Keino is the most suspicous runner before the 1970s. He could well have been the first doped African, or even the first doped middle or long distance runner, depending on when the Finns and Italians started blood doping.
If your scientific racism rests on his achievements, then it's a pretty thin foundation.
Keino is the most suspicous runner before the 1970s. He could well have been the first doped African, or even the first doped middle or long distance runner, depending on when the Finns and Italians started blood doping.
If your scientific racism rests on his achievements, then it's a pretty thin foundation.
There is nothing scientific about anything he says - including his racism.
You said no one was faster than Keino in his era. You have been shown to be talking out of your rear - as you always do. You also keep ducking the question about Kenyan doping. You are a pro-Kenyan troll who refuses to acknowledge that their success has gone hand in hand with an appalling doping record - the only record of theirs no one else will likely break.
You started this issue while claiming that other runners were faster than Keino (for sure in an attempt to downgrade his accomplishments).
I said it's not true, no runner was faster than Keino (regardless what exactly your definition of "faster" might be).
Than you came up with three examples of "faster" runners than Keino.
For two of those three you gave a single PB for one event, where Keino's PB is inferior (according to you, because of this they are faster)
For the third you gave one occasion where Keino has lost (because of this, acording to you, e is faster).
For the first two, Keino has a better PB over several distances, and has beaten them often (including the big occasions). To the third one, Keino has a 1.4s better 1500m PB.
All your "argumentation" is nonsense, pure insanity. And on the same level is your position regarding doping. No consistency.
You deeply fail in anything regarding just little bit of logic (Kenya was not the no. 1 distance running nation, because six other nations combined have done better and so on) and you also lack any sound knowledge about the history of athletics.
So you keep insisting that Keino was faster than those whose world records far exceeded his best times, and was faster than the runner who buried him in an Olympic final. But why stop there? He was obviously taller than every other runner on the track and younger - even when he retired. When stupidity becomes comical.
Keino is the most suspicous runner before the 1970s. He could well have been the first doped African, or even the first doped middle or long distance runner, depending on when the Finns and Italians started blood doping.
If your scientific racism rests on his achievements, then it's a pretty thin foundation.
Keino ran over a second faster at Mexico than his best ever sea-level time, and after leaving his hospital bed. If that is what medical care does there should be a train of athletes recording their best directly after illness and at altitude. Strangely, the statistics don't seem to support that. Nothing, however, that a few blood transfusions and stimulants wouldn't fix.
You started this issue while claiming that other runners were faster than Keino (for sure in an attempt to downgrade his accomplishments).
I said it's not true, no runner was faster than Keino (regardless what exactly your definition of "faster" might be).
Than you came up with three examples of "faster" runners than Keino.
For two of those three you gave a single PB for one event, where Keino's PB is inferior (according to you, because of this they are faster)
For the third you gave one occasion where Keino has lost (because of this, acording to you, e is faster).
For the first two, Keino has a better PB over several distances, and has beaten them often (including the big occasions). To the third one, Keino has a 1.4s better 1500m PB.
All your "argumentation" is nonsense, pure insanity. And on the same level is your position regarding doping. No consistency.
You deeply fail in anything regarding just little bit of logic (Kenya was not the no. 1 distance running nation, because six other nations combined have done better and so on) and you also lack any sound knowledge about the history of athletics.
So you keep insisting that Keino was faster than those whose world records far exceeded his best times, and was faster than the runner who buried him in an Olympic final. But why stop there? He was obviously taller than every other runner on the track and younger - even when he retired. When stupidity becomes comical.
Your stupidity is boundless. There is absolutely no chance to discuss the most easy subjects with you. It's hard to imagine, but it seems you really didn't understand the madness of your argumentation.
I have never said Keino was faster than - for example - Clarke. Clarke has faster PBs than Keino in the 5000m and 10000m, Keino has faster PBs in the 3000m/2 Miles and much better PBs in the 1500m and 800m and has beaten Clarke on the big occasion in 64, 66, 68 and 70 (lost in 62), always in the 3 Miles/5000m, not over 1500m/Mile where there would be no contest at all. But please keep saying Clarke was faster, to expose your stupidity more and more.
Since correct statistics about Kenyan running success for you and your equally mad friend seems like a crucifix for dracula, here is another interesting perspective for both of you:
Looking on the first 8 of each Olympic final in the track distances and awarding points from 8 to 1 (1st place 8 points, 2nd pace 7 points... - homework for both of you: try to complete, difficult enough), here are the summed up numbers for the 1964, 68 and 72 Olympics (in brackets the numbers for 76, where Kenya boycotted - and definitely would have high scored in the 800m and probably also in the steeple)
Kenya - 100 points
USA - 73 points (9)
Great Britain - 35 points (27)
New Zealand - 33 points (23)
Finland - 31 points (21)
Australia - 27 points (1)
Kenya has the most points in the 800m, 1500m (equal to New Zealand), and the steeple.
