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 Kenyans don't use their legs?
So, what's the reason hundreds of Kenyans over the years have cleared the water jump in a manner most Europeans just can't without getting serious trouble? Doping?
I agree that most East Africans are doping, but I also believe they have the physical advantage of simply having smaller bodies, which is incredibly advantageous in the marathon. Also, all sub 2:09s are dirty? I don't think so. There is no evidence to suggest that Japanese marathoners are dirty.
I agree with you. I DO think there are a lot of East Africans doping- look at how many are finally getting caught, but runners have been improving ever since we've been keeping records.
Some people seem to have a hard time accepting that athletes will find ways to get better.
I remember when credible experts thought that 27:00 for a 10K MIGHT be impossible.
I'm generally optimistic but when I see results of some of these marathons with multiple sub 2:06's from generally unknown Kenyans and Ethiopians I have my doubts.
Having said that, I really wish someone would put up the money to get a large group of USA's top runners together at a major marathon on a record eligible course and have them paced through at 2:08 (?). Kind of like that American Project thing a few years back.
So, what's the reason hundreds of Kenyans over the years have cleared the water jump in a manner most Europeans just can't without getting serious trouble? Doping?
A stupid question, not worth responding to. But here is a more relevant question, which you have so far ducked - in a country rife with doping, what role has it played in their success?
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.)
So if you concede Basque cyclists doped, as pretty much everyone else was doing, then it becomes a critical factor in their relative success. So what exactly was your 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).
I know this assessment is simply your opinion. Kenya wasn't the no.1 country in the world before the 1980's. The best runners in the world in the 60's and 70's, from md up, came from the US, the UK, Australia and NZ and Finland, as well as other African countries. Kenya was amongst them but not surpassing them.
But all that is sidestepping the question you don't answer, which is that we have seen Kenya is one of the countries that dopes the most in running events. So what role has all that doping played in their "success"?
So if you concede Basque cyclists doped, as pretty much everyone else was doing, then it becomes a critical factor in their relative success. So what exactly was your point?
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.
Except I don't think your numbers are correct. Checking the roster lists of the grand tours from that era there was no Basque overrepresentation. Nor even if true would any such numbers rule out that a permissive doping culture was a primary cause. And cycling is a sport where if there is enough interest in a given region that could led to pro teams and sponsorships which would potentially skew the representation numbers.
I think far more relevant would be to show an overrepresentation in the overall success of Basque region riders. Because in the context of doping the issue is not whether more Basque or any other group of riders participated in the sport, but their ability to dominate it. That did not exist regarding the group you cite.
The data is scarce and difficult to find, but amount of Spaniards and Basques in any given race depends very much on what year and race you are looking at.
Clearly the 2004 TDF was pathetic for the Basques particularly after Iban Mayo DNF, but they made at least half of the 10 Spaniards at the top 30 the preceding year's (2003) TDF (placings 5, 6, 18, 29, 30) and likely ~half of the rest of the finishers, ie. possible every Spaniard with a non-Spanish name, with cyclists named something like Zinukielodbibeo Uñurrebatourixeidi. And in addition to that, the Basques were 2th, 4th and 9th at the Vuelta the same year. That is 20 % of the top 30 finishers at TDF and 30 % of the top 10 at Vuelta.
Maybe slightly cherry-picked evidence to the other direction, but when you add Miguel Indurain, that is quite impressive for an area with a population of only some 2.5-3.0 million. To summarise -- I see no red flag indicating that there could not've been some ~70 Basque pro cyclists out of ~400. And yes, the paragraph by Daniel Coyle was vague about its source, but I think the numbers are correct enough to make statements like "[c]hecking the roster lists of the grand tours from that era there was no Basque overrepresentation" in absence of better terms -- total BS and hyperbole.
What contributed to the phenomenon another question.
So, what's the reason hundreds of Kenyans over the years have cleared the water jump in a manner most Europeans just can't without getting serious trouble? Doping?
A stupid question, not worth responding to. But here is a more relevant question, which you have so far ducked - in a country rife with doping, what role has it played in their success?
