What about answering the question? How did Kenya became the worlds no. 1 distance running nation just a around 10 years after they started to compete internationally in the mid 1950s?
I reading comprehension also one of your weak parts? If you don't understand properly, ask. I try to explain it again for you then.
Kenya was not the worlds no 1 distance running nation in the 60s or 70s. They won a lot of medals at the 68 Olympics because it was at altitude. They were performing horrendously on the European circuit that year, then suddenly got back to top form when they reinstated their South African/Dutch 'sports scientist' coach. According to Charlie Francis, the Kenyans were doping at the 68 games. Keino's performance in Mexico was probably the most suspicious and unbelievable in men's middle-distance ever (outside of the full throttle EPO era).
How did Ma's Army dominate women's distance running in the space of 2 years out of literally nothing?
Kenya was the no. 1 track distance running nation from the mid 1960s to end of 1970s. Definitely at the very top. In depth, the USA (and maybe also Great Britain) were still ahead.
By far most medals at the Olympics (despite boykotting 76).
By far most successful nation at the Commonwealth Games.
By far most World Records of any nation.
Only nation who has had a runner in the top 2 all-time in the 800m, 1000m, 1500m, 1 Mile, 3000m, 2 Miles, 5000m, 10000m, Steeple.
Kenya almost didn't compete in the Marathon at all in these days.
Armstronglivs calls this "just another (distance running) nation".
The Chinese success in 93 didn't come out of nothing. But the results from the 93 and 97 Chinese national games are really hard to explain. Probably some combination of some very successful doping regimen and extremely hard training which both didn't take any care about the humans involved? But some of the times still don't fit up completely.
Kenya became the world no. 1 distance running nation on Earth a few years after they started to compete. Don't try to argue all of their success is only because of doping.
I have not contradicted anything. You were completely wrong on some issues here. You will never accept this because you are a dishonest self-absorbed narcissist who has absolutely no interest in serious discussions. Or you just can't.
For years you claimed that anybody who can put two feet ahead is doping since childhood. But Kenyans success is just because they dope - you never will see the illogical in your thinking. And if you would, you would not admit.
Europeans can't clear the water jump in the way many Kenyans do since decades. Why?
One minute you're pretending you're not a scientific racist and accusing me of lying, the next you're making claims that Kenyans have a genetic adaptation for clearing the water jump.
If Kenya was already the number 1 distance running powerhouse in the world in the 1960's, why did no Kenyan run under 2:09 for the marathon before EPO became widely available around 1992?
This racist thing really has affected you deeply. People from different parts of the world are different, yes.
What's the reason hundreds of Kenyans over the years have cleared the water jump in a manner most Europeans just can't?
The Chinese success in 93 didn't come out of nothing. But the results from the 93 and 97 Chinese national games are really hard to explain. Probably some combination of some very successful doping regimen and extremely hard training which both didn't take any care about the humans involved? But some of the times still don't fit up completely.
There was the suspicion that in some of the races in China the track was short or sth. like that (e.g. they did not run full 7.5 laps for the 3000m) although the Chinese dominated in Stuttgart 93 they didn't run quite as absurdly fast as in China.
As it seems everyone accepts genetic advantages for people with West African heritage in sprints, I don't see why we should not accept genetic advantages for some people from East Africa. The anatomic advantages are obvious to the naked eye and the altitude adaptation fits with being very good at distance running and the evolutionary history of these people. (And it also fits that for "cold altitude adapted" people, like Tibetans or Andeans the squat anatomy (cold adaptation that in the case of native Americans predates their coming to the new world as they came from Siberia) cancels the altitude bonus for running although Mexicans (living in hot altitude for a millenium or two) were pretty good at distance before the East African dominance and still are in racewalking)
Of course, doping could be just on top of that but hardly anybody denies this. There are a few other features harder to explain and they might be related more often to early teenaged practices, e.g. that (some) East Africans also seem to be uncommonly good in "fartlek"-type races and steeplechase. If it would be mostly doping we should have seen more people from other regions catching up through sophisticated doping, just like Eastern bloc female sprinters were about as fast and explosive as African Americans in the 1980s. (It's never only doping, someone like Drechsler was also "built for long jump".)
As it seems everyone accepts genetic advantages for people with West African heritage in sprints, I don't see why we should not accept genetic advantages for some people from East Africa.
As it seems everyone accepts genetic advantages for people with West African heritage in sprints, I don't see why we should not accept genetic advantages for some people from East Africa.
For some people here already the idea is racist.
It is racist and highly dangerous.
But the primary reason why we shouldn't accept genetic advantages for some people from East Africa is that there is way less evidence for it. Plus there is another explanation at hand - 25 doping busts in Kenya last year alone.
West African descent athletes have excelled or even dominated at virtually ANY and EVERY sport that requites any kind of explosive speed or power.
