personal best times, 5000 m: 14:22 ± 0:47 min:s; 10,000 m: 29:43 ± 1:2 min:s; half marathon, 1:03 ± 0:14 h:min; marathon, 2:12 ± 0:19 h:min) and 2 were specialized in shorter distances (800 m: 01:50 ± 0:3 min:s; 1,500 m: 3:49 ± 0:4 min:s)."
2) I stand corrected. Lynn Bjorklund only ran 9:08.6 in 1975 -- faster than 9:23, but slower than 8:57. Historical "experts" tell us that the best USA high school girl in the 1970s was running ~9:00 for 3000m.
You say "my points" as if they weren't all the points I listed weren't from experts who have published their views for peer review. This includes predicting what their 3000m times ought to be, from other best performances.
Indeed there was an improvement, after 4 weeks of EPO. But it doesn't matter what you, a non-expert non-published outsider who doesn't "have the expertise to critique its methodology", say it means. What do the experts say?
Experts say without including a control group in the experiment, they cannot be sure that the cause of the improvement was due to EPO, or due to some other uncontrolled factor.
Experts say without double-blinding, they cannot be sure that the cause was not due to scientifically proven placebo effect.
Perhaps this is why the study experts say the study design needs to be improved in order for the findings to be confirmed: "... further research with larger sample size, complete data set, ... and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings".
But none of these points are "mine" per se.
So where did your "experts" specifically reject the findings of the study as unsound or invalid?
That is where you are mistaken. They didn't reject the findings -- these were the published findings as of 2019. They did find an improvement, which may or may not be attributed to EPO, in part, or in whole, and their novel findings require replication and need to be confirmed.
From the 2019 publication:
"In the present study, an average improvement of 27 s (corresponding to a ~5% improvement) during the 3000 m run at ~2150 m above sea level after rHuEpo administration was found."
"The current study was not double-blind, and therefore, the extent of the placebo-effect cannot be quantified."
"Factors unrelated to rHuEpo such as altered motivation (e.g., placebo, order effect) may partly explain the reported performance effects and reflected in the small but significant rise in RPE after rHuEpo in KEN."
"The present study was (not) blinded (nor) include a control group. Therefore, the novel data generated within the study limitations, although useful for comparison with the literature, require further replication."
"further research with larger sample size, complete data set, measurement of tHbmass, arterial blood gases, SaO2 and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings."
Too funny. You admit to lying again, finally, but the question remains, why did you lie about the high school girls of the 70s, and what else did you lie about?
Too funny. You admit to lying again, finally, but the question remains, why did you lie about the high school girls of the 70s, and what else did you lie about?
By all accounts Rekrunner would have the world believe that EPO is the ultimate placebo, unproven as of any benefit in long distance running. Pretty damn funny I'll have to admit. Maybe Rek is an Italian or Spanish coach slash manager in real life?
A clunky estimate (on average) about their potential 3000m PB would be to calculate how much slower their PB was vs. the WR in each given distance and convert it to how much slower their 3000m time would've been using the same coefficient (ranging from 1.08 and 1.14). By this calculation, their predicted PB time would've been on average around 8:10 which is in stark contrast to their actual average time trial time of 9:23-24. There is a 15 % difference in the average times.
Of course, such a direct comparison is suspicious and very inaccurate for a few reasons:
1) PB isn't a replicable day-to-day performance but usually result of many favourable conditions. In addition to this, they lose the benefit of draft in a time trial which isn't only psychological but also physiological.
2) There is always distance-specific training and adaptation, therefore 800m and marathon runners are unlikely to perform equally well in a 3000m time trial. They are expected to underperform vs. the clunky prediction. OTOH, it is also possible that the athletes not accustomed to a 3000m race also learned to be faster with every extra repetition of the time trial without any "real" physiological boost. One subject improved his time from 10:40 to 9:30 after EPO treatment even when his hemoglobin level rose only from ~14.6 to ~15.7 g/dl. It is unlikely that over 12 % improvement in velocity can be explained by physiological factors alone.
3) The Eldoret test took place at moderate altitude. Even when Kenyans tend to tolerate hypoxia well, they should be slightly slower at distances of more than 800m or 1500m.
