If there is a benefit, it is likely more about every high altitude Kenian being subjected to hypoxia, and it follows that the competition favours and finds the high responders who perform better.
So what role has doping played in their "success"? Of course you won't answer that. It would undermine everything you want to believe.
Talking to a liar like you is of absolutely no benefit. If "helpful" for you, you will change what someone has said, you will deny that someone has said something, you can't understand easy sentences, you can't understand basic logic.
I have answered your question several times just in this thread. If you don't read and/or understand, I can't help you.
You have proved that you are an absulute pure liar who even is not ashamed (?) to change absulute facts to the contrary and who never ever would admit some mistakes. This is to see for anybody just in this thread.
Armstrong: "Kenya before 1980 was just another country, some other African countries were as successful"!! "Others have set the records"!! "Others have won the races" - What an unbelivable sequence of lies after all the facts were presented to you.
This thread is always even more hilarious after each successive Kenyan doping bust, which is almost a weekly event.
And because of those doping busts it's a good thing to lie and lie and lie? What is the connection of a string of doping busts to a STATISTIC about medals and records and so on four or five decades ago?
If you answer, don't change the subject. You can say you believe those Kenyan successes were just the result of doping. But if you change the facts (Kenya was one of some African countries who were equally successful and so on) you lie.
No other African country was just close to Kenya. On the world scale, I have presented good arguments to say Kenya at the top was the most successful distance running nation in the period 1964 - 1979.
So what role has doping played in their "success"? Of course you won't answer that. It would undermine everything you want to believe.
Talking to a liar like you is of absolutely no benefit. If "helpful" for you, you will change what someone has said, you will deny that someone has said something, you can't understand easy sentences, you can't understand basic logic.
I have answered your question several times just in this thread. If you don't read and/or understand, I can't help you.
You have proved that you are an absulute pure liar who even is not ashamed (?) to change absulute facts to the contrary and who never ever would admit some mistakes. This is to see for anybody just in this thread.
Armstrong: "Kenya before 1980 was just another country, some other African countries were as successful"!! "Others have set the records"!! "Others have won the races" - What an unbelivable sequence of lies after all the facts were presented to you.
You haven't answered the question. You won't. It would destroy your claim about Kenyan "superiority".
In 24 years, from 1956 to 1980, Kenya produced only two Olympic gold medallists - both favoured by altitude at Mexico. That is hardly the world's best running nation.
This thread is always even more hilarious after each successive Kenyan doping bust, which is almost a weekly event.
But for some, who can't believe it, it's like being shocked that Sicilian businessmen have links with the mafia. Kenyan sport is just as crooked. The stream of busts never ends.
This thread is always even more hilarious after each successive Kenyan doping bust, which is almost a weekly event.
And because of those doping busts it's a good thing to lie and lie and lie? What is the connection of a string of doping busts to a STATISTIC about medals and records and so on four or five decades ago?
If you answer, don't change the subject. You can say you believe those Kenyan successes were just the result of doping. But if you change the facts (Kenya was one of some African countries who were equally successful and so on) you lie.
No other African country was just close to Kenya. On the world scale, I have presented good arguments to say Kenya at the top was the most successful distance running nation in the period 1964 - 1979.
So why do Kenyans dope on a regimental scale if it hasn't helped them succeed?
If altitude training is the secret behind the success of the African runners (as so many believe), how is it that of all the people in the world who live at altitude, the only high altitude dwellers who collectively have made any mark in the track world are runners from the East African tableland? what explains the incredible success story of Kenya's Katenjin and Kisii tribes, who have accounted fro all 45 of Kenya's Olympic and Commonwealth Games medals since '63 (Kenya has more than 30 tribes in all). Can the Kalenjin and Kissii be a "race" of super-runners genetically?
If altitude training is the secret behind the success of the African runners (as so many believe), how is it that of all the people in the world who live at altitude, the only high altitude dwellers who collectively have made any mark in the track world are runners from the East African tableland? what explains the incredible success story of Kenya's Katenjin and Kisii tribes, who have accounted fro all 45 of Kenya's Olympic and Commonwealth Games medals since '63 (Kenya has more than 30 tribes in all). Can the Kalenjin and Kissii be a "race" of super-runners genetically?
Not "pathetic losers" but far from the world's best. From 1956-1980 they had produced only two Olympic champions from 800m to the marathon, and only one if them was a world record holder.
From the late fifties to the late seventies New Zealand produced multiple Olympic champions, medallists and world record-holders in md and distance running, as part of the Lydiard revolution. This, from a country of only 3 million - a fraction of the Kenyan population. Are we going to suggest they, too, had a running "gene"?
And because of those doping busts it's a good thing to lie and lie and lie? What is the connection of a string of doping busts to a STATISTIC about medals and records and so on four or five decades ago?
If you answer, don't change the subject. You can say you believe those Kenyan successes were just the result of doping. But if you change the facts (Kenya was one of some African countries who were equally successful and so on) you lie.
No other African country was just close to Kenya. On the world scale, I have presented good arguments to say Kenya at the top was the most successful distance running nation in the period 1964 - 1979.
So why do Kenyans dope on a regimental scale if it hasn't helped them succeed?
Not "pathetic losers" but far from the world's best. From 1956-1980 they had produced only two Olympic champions from 800m to the marathon, and only one if them was a world record holder.
From the late fifties to the late seventies New Zealand produced multiple Olympic champions, medallists and world record-holders in md and distance running, as part of the Lydiard revolution. This, from a country of only 3 million - a fraction of the Kenyan population. Are we going to suggest they, too, had a running "gene"?
Yes, and New Zealand was competing successfully in multitudes of sports (and still does) at the same time - unlike Kenya where it seems every young person with an ounce of sporting and athletic talent gets funnelled into distance running.