East African descent athletes have done diddly squat at anything other than distance running, a sport in which there exists a drug that until recently was on sale over the counter in every pharmacy in Kenya, and which knocks 10 minutes off of your marathon time.
If East Africans were the 'aerobic' equivalent of the West African anaerobic powerhouses, you would see evidence of it in multitudes of sports from soccer to cycling to boxing....
Nobody has observed the Kenyan team being noticeably fresher at the end of soccer matches or rugby matches etc.
And don't give me the rubbish about Kenyans being innocent Third World paupers who don't have a concept of time and no money to do any other sport but run. The same is true for Nigeria and Ghana etc, but they have dozens of soccer players in the top leagues in Europe earning close to a million dollars a week. There have been champion boxers from West Africa. Until recently, THREE of the eight UFC men's champions were from Nigeria, and the heavyweight champion still is.
But the primary reason why we shouldn't accept genetic advantages for some people from East Africa is that there is way less evidence for it. Plus there is another explanation at hand - 25 doping busts in Kenya last year alone.
West African descent athletes have excelled or even dominated at virtually ANY and EVERY sport that requites any kind of explosive speed or power.
East African descent athletes have done diddly squat at anything other than distance running, a sport in which there exists a drug that until recently was on sale over the counter in every pharmacy in Kenya, and which knocks 10 minutes off of your marathon time.
If East Africans were the 'aerobic' equivalent of the West African anaerobic powerhouses, you would see evidence of it in multitudes of sports from soccer to cycling to boxing....
Nobody has observed the Kenyan team being noticeably fresher at the end of soccer matches or rugby matches etc.
And don't give me the rubbish about Kenyans being innocent Third World paupers who don't have a concept of time and no money to do any other sport but run. The same is true for Nigeria and Ghana etc, but they have dozens of soccer players in the top leagues in Europe earning close to a million dollars a week. There have been champion boxers from West Africa. Until recently, THREE of the eight UFC men's champions were from Nigeria, and the heavyweight champion still is.
Kenya are not special in distance running at all - because they are (so far) not good at football! It really takes a few turns of the brain to maintain one's own long-disproved point of view.
Kenya was the no. 1 distance running nation in the world already from the mid 1960s to the end of the 1970s (definitely at the top, lost that position after two boycotts and the emergence of Coe/Ovett and others for a few years).
I see in some posts you also struggle a lot with my username. I have to admit that 7 letters is a lot, I should have chosen a shorter one.
10 minutes advantage in the Marathon? I think last month you wrote something like 5 Minutes? Is this improving exponentially are lineary? Maybe the real number is 30 minutes? Maybe the best Kenyans are just 2:45 athletes?
You could also ask if the success was a result of eating, training or breathing. I think doping was a factor, but even different patterns of doping use do not alone explain the relative importance of some geographical areas in pro cycling.
One could even plausibly argue that Kenyan current dominance is a result of doping, but blood doping use was totally uncontrolled in running until 2001, only slightly controlled until the ABP system a decade later and not even fully controlled after that. If doping was prevalent, this doping doesn't fullt explain the good performance / dominance of the Kenyan athletes from Soul 1988 Olympics onwards if not from earlier.
So doping is no more significant than "breathing or eating"? That would surprise WADA - and a lot of athletes. If it is being used it either has an effect or it doesn't. So which is it? It is no less significant if it is used to reinforce talent - as it generally will be.
The Chinese success in 93 didn't come out of nothing. But the results from the 93 and 97 Chinese national games are really hard to explain. Probably some combination of some very successful doping regimen and extremely hard training which both didn't take any care about the humans involved? But some of the times still don't fit up completely.
There was the suspicion that in some of the races in China the track was short or sth. like that (e.g. they did not run full 7.5 laps for the 3000m) although the Chinese dominated in Stuttgart 93 they didn't run quite as absurdly fast as in China.
As it seems everyone accepts genetic advantages for people with West African heritage in sprints, I don't see why we should not accept genetic advantages for some people from East Africa. The anatomic advantages are obvious to the naked eye and the altitude adaptation fits with being very good at distance running and the evolutionary history of these people. (And it also fits that for "cold altitude adapted" people, like Tibetans or Andeans the squat anatomy (cold adaptation that in the case of native Americans predates their coming to the new world as they came from Siberia) cancels the altitude bonus for running although Mexicans (living in hot altitude for a millenium or two) were pretty good at distance before the East African dominance and still are in racewalking)
Of course, doping could be just on top of that but hardly anybody denies this. There are a few other features harder to explain and they might be related more often to early teenaged practices, e.g. that (some) East Africans also seem to be uncommonly good in "fartlek"-type races and steeplechase. If it would be mostly doping we should have seen more people from other regions catching up through sophisticated doping, just like Eastern bloc female sprinters were about as fast and explosive as African Americans in the 1980s. (It's never only doping, someone like Drechsler was also "built for long jump".)