But do these add up to the Kenyans being some minute and fifteen seconds slower in the first tests vs. the potential time? Or did they take the first tests perhaps too easy and put more effort in the latter tests as their own estimate of how hard effort it was indicates?
By all accounts Rekrunner would have the world believe that EPO is the ultimate placebo, unproven as of any benefit in long distance running. Pretty damn funny I'll have to admit. Maybe Rek is an Italian or Spanish coach slash manager in real life?
It is not up to me to prove or disprove your beliefs about the significant performance benefits of EPO.
And on the contrary -- you would have me believe in non-expert interpretations of questionable science and alleged anecdotes from thousands of athletes who don't speak about their experience and improvements, but instead are self-servingly assumed and relayed by anonymous believers.
You may want to believe but I just can't be persuaded when the totality of science and anecdotes still requires significant filling in the gaps with uninformed speculations, projections and extrapolations, and (sometimes contradictory) personal pet hypotheses.
In the Kenyan study -- I would be prepared to concede that EPO use can partly contribute to an improvement from 85-90% of the estimated capability of the Kenyans, maybe. After all (see quotes above) that is what I can explicitly find in the study. This is consistent with what Renato has said about where and when EPO can cause improvements for the undertrained, during training. Given the lack of control and blinding, it is hard for me to project that finding onto the final best performances of elite athletes at the peak of their careers, when they are trying their best to run all out in a race. This what exercising "caution" means to me.
Here is some light reading - two meta-studies that assessed the quality and quantity of scientifically proven benefits from decades of doping performance research:
1) Overestimated Effect of Epo Administration on Aerobic Exercise Capacity: A Meta-Analysis Hein F.M. Lodewijkx, Bram Brouwer, Harm Kuipers, René van Hezewijk
2) Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk–benefit. Jules A A C Heuberger, Joost M Cohen Tervaert, Femke M L Schepers, Adriaan D B Vliegenthart, Joris I Rotmans, Johannes M A Daniels, Jacobus Burggraaf, and Adam F Cohen
But the main source of my doubt is not the low quality of the science, or assumed doping prevalence proving benefit, but the apparent lack of any perceived powerful benefit from all endurance drugs and methods combined, among the best historical performances of the fastest elite non-Africans, during the EPO-era, for about three decades and counting. Here we have a study suggesting 5% improvements among 63' and 2:12 caliber athletes. Didn't/don't the best non-Africans believe enough in the power of EPO to use it themselves significantly enough to progress further in events ranging from 1500m to the marathon? Or alternatively, did they believe in it and use it, and still not find any progress in events ranging from 1500m to the marathon. The time to do that was in the '90s before a test for EPO existed, and organized anti-doping didn't exist. Or maybe for two decades afterwards. Even today, I'm told that despite anti-doping testing advances, the ABP is too generous and easy to beat, that according to experts like Ashenden, these Kenyans wouldn't have been flagged by the generous limits of the off-score, and that dopers are always ahead of the testers.
You wrongly said Kenya before 1980 was "just another (distance running) country". I clearly showed you that your statement was nonsense.
At the top, Kenya already few years after they started to compete internationally clearly was the no. 1 (male) distance running nation. In depth, UK and USA probably were still ahead. Kenyans also didn't run the Marathon in these days.
Was this enormous early success the result of doping? That means, Kenyans doped whereas all the other nations didn't, or didn't do with such successful methods. If you think yes, explain which sort of doping they used which the rest didn't know.
I have never said doping doesn't help or doesn't help Kenyans. I assume it does - maybe not all and we are very uncertain to which amount. But rekrunner is much better informed here.
If today not a single Kenyan would dope anymore (and the rest of the world still would be unchanged), Kenya still would be a major running force, that's clearly to see from the statistics of the last seven decades.
Your conclusion is complete nonsense, as I have explained to you now several times.
You have explained nothing. You merely waffle on and avoid the glaring contradiction in your position, which you have failed to resolve. Blood doping has been practiced since the early '70's. If Kenyans have doped - and we know that they have and it didn't begin this week - it has either contributed to their success or it hasn't. So which? If it hasn't then doping does not aid performance. It cannot be otherwise.
You are not only completely unable for any serious discussion (agreeing when you said something wrong, for example - you just can't, maybe some genetical issue), you are now clearly also exposed to be a liar.