Armstronglivs: others have won, others have set the records (by far most world records from kenyans) and so on...
Which country was more successful in the period 1964 - 1979 than Kenya? Just name one country. Some more candidates: Albania, Netherlands Antilles, Central African Republic, Cayman Islands, Aruba - which one was it? Or, according to you, more than just one country? Name them.
Looking forward for more self exposition to be the unchallenged idiot of the village. But unchallenged? You have some strong opposition.
So you keep insisting that Keino was faster than those whose world records far exceeded his best times, and was faster than the runner who buried him in an Olympic final. But why stop there? He was obviously taller than every other runner on the track and younger - even when he retired. When stupidity becomes comical.
Your stupidity is boundless. There is absolutely no chance to discuss the most easy subjects with you. It's hard to imagine, but it seems you really didn't understand the madness of your argumentation.
I have never said Keino was faster than - for example - Clarke. Clarke has faster PBs than Keino in the 5000m and 10000m, Keino has faster PBs in the 3000m/2 Miles and much better PBs in the 1500m and 800m and has beaten Clarke on the big occasion in 64, 66, 68 and 70 (lost in 62), always in the 3 Miles/5000m, not over 1500m/Mile where there would be no contest at all. But please keep saying Clarke was faster, to expose your stupidity more and more.
Since correct statistics about Kenyan running success for you and your equally mad friend seems like a crucifix for dracula, here is another interesting perspective for both of you:
Looking on the first 8 of each Olympic final in the track distances and awarding points from 8 to 1 (1st place 8 points, 2nd pace 7 points... - homework for both of you: try to complete, difficult enough), here are the summed up numbers for the 1964, 68 and 72 Olympics (in brackets the numbers for 76, where Kenya boycotted - and definitely would have high scored in the 800m and probably also in the steeple)
Kenya - 100 points
USA - 73 points (9)
Great Britain - 35 points (27)
New Zealand - 33 points (23)
Finland - 31 points (21)
Australia - 27 points (1)
Kenya has the most points in the 800m, 1500m (equal to New Zealand), and the steeple.
Armstronglivs: others have won, others have set the records (by far most world records from kenyans) and so on...
Which country was more successful in the period 1964 - 1979 than Kenya? Just name one country. Some more candidates: Albania, Netherlands Antilles, Central African Republic, Cayman Islands, Aruba - which one was it? Or, according to you, more than just one country? Name them.
Looking forward for more self exposition to be the unchallenged idiot of the village. But unchallenged? You have some strong opposition.
Vacuous waffle. An athlete who was faster doesn't have to have beaten him every time they raced. To have been faster once is enough. But if he was "faster than everyone in his era" - as you claimed - they could never have recorded faster times than him or beaten him. But they did. You are a bag of wind.
And still ducking the question of doping. You have no credible answer. Kenyans are up there amongst the biggest running cheats on the planet. But your kind of guys.
Your stupidity is boundless. There is absolutely no chance to discuss the most easy subjects with you. It's hard to imagine, but it seems you really didn't understand the madness of your argumentation.
I have never said Keino was faster than - for example - Clarke. Clarke has faster PBs than Keino in the 5000m and 10000m, Keino has faster PBs in the 3000m/2 Miles and much better PBs in the 1500m and 800m and has beaten Clarke on the big occasion in 64, 66, 68 and 70 (lost in 62), always in the 3 Miles/5000m, not over 1500m/Mile where there would be no contest at all. But please keep saying Clarke was faster, to expose your stupidity more and more.
Since correct statistics about Kenyan running success for you and your equally mad friend seems like a crucifix for dracula, here is another interesting perspective for both of you:
Looking on the first 8 of each Olympic final in the track distances and awarding points from 8 to 1 (1st place 8 points, 2nd pace 7 points... - homework for both of you: try to complete, difficult enough), here are the summed up numbers for the 1964, 68 and 72 Olympics (in brackets the numbers for 76, where Kenya boycotted - and definitely would have high scored in the 800m and probably also in the steeple)
Kenya - 100 points
USA - 73 points (9)
Great Britain - 35 points (27)
New Zealand - 33 points (23)
Finland - 31 points (21)
Australia - 27 points (1)
Kenya has the most points in the 800m, 1500m (equal to New Zealand), and the steeple.
Armstronglivs: others have won, others have set the records (by far most world records from kenyans) and so on...
Which country was more successful in the period 1964 - 1979 than Kenya? Just name one country. Some more candidates: Albania, Netherlands Antilles, Central African Republic, Cayman Islands, Aruba - which one was it? Or, according to you, more than just one country? Name them.
Looking forward for more self exposition to be the unchallenged idiot of the village. But unchallenged? You have some strong opposition.