It is hard to make an argument for genetic advantage where doping is rife. The results are skewed. So what was Kratochvilova's "genetic' advantage?
You could also ask if the success was a result of eating, training or breathing. I think doping was a factor, but even different patterns of doping use do not alone explain the relative importance of some geographical areas in pro cycling.
One could even plausibly argue that Kenyan current dominance is a result of doping, but blood doping use was totally uncontrolled in running until 2001, only slightly controlled until the ABP system a decade later and not even fully controlled after that. If doping was prevalent, this doping doesn't fullt explain the good performance / dominance of the Kenyan athletes from Soul 1988 Olympics onwards if not from earlier.
If doping was a factor in Basque success then we know their success is not simply attributable to environment or genetics. When doping is widespread, as it is in cycling and of course Kenyan distance running, we also know the athletes consider it important if not vital.
One minute you're pretending you're not a scientific racist and accusing me of lying, the next you're making claims that Kenyans have a genetic adaptation for clearing the water jump.
If Kenya was already the number 1 distance running powerhouse in the world in the 1960's, why did no Kenyan run under 2:09 for the marathon before EPO became widely available around 1992?
This racist thing really has affected you deeply. People from different parts of the world are different, yes.
What's the reason hundreds of Kenyans over the years have cleared the water jump in a manner most Europeans just can't?
You could also ask if the success was a result of eating, training or breathing. I think doping was a factor, but even different patterns of doping use do not alone explain the relative importance of some geographical areas in pro cycling.
One could even plausibly argue that Kenyan current dominance is a result of doping, but blood doping use was totally uncontrolled in running until 2001, only slightly controlled until the ABP system a decade later and not even fully controlled after that. If doping was prevalent, this doping doesn't fullt explain the good performance / dominance of the Kenyan athletes from Soul 1988 Olympics onwards if not from earlier.
If doping was a factor in Basque success then we know their success is not simply attributable to environment or genetics. When doping is widespread, as it is in cycling and of course Kenyan distance running, we also know the athletes consider it important if not vital.
You are the only one, who thinks that the crux of my post was about Basque success, when it was their overrepresentation, two different things that shouldn't be conflated.
Just consider the following sentence (modified from the one you used):
"If knowing what pedals are and how they work was a factor in Basque success then we know their success is not simply attributable to environment or genetics" is a valid sentence, and true. You could actually substitute "doping" with pretty much anything -- "eating", "getting interested in cycling", "exercising instead of playing with one's dick" etc. and the sentence is equally true.
But none of the above can explain their overrepresentation in cycling, and I don't thing doping can (fully) either. Please feel free to disagree.
No disagreement relating to the latter sentence by you.
If doping was a factor in Basque success then we know their success is not simply attributable to environment or genetics. When doping is widespread, as it is in cycling and of course Kenyan distance running, we also know the athletes consider it important if not vital.
You are the only one, who thinks that the crux of my post was about Basque success, when it was their overrepresentation, two different things that shouldn't be conflated.
Just consider the following sentence (modified from the one you used):
"If knowing what pedals are and how they work was a factor in Basque success then we know their success is not simply attributable to environment or genetics" is a valid sentence, and true. You could actually substitute "doping" with pretty much anything -- "eating", "getting interested in cycling", "exercising instead of playing with one's dick" etc. and the sentence is equally true.
But none of the above can explain their overrepresentation in cycling, and I don't thing doping can (fully) either. Please feel free to disagree.
No disagreement relating to the latter sentence by you.
What is the difference between "success" and "over-representation" as it is being applied here? Are we not effectively describing the same thing, which is that there are/were proportionately more Basques at the top of cycling than any other national group? I thought that was your point. Mine is that doping could have had something to do with that "over-representation" - as it has enabled individual success in elite cycling.
The analogy you use to substitute for doping, of "pedals" (or "eating" etc), is false for several reasons: pedals (and eating) are not banned and are used by all competitors. Nor are they sufficient to enable seven yellow jerseys - or Armstrong wouldn't have seen the need to dope.
What you are mistakenly arguing against is a straw man, that doping is of itself the only factor in sporting success, when the point is that in elite sport doping enables talented doped athletes to beat equally talented (or even more talented) clean athletes. Doping is the margin at the top, between winning and losing (or "success" and "over-representation", or lack of success and under-representation). It doesn't describe the 95% of achievement that is built on talent and hard work - common to all top athletes - but the bit above that. And that is what we are seeing with Kenyan athletes.
The East African running gene is one of the most laughable arguments you will ever see. No one believes it. A few doping apologist diehards who filibuster every doping thread on here means nothing. The East African doping culture ruined the sport. No one cares about it. Used to be winning the Boston or NY marathon was a big deal. Now 99.99999% of sports fans would not be able to pick a winner of these races out of a lineup, and the handful that could no longer care. They know its fake.