I have explained a lot. I showed for anybody that you are writing a lot of nonsense (Kenya back then was "just another country..."). They weren't, they were the no.1 distance running nation (definitely at the very top) already from the mid 1960s on.
Now you are saying this was (from the early 70s) the result of blood doping? This was much more developed and used in Kenya then in the rest of the world?
There is not any contradiction in anything I have said. Many Kenyans dope and I'm pretty sure (but can't prove this) on average it helps them to improve their performance. I have never ever said it hasn't contributed to their success. But it's also completely obvious that Kenya without any doping involved would be one of the major forces in distance running. That's what the results of the last seven decades clearly show.
In your answer you again will change what I have said, as you already did several times in this thread.
So where did your "experts" specifically reject the findings of the study as unsound or invalid?
That is where you are mistaken. They didn't reject the findings -- these were the published findings as of 2019. They did find an improvement, which may or may not be attributed to EPO, in part, or in whole, and their novel findings require replication and need to be confirmed.
From the 2019 publication:
"In the present study, an average improvement of 27 s (corresponding to a ~5% improvement) during the 3000 m run at ~2150 m above sea level after rHuEpo administration was found."
"The current study was not double-blind, and therefore, the extent of the placebo-effect cannot be quantified."
"Factors unrelated to rHuEpo such as altered motivation (e.g., placebo, order effect) may partly explain the reported performance effects and reflected in the small but significant rise in RPE after rHuEpo in KEN."
"The present study was (not) blinded (nor) include a control group. Therefore, the novel data generated within the study limitations, although useful for comparison with the literature, require further replication."
"further research with larger sample size, complete data set, measurement of tHbmass, arterial blood gases, SaO2 and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings."
I know I am not mistaken. The experts did not reject the essential findings. Consequently, in their eyes they still stand.
You have explained nothing. You merely waffle on and avoid the glaring contradiction in your position, which you have failed to resolve. Blood doping has been practiced since the early '70's. If Kenyans have doped - and we know that they have and it didn't begin this week - it has either contributed to their success or it hasn't. So which? If it hasn't then doping does not aid performance. It cannot be otherwise.
You are not only completely unable for any serious discussion (agreeing when you said something wrong, for example - you just can't, maybe some genetical issue), you are now clearly also exposed to be a liar.
I have explained a lot. I showed for anybody that you are writing a lot of nonsense (Kenya back then was "just another country..."). They weren't, they were the no.1 distance running nation (definitely at the very top) already from the mid 1960s on.
Now you are saying this was (from the early 70s) the result of blood doping? This was much more developed and used in Kenya then in the rest of the world?
There is not any contradiction in anything I have said. Many Kenyans dope and I'm pretty sure (but can't prove this) on average it helps them to improve their performance. I have never ever said it hasn't contributed to their success. But it's also completely obvious that Kenya without any doping involved would be one of the major forces in distance running. That's what the results of the last seven decades clearly show.
In your answer you again will change what I have said, as you already did several times in this thread.
You really cannot grasp the point. It isn't whether Kenyans have some aptitude for running as you keep maintaining but whether doping has contributed to their success, which is my point. The former may be true - they would be good without doping - and the latter also - that they were made better by it. It is irrelevant that Kenya would have enjoyed some success without doping; other countries have also enjoyed success in respective sports without it necessarily being the product of doping, so it is entirely possible it could have been so with Kenya also. However, doping has changed the picture and the undeniable fact is that Kenya has embraced the practice. The conclusion must therefore be that Kenyan success has been added to by doping or that doping hasn't enhanced the performance of their distance runners (the rekrunner position) and so it hasn't contributed to that success. There is no middle ground in the debate. While you continue to dispute this you unavoidably put yourself in the camp of those who say doping hadn't helped Kenyans because it isn't performance enhancing. If you cannot see that then it is pointless to discuss this further.
You are not only completely unable for any serious discussion (agreeing when you said something wrong, for example - you just can't, maybe some genetical issue), you are now clearly also exposed to be a liar.
I have explained a lot. I showed for anybody that you are writing a lot of nonsense (Kenya back then was "just another country..."). They weren't, they were the no.1 distance running nation (definitely at the very top) already from the mid 1960s on.