Stupid question for someone who has absolutely no interest in seriously discussing the Kenyan running success.
A small group is able to do something athletically which big parts of the rest seem just not capable to do. What could be the reason for this? Is it partly because of the "natural running" of Kenyans in youth compared to more "developed" parts of the globe? This seems also to be true for cross country running, in which Kenyans were even more successful than on the track. Is it also some psychological thing? Or because of the lighter body structure of many Kenyans compared to "whites"? What else? Or is it just not true? But many Europeans have stated over the years they just can't do it. And if some European does it the "Kenyan way" he sometimes get's in trouble.
I know it's impossible to have a serious discussion with you - BUT STOP SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER POSTERS.
I have not ducked anything, stop posting the contrary.
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).
I know this assessment is simply your opinion. Kenya wasn't the no.1 country in the world before the 1980's. The best runners in the world in the 60's and 70's, from md up, came from the US, the UK, Australia and NZ and Finland, as well as other African countries. Kenya was amongst them but not surpassing them.
But all that is sidestepping the question you don't answer, which is that we have seen Kenya is one of the countries that dopes the most in running events. So what role has all that doping played in their "success"?
If Kenya was the no. 1 distance running nation prior to 1980 is only for a small part a matter of opinion.
We have objective measures to decide such questions: success at the big championships, world records, continental records, placings in all-time lists and so on.
- most medals at the Olympics (despite the 76 boycott)
- by far most successful nation at the Commonwealth Games (the Commonwealth includes: Australia, New Zealand, Tanzania, England, Ireland...)
- 10 world records (no other nation has more than 6)
- only country who has had a runner in the top 10 all-time in any event (800m, 1000m, 1500m, 1 Mile, 3000m, 2 Miles, 5000m, 100000m, steeple).
In depth, Great Britain and the USA still were ahead of Kenya, in numbers of Olympic Gold medals it was Finland - but looking at all the events, and all the stats, Kenya was the most successful running nation in the period 1964 - 1979. To just state "no they weren't" is not to beat in his pure ridiculousness.
Other African countries!! Mali? Upper Volta? Swaziland? Between 1964 and 1979,Kenyans have set 54 African records (800m up to 10000m including steeple). The 50+ other countries combined have set 19 African records.
I know you will not give a serious replay, because you are an extremely dishonest person. But it will not change the facts.
Many Kenyans dope, maybe Kenya is the worst in this currently. And I have little doubt that this doping is helpful for the runners who do so. By how much? Impossible to answer such a question. The studies to the subject seem to be scientifically "unfinished" and give extremely different results. Up to five minutes in the Marathon? More? I have no idea.
But Kenyans are not the only ones who are doping (Armstronglivs completely contradicts himself regularly when he states practically everyone is a doper but also states the Kenyan success almost solely is the product of doping). And even if we assume only Kenyans and every Kenyan dopes (which for sure is nonsense) and subtract five minutes from any Kenyan Marathon time - they still would be among the leading countries.
If we assume that the enormous "early" success which Kenya has had just a few years after they started to compete internationally was not the product of doping - than it's not a big stretch to conclude that the Kenyan success today also is not mainly the result of doping.
Kenya also boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games, but surprisingly many miss this item, because Yifter and his Ethiopian buddies were quite triumphant there.
While one can at least make an argument from the sheer numbers plus some doping prevalence about Kenyans not tending to have cultural / genetical / altitude adaptation advantage generally in distance running (I don't think such an argument is accurate), it is difficult not to think about genetics in relation to 3000m steeplechase, which they won at Olympics every time from 1968 until 2016 except the 1976 & 1980 boycotts (the best Kenyan was third in 2020), ie. eleven gold medals in a row and 23 medals out of 36 possible from 1968 until 2020.
Kenya also boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games, but surprisingly many miss this item, because Yifter and his Ethiopian buddies were quite triumphant there.