- Individual riders or a group of them can't succeed without X, Y, Z or doping, ergo they are contributing factors.
- In the case of Basque cyclists, doping (or different doping patterns in Spain vs. rest of the world) only partly explains their overrepresentation in pro cycling particularly when they were some 6 % of the Spanish population but were close to half of the Spanish pro cyclists (if Dan Coyle's figures are even roughly correct, he has no incentive to lie) having even a Basque pro cycling team.
The second point was crucial and clear for everyone except you three posts ago, and if you still have trouble understanding it, there is little I can do to help you. 😭😢😥
- Individual riders or a group of them can't succeed without X, Y, Z or doping, ergo they are contributing factors.
- In the case of Basque cyclists, doping (or different doping patterns in Spain vs. rest of the world) only partly explains their overrepresentation in pro cycling particularly when they were some 6 % of the Spanish population but were close to half of the Spanish pro cyclists (if Dan Coyle's figures are even roughly correct, he has no incentive to lie) having even a Basque pro cycling team.
The second point was crucial and clear for everyone except you three posts ago, and if you still have trouble understanding it, there is little I can do to help you. 😭😢😥
It is not I that requires help. So doping only "partly explains" Basque over-representation in to cycling? I guess that makes it unimportant. Where have I argued that doping is the only factor in sporting success? You have constructed a straw man. Further, if doping only "partly" explains Basque success, which part is it? How do you quantify it? How successful would they have been without doping - given the entire TdF peloton was doping in the '90's and early 2000's?
You have expended your efforts in arguing a point that isn't being contested, which is that there will be factors in sporting success besides doping. However, where doping is suspected and even known to be present then arguing that doped athletes would have been just as successful if they had been clean doesn't follow unless it is argued doping is not performance enhancing (which I don't accept), and, conversely, whatever success they do enjoy has become critically dependant on their doping - which is why they dope. The latter point is what I have argued.
As for the "XYZ" factors in success that aren't doping - such as pedals, food and even environment - they are irrelevant in any discussion about doping, as doping is not accepted in the sport, whereas the other factors are. That does not minimize the effect doping will have in contributing to sporting success. It has become crucial at the top.
- Individual riders or a group of them can't succeed without X, Y, Z or doping, ergo they are contributing factors.
- In the case of Basque cyclists, doping (or different doping patterns in Spain vs. rest of the world) only partly explains their overrepresentation in pro cycling particularly when they were some 6 % of the Spanish population but were close to half of the Spanish pro cyclists (if Dan Coyle's figures are even roughly correct, he has no incentive to lie) having even a Basque pro cycling team.
The second point was crucial and clear for everyone except you three posts ago, and if you still have trouble understanding it, there is little I can do to help you. 😭😢😥
It is not I that requires help. So doping only "partly explains" Basque over-representation in to cycling? I guess that makes it unimportant. Where have I argued that doping is the only factor in sporting success? You have constructed a straw man. Further, if doping only "partly" explains Basque success, which part is it? How do you quantify it? How successful would they have been without doping - given the entire TdF peloton was doping in the '90's and early 2000's?
You have expended your efforts in arguing a point that isn't being contested, which is that there will be factors in sporting success besides doping. However, where doping is suspected and even known to be present then arguing that doped athletes would have been just as successful if they had been clean doesn't follow unless it is argued doping is not performance enhancing (which I don't accept), and, conversely, whatever success they do enjoy has become critically dependant on their doping - which is why they dope. The latter point is what I have argued.
As for the "XYZ" factors in success that aren't doping - such as pedals, food and even environment - they are irrelevant in any discussion about doping, as doping is not accepted in the sport, whereas the other factors are. That does not minimize the effect doping will have in contributing to sporting success. It has become crucial at the top.
"Yes" to the only point I originally made.
In the case of Basque cyclists, doping (or different doping patterns in Spain vs. rest of the world) only partly explains their overrepresentation in pro cycling particularly when they were some 6 % of the Spanish population but were close to half of the Spanish pro cyclists (if Dan Coyle's figures are even roughly correct, he has no incentive to lie) having even a Basque pro cycling team.
(I ❤ COPY-PASTE.
Saves enormously time, when you encounter a soporific tirade about something you never postulated or semantic mental masturbation about something that is barely relevant to your original point.)
Nothing new that you don't know the meaning of "opinion".
You said that Kenya before 1980 was "just another country". At the top Kenya was the already the no. 1 country in the world (not in depth). So far you have not clarified your completely false statement.
Do you think this "early" Kenyan success was mainly the result of doping? (which means Kenyans (mainly Kalenjins, very small group) before 1980 doped much more successful than the rest of the world).