Now you are saying this was (from the early 70s) the result of blood doping? This was much more developed and used in Kenya then in the rest of the world?
There is not any contradiction in anything I have said. Many Kenyans dope and I'm pretty sure (but can't prove this) on average it helps them to improve their performance. I have never ever said it hasn't contributed to their success. But it's also completely obvious that Kenya without any doping involved would be one of the major forces in distance running. That's what the results of the last seven decades clearly show.
In your answer you again will change what I have said, as you already did several times in this thread.
You really cannot grasp the point. It isn't whether Kenyans have some aptitude for running as you keep maintaining but whether doping has contributed to their success, which is my point. The former may be true - they would be good without doping - and the latter also - that they were made better by it. It is irrelevant that Kenya would have enjoyed some success without doping; other countries have also enjoyed success in respective sports without it necessarily being the product of doping, so it is entirely possible it could have been so with Kenya also. However, doping has changed the picture and the undeniable fact is that Kenya has embraced the practice. The conclusion must therefore be that Kenyan success has been added to by doping or that doping hasn't enhanced the performance of their distance runners (the rekrunner position) and so it hasn't contributed to that success. There is no middle ground in the debate. While you continue to dispute this you unavoidably put yourself in the camp of those who say doping hadn't helped Kenyans because it isn't performance enhancing. If you cannot see that then it is pointless to discuss this further.
This was your statement: "So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance"
"Kenyans have some aptitude for running" - some aptitude! - Kenyans are the most successful distance runners (some break after two Olympic boykotts in the early 80s) in the world since almost six decades.
Many Kenyans now dope (since when?) and I have no doubt it has a "positive" effect for them. So it's very likely that without doping some of the top runners from Kenya wouldn't be there (at the top). But it's absolutely obvious, that even without a single Kenyan doper (and the rest unchanged) Kenya still would be a major (the major?) force in distance running. See the astonishing domination in Marathon and road running (alongside Ethiopia).
So, it isn't doping which has made Kenyans successful (today it contributes to their success, how much? hard to say, the rest of the world also dopes) and for sure doping does enhance performance (which doping, under which conditions, by how much - very difficult questions). Your statement was nonsense. You are unable to discuss - in a normal discussion something like this should be clarified after the 2nd post).
That is where you are mistaken. They didn't reject the findings -- these were the published findings as of 2019. They did find an improvement, which may or may not be attributed to EPO, in part, or in whole, and their novel findings require replication and need to be confirmed.
From the 2019 publication:
"In the present study, an average improvement of 27 s (corresponding to a ~5% improvement) during the 3000 m run at ~2150 m above sea level after rHuEpo administration was found."
"The current study was not double-blind, and therefore, the extent of the placebo-effect cannot be quantified."
"Factors unrelated to rHuEpo such as altered motivation (e.g., placebo, order effect) may partly explain the reported performance effects and reflected in the small but significant rise in RPE after rHuEpo in KEN."
"The present study was (not) blinded (nor) include a control group. Therefore, the novel data generated within the study limitations, although useful for comparison with the literature, require further replication."
"further research with larger sample size, complete data set, measurement of tHbmass, arterial blood gases, SaO2 and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings."
I know I am not mistaken. The experts did not reject the essential findings. Consequently, in their eyes they still stand.
Brilliant. Seems we are in complete agreement now, that these experts indeed did not reject their findings, as they put it in their own words, from their data generated within study limitations, for the useful purpose of comparison with literature, before expressly requiring further replication and expressly requiring further research with an improved study design to confirm these findings.
I know I am not mistaken. The experts did not reject the essential findings. Consequently, in their eyes they still stand.
Brilliant. Seems we are in complete agreement now, that these experts indeed did not reject their findings, as they put it in their own words, from their data generated within study limitations, for the useful purpose of comparison with literature, before expressly requiring further replication and expressly requiring further research with an improved study design to confirm these findings.