While one can at least make an argument from the sheer numbers plus some doping prevalence about Kenyans not tending to have cultural / genetical / altitude adaptation advantage generally in distance running (I don't think such an argument is accurate), it is difficult not to think about genetics in relation to 3000m steeplechase, which they won at Olympics every time from 1968 until 2016 except the 1976 & 1980 boycotts (the best Kenyan was third in 2020), ie. eleven gold medals in a row and 23 medals out of 36 possible from 1968 until 2020.
Yes, but we were talking the time before 1980 (according to Armstronglivs, Kenya back then was "just another country").
The two boykotts (76 and 80) resulted in Kenya losing their top-position for some years in the early 80s (for sure also because of such talents like Coe and Ovett).
To have some role-models is also a very important factor.
None of the top Spanish riders (Indurain, Heras, Contador, Sastre, Valverde, Periero, etc) were Basque riders. One important point also is that the Basque regional govt directly sponsored a major pro team, Euskaltel–Euskadi, from 1994-2013. The team had a policy of hiring primary Basque riders. In that entire time only one, Mayo, ever came close to being a GC contender, and that tale is well told.
Indurain came from a province bordering the Basque region and I do not believe qualifies. But in any event his success was based entirely on Dr. Conconi and EPO. (Conconi was Dr. Ferrari's mentor). That leaves Mayo and maybe Beloki. But there is zero reason to differentiate their success from the issue of major doping in Spanish cycling during that era. It was not a case where all or even most Spanish GC contenders came from one regioin.
I have no doubt that cycling was comparatively popular in the Basque region, as evidenced by the govt sponsored of a pro team. But even turning a blind eye to the EPO elephant in the room and conceding Indurain's Basque bona fides, that is one GC winner in history from the Basque region. Not exactly analogous to the Kenyan/East African dominance.
Thank You for bringing up some more non-PED related reasons for certain areas to succeed, because a few days ago it was reminiscent of "doping....blaa blaa blaa".
There were actually only two questions: did the Basques outperform their 6 %-ish of Spanish population (for cultural reasons or others not related to PEDs) and were the numbers provided by Daniel Coyle possible roughly accurate?
I think that answer to both is "yes", even I don't see if you agree or disagree with the ~70 pros. (I don't even bother to go to Vuelta material at all relating to the "one GC contender"-myth, there were others if you look the races most important for Iberian riders)
The point was from the start to highlight cultural (and perhaps high-altitude adaptation) differences between countries and regions that produce different performance levels that can't be explained solely by doping patterns.
Sorry but the numbers just don't support your point. You are citing alleged Basque overrepresenation based on cultural factors as a possible explanation of East African distance running dominace and the number of GC contenders of Basque descent is simply not close to analogous and the few that were GC contenders were doping to the hilt. Btw, I looked at the Vuelta. Just one, Olano would qualify. I belive he was banned also.
The era discussed by Daniel Coyle wasn't Basque cycling from the lifespan of TDF from 1896 until 2022, but very-very loosely some fifteen-twentyish years ago, ergo even Big Mig was just an afterthough I mentioned in passing once.
Yes, I looked at the numbers, and my reading is that they do support both of the points. And please feel free to disagree by all means.
A few names -- Isidro Nozal, 28 seconds of the Vuelta victory in 2003 (2nd), Igor González de Galdeano, 3"27 of the Vuelta victory the same year (4th). The 2003 Alpe D'Huez is usually considered one of the most competitive mountain stages ever when Lance Armstrong was actually dethroned with him later considering that TDF edition the hardest of his career. There were four Basque riders at the top ten at Alpe D'Huez (Iban Mayo, Haimar Zubeldia, Joseba Beloki & Roberto Laiseka, 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th) and only one "real" Spaniard (Francisco Mancebo).
While the phenomena of Kenya / Kalenjin, Spain / Basques and Colombian lowlanders / highlanders are somewhat similar, never claimed that the exact magnitude is same even when some of the root causes can be identical.
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.
That's reassuring. So doping only "partly" explains their success. You are of course aware that applies to any athlete who dopes - it only "partly" explains their success, as the rest will be talent, training, equipment etc. But it is the part that puts them ahead of those who don't dope.