Not "pathetic losers" but far from the world's best. From 1956-1980 they had produced only two Olympic champions from 800m to the marathon, and only one if them was a world record holder.
From the late fifties to the late seventies New Zealand produced multiple Olympic champions, medallists and world record-holders in md and distance running, as part of the Lydiard revolution. This, from a country of only 3 million - a fraction of the Kenyan population. Are we going to suggest they, too, had a running "gene"?
Regardless of the total Kenyan population in the 1960s/1970s (~10 million), according to Area Handbook for Kenya by Irving Kaplan (1967), the running tribe was far from the 10 million and correspondingly the Kiwis not "a fraction" of this but likely just the opposite:
"The Kalenjin tribal cluster, comprising a population of almost 1 million people..."
Many of the factors that explained the Lydiard-inspired Kiwi success were likely same that have explained the Kalenjin success vs. rest of the world and the other Kenyan tribes. According to a famed paper published in 2005, they were outperforming not only the world but also the Kenyan lowlands. The paper was published in 2005 and the sources quoted from the era when blood doping testing was totally nonexistent, therefore blood doping methods as such (avoidance of testing, muddling of ABP parameters etc) can't explain this phenomenon, otherwise the lowlander Kenyans should've performed better:
The Kalenjin have a population of approximately 3 million, about 10% of the Kenyan population, yet have won about 75% of all major distance running races in Kenya (Manners, 1997). Internationally, Kalenjin runners have won 73% of all Kenyan gold medals and a similar percentage of silver medals at major international running competitions.
Not "pathetic losers" but far from the world's best. From 1956-1980 they had produced only two Olympic champions from 800m to the marathon, and only one if them was a world record holder.
From the late fifties to the late seventies New Zealand produced multiple Olympic champions, medallists and world record-holders in md and distance running, as part of the Lydiard revolution. This, from a country of only 3 million - a fraction of the Kenyan population. Are we going to suggest they, too, had a running "gene"?
Regardless of the total Kenyan population in the 1960s/1970s (~10 million), according to Area Handbook for Kenya by Irving Kaplan (1967), the running tribe was far from the 10 million and correspondingly the Kiwis not "a fraction" of this but likely just the opposite:
"The Kalenjin tribal cluster, comprising a population of almost 1 million people..."
Many of the factors that explained the Lydiard-inspired Kiwi success were likely same that have explained the Kalenjin success vs. rest of the world and the other Kenyan tribes. According to a famed paper published in 2005, they were outperforming not only the world but also the Kenyan lowlands. The paper was published in 2005 and the sources quoted from the era when blood doping testing was totally nonexistent, therefore blood doping methods as such (avoidance of testing, muddling of ABP parameters etc) can't explain this phenomenon, otherwise the lowlander Kenyans should've performed better:
The Kalenjin have a population of approximately 3 million, about 10% of the Kenyan population, yet have won about 75% of all major distance running races in Kenya (Manners, 1997). Internationally, Kalenjin runners have won 73% of all Kenyan gold medals and a similar percentage of silver medals at major international running competitions.
I don't dispute that some Kenyan runners have the advantage of living and training at altitude. However, that isn't a "genetic" advantage, as some might claim. In terms of the comparison with New Zealand in the '60's and '70's, running in that very small country was a minority sport. The national sport was - and still is - rugby and then cricket. For the period of the '60's and '70's its success was largely driven by Lydiard. Its accomplishments exceeded those of Kenya at that time - with no altitude advantage. There was no genetic advantage but rather a breakthrough in training methods, that the world later adopted, and a few very talented and dedicated individuals. But when doping became prevalent in the sport by the '80's New Zealand virtually disappeared from the running scene (as did Australia), with the notable exception of Nick Willis.
Indeed, by 1984 they had produced only one more Olympic champion - in a minority event - the 3k steeple. Still then not the world's best running nation. That needed the arrival of EPO.
Another way to look the issue of Kenyan performance is how good the fastest Kenyan runner in each event was in the world list both in the 1960s and 1970s. Far from a perfect metric, but interesting. I am not sure if any country had a better track record with this metric.
Statistics? "Lies, damned lies - and statistics". Fact: they produced two Olympic champions in 24 years - both favoured by an altitude venue.
You don't know anything about the history - nothing. Your "facts" are wrong, almost always. See this laughable post - wrong. You are completely unable just to rearrange your picture of the reality when new information is presented to you. You stick to your old one: New Zealand, Australia dominated. Kenya was one of several African countries!!! To challange the claim that Kenya was the most successful nation from 800 to 10000 in the period 1964 to 1979 you list runners from six nations!! Hardly to beat in it's pure stupidity.
Kenyan success started in the mid 1960s, to count it from 1956 is nonsense. Why not from 1896?
In the 1970s Kenya has had just one Olympic champion - and still was the no. 1 distance nation on the mens side.
0.07s away from the 800m world record
1s away from the 1500m and Mile world record
world records in the 3000m, 5000m, 10000m, steeple
They dominated the Commonwealth Games (8 gold - 5 silver - 7 bronze from 800 to 10000 incl. steeple) 20 of the 45 medals which were available, 8 of the 15 golds
The golden british era which started in the late 1970s produced how many Olympic gold medalists? Two (in heavily boykotted games)
If you want to challange my claim about Kenyan success, do it with correct stats and with a last rest of rationality.
Which country was more successfull from 800 to 10000 in the period 1964 to 1979? Or just in the 1970s.
And why was this country more successfull.
The candidates are New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, USA, Finland.
Another way to look the issue of Kenyan performance is how good the fastest Kenyan runner in each event was in the world list both in the 1960s and 1970s. Far from a perfect metric, but interesting. I am not sure if any country had a better track record with this metric.