You really cannot grasp the point. It isn't whether Kenyans have some aptitude for running as you keep maintaining but whether doping has contributed to their success, which is my point. The former may be true - they would be good without doping - and the latter also - that they were made better by it. It is irrelevant that Kenya would have enjoyed some success without doping; other countries have also enjoyed success in respective sports without it necessarily being the product of doping, so it is entirely possible it could have been so with Kenya also. However, doping has changed the picture and the undeniable fact is that Kenya has embraced the practice. The conclusion must therefore be that Kenyan success has been added to by doping or that doping hasn't enhanced the performance of their distance runners (the rekrunner position) and so it hasn't contributed to that success. There is no middle ground in the debate. While you continue to dispute this you unavoidably put yourself in the camp of those who say doping hadn't helped Kenyans because it isn't performance enhancing. If you cannot see that then it is pointless to discuss this further.
This was your statement: "So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance"
"Kenyans have some aptitude for running" - some aptitude! - Kenyans are the most successful distance runners (some break after two Olympic boykotts in the early 80s) in the world since almost six decades.
Many Kenyans now dope (since when?) and I have no doubt it has a "positive" effect for them. So it's very likely that without doping some of the top runners from Kenya wouldn't be there (at the top). But it's absolutely obvious, that even without a single Kenyan doper (and the rest unchanged) Kenya still would be a major (the major?) force in distance running. See the astonishing domination in Marathon and road running (alongside Ethiopia).
So, it isn't doping which has made Kenyans successful (today it contributes to their success, how much? hard to say, the rest of the world also dopes) and for sure doping does enhance performance (which doping, under which conditions, by how much - very difficult questions). Your statement was nonsense. You are unable to discuss - in a normal discussion something like this should be clarified after the 2nd post).
You keep belabouring a single point, that Kenya would be "successful" (how successful?) even without doping. But you don't know that, since they have shown they are amongst the worst dopers in the sport. It is nonsense to suggest that doping would scarcely have made a difference when so many do it. That is, unless, you have to maintain it hasn't helped them. You don't realise it but you are arguing contradictory - as well as factually inaccurate - positions. But this is round and round the mulberry bush. I'll leave you to your confusion.
Brilliant. Seems we are in complete agreement now, that these experts indeed did not reject their findings, as they put it in their own words, from their data generated within study limitations, for the useful purpose of comparison with literature, before expressly requiring further replication and expressly requiring further research with an improved study design to confirm these findings.
You might try that in English.
Already did. It's not always easy to dumb it down enough for a 7-year old -- no offense meant to 7-year olds.
Let me try it again. I agree with the study's findings and the authors' "requirement" to "replicate" the experiment, but with an "improved experimental design" to "confirm these findings":
"In the present study, an average improvement of 27 s (corresponding to a ~5% improvement) during the 3000 m run at ~2150 m above sea level after rHuEpo administration was found."
"The current study was not double-blind, and therefore, the extent of the placebo-effect cannot be quantified."
"Factors unrelated to rHuEpo such as altered motivation (e.g., placebo, order effect) may partly explain the reported performance effects and reflected in the small but significant rise in RPE after rHuEpo in KEN."
"The present study was (not) blinded (nor) include a control group. Therefore, the novel data generated within the study limitations, although useful for comparison with the literature, require further replication."
"further research with larger sample size, complete data set, measurement of tHbmass, arterial blood gases, SaO2 and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings."
Your evidence sucks…you are an actual doping apologist so provide Ncbi Nlm references and then we’ll debate (just so you know beforehand I am an actual scientist (far better at analyzing data and defining controls than you could ever be) and you will probably be humbled (I say probably because it sucks that I have to waste my time on people like you - those without intuitive intelligence - maybe you can support your views with scientific peer-reviewed references). I guess when your intelligence is TOO low you fail to comprehend simple scientific concepts (which is why your scientific intuition sucks) - oh and should you respond that you are just dealing with the evidence available (maybe you should purchase a subscription to some online journals focusing on muscle physiology) know that I am a Ph.D. with a concentration in muscle physiology (among many other fields like mass spec which do a reasonably good job of detailing atypical performance enhancing drug use. I have lurked for quite some time - you brought the thunder, now address it.
I wonder where Dr. Thunder went after I gave him two "Ncbi Nlm references" that he requested. Maybe he needs time to prepare for the "debate" he promised. I assumed he would support some views with scientific peer-reviewed references and introduce some simple scientific concepts and perhaps include an introduction to muscle physiology. With luck, maybe he can get his posts peer-reviewed and published so even Armstronglivs would accept these views.
Or maybe the god of thunder couldn't take the shock and took his hammer and flew away. Shame. It would be a refreshing change to "debate" with someone possessing scientific intelligence on the domain.
You really cannot grasp the point. It isn't whether Kenyans have some aptitude for running as you keep maintaining but whether doping has contributed to their success, which is my point. The former may be true - they would be good without doping - and the latter also - that they were made better by it. It is irrelevant that Kenya would have enjoyed some success without doping; other countries have also enjoyed success in respective sports without it necessarily being the product of doping, so it is entirely possible it could have been so with Kenya also. However, doping has changed the picture and the undeniable fact is that Kenya has embraced the practice. The conclusion must therefore be that Kenyan success has been added to by doping or that doping hasn't enhanced the performance of their distance runners (the rekrunner position) and so it hasn't contributed to that success. There is no middle ground in the debate. While you continue to dispute this you unavoidably put yourself in the camp of those who say doping hadn't helped Kenyans because it isn't performance enhancing. If you cannot see that then it is pointless to discuss this further.
This was your statement: "So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance"
"Kenyans have some aptitude for running" - some aptitude! - Kenyans are the most successful distance runners (some break after two Olympic boykotts in the early 80s) in the world since almost six decades.
Many Kenyans now dope (since when?) and I have no doubt it has a "positive" effect for them. So it's very likely that without doping some of the top runners from Kenya wouldn't be there (at the top). But it's absolutely obvious, that even without a single Kenyan doper (and the rest unchanged) Kenya still would be a major (the major?) force in distance running. See the astonishing domination in Marathon and road running (alongside Ethiopia).
So, it isn't doping which has made Kenyans successful (today it contributes to their success, how much? hard to say, the rest of the world also dopes) and for sure doping does enhance performance (which doping, under which conditions, by how much - very difficult questions). Your statement was nonsense. You are unable to discuss - in a normal discussion something like this should be clarified after the 2nd post).
We know that the rest of the world doesn't dope like Kenya does, any assertion by you to the contrary is just speculation with no evidence. In fact, it goes against the evidence, as you have to explain how one country (Kenya) has 250+ doping busts with relatively rudimentary testing (almost non-existant until around 3 or 4 years ago), which is more than any continent (other than Africa obviously).
Before EPO came on the scene, Kenya was less dominant than the GDR at distance running. No Kenyan ran under 2:09 until EPO came on the scene. There's your answer.
This was your statement: "So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance"
"Kenyans have some aptitude for running" - some aptitude! - Kenyans are the most successful distance runners (some break after two Olympic boykotts in the early 80s) in the world since almost six decades.
Many Kenyans now dope (since when?) and I have no doubt it has a "positive" effect for them. So it's very likely that without doping some of the top runners from Kenya wouldn't be there (at the top). But it's absolutely obvious, that even without a single Kenyan doper (and the rest unchanged) Kenya still would be a major (the major?) force in distance running. See the astonishing domination in Marathon and road running (alongside Ethiopia).
So, it isn't doping which has made Kenyans successful (today it contributes to their success, how much? hard to say, the rest of the world also dopes) and for sure doping does enhance performance (which doping, under which conditions, by how much - very difficult questions). Your statement was nonsense. You are unable to discuss - in a normal discussion something like this should be clarified after the 2nd post).
We know that the rest of the world doesn't dope like Kenya does, any assertion by you to the contrary is just speculation with no evidence. In fact, it goes against the evidence, as you have to explain how one country (Kenya) has 250+ doping busts with relatively rudimentary testing (almost non-existant until around 3 or 4 years ago), which is more than any continent (other than Africa obviously).
Before EPO came on the scene, Kenya was less dominant than the GDR at distance running. No Kenyan ran under 2:09 until EPO came on the scene. There's your answer.
But is your answer realistic?
Didn't Ibrahim Hussein run 2:08:43 in 1988?
Both Kenyan and Ethiopian senior and junior men were world dominant in the 1980s, long before 1992, the year you told us it was widely accepted that EPO was widely abused.
You must already know all of this. Why do you continue to repeat debunked lies?