Vacuous waffle. An athlete who was faster doesn't have to have beaten him every time they raced. To have been faster once is enough. But if he was "faster than everyone in his era" - as you claimed - they could never have recorded faster times than him or beaten him. But they did. You are a bag of wind.
Bingo!
I have never claimed what you are saying. I have said no other runner was faster than him.
So you keep insisting that Keino was faster than those whose world records far exceeded his best times, and was faster than the runner who buried him in an Olympic final. But why stop there? He was obviously taller than every other runner on the track and younger - even when he retired. When stupidity becomes comical.
Your stupidity is boundless. There is absolutely no chance to discuss the most easy subjects with you. It's hard to imagine, but it seems you really didn't understand the madness of your argumentation.
I have never said Keino was faster than - for example - Clarke. Clarke has faster PBs than Keino in the 5000m and 10000m, Keino has faster PBs in the 3000m/2 Miles and much better PBs in the 1500m and 800m and has beaten Clarke on the big occasion in 64, 66, 68 and 70 (lost in 62), always in the 3 Miles/5000m, not over 1500m/Mile where there would be no contest at all. But please keep saying Clarke was faster, to expose your stupidity more and more.
Since correct statistics about Kenyan running success for you and your equally mad friend seems like a crucifix for dracula, here is another interesting perspective for both of you:
Looking on the first 8 of each Olympic final in the track distances and awarding points from 8 to 1 (1st place 8 points, 2nd pace 7 points... - homework for both of you: try to complete, difficult enough), here are the summed up numbers for the 1964, 68 and 72 Olympics (in brackets the numbers for 76, where Kenya boycotted - and definitely would have high scored in the 800m and probably also in the steeple)
Kenya - 100 points
USA - 73 points (9)
Great Britain - 35 points (27)
New Zealand - 33 points (23)
Finland - 31 points (21)
Australia - 27 points (1)
Kenya has the most points in the 800m, 1500m (equal to New Zealand), and the steeple.
Armstronglivs: others have won, others have set the records (by far most world records from kenyans) and so on...
Which country was more successful in the period 1964 - 1979 than Kenya? Just name one country. Some more candidates: Albania, Netherlands Antilles, Central African Republic, Cayman Islands, Aruba - which one was it? Or, according to you, more than just one country? Name them.
Looking forward for more self exposition to be the unchallenged idiot of the village. But unchallenged? You have some strong opposition.
Hillarious watching your mental gymnastics in trying to establish that your Kenyan supermen are genetically advantaged. Kenio got lucky in 68, and on top of that, his performance was like that of MakhDaddy, Katir, and Ramzi all rolled into one.
All the superstars of the 60's and 70's were non-Kenyan - with the exception of Henry Rono (and he got destroyed by Steve Ovett in a distance that favoured Rono). Herb Elliott, Peter Snell, Junatoreno, Jim Ryun, Viren, John Walker, Ovett, Coe, Yifter, Bikila, Frank Shorter. All were better and more famous than Kenio or any other Kenyan.
When a country's success at running is built on EPO, you would expect their success to be greater as the distances get longer. That's exactly what we see with Kenya, who were not even close to being the best at the marathon - a long way behind Japan - as recently as the start of the 90's. Their first successes in athletics were in the 400m and 800m. This makes little sense for a people supposedly genetically advantaged for distance running. Then suddenly BOOM and EPO became available over the counter in every Kenyan High Street pharmacy. So they went from zero in the top 150 marathon times in the 80's, to dominating the top 150 times by the end of the 90s.
Your stupidity is boundless. There is absolutely no chance to discuss the most easy subjects with you. It's hard to imagine, but it seems you really didn't understand the madness of your argumentation.
I have never said Keino was faster than - for example - Clarke. Clarke has faster PBs than Keino in the 5000m and 10000m, Keino has faster PBs in the 3000m/2 Miles and much better PBs in the 1500m and 800m and has beaten Clarke on the big occasion in 64, 66, 68 and 70 (lost in 62), always in the 3 Miles/5000m, not over 1500m/Mile where there would be no contest at all. But please keep saying Clarke was faster, to expose your stupidity more and more.
Since correct statistics about Kenyan running success for you and your equally mad friend seems like a crucifix for dracula, here is another interesting perspective for both of you:
Looking on the first 8 of each Olympic final in the track distances and awarding points from 8 to 1 (1st place 8 points, 2nd pace 7 points... - homework for both of you: try to complete, difficult enough), here are the summed up numbers for the 1964, 68 and 72 Olympics (in brackets the numbers for 76, where Kenya boycotted - and definitely would have high scored in the 800m and probably also in the steeple)
Kenya - 100 points
USA - 73 points (9)
Great Britain - 35 points (27)
New Zealand - 33 points (23)
Finland - 31 points (21)
Australia - 27 points (1)
Kenya has the most points in the 800m, 1500m (equal to New Zealand), and the steeple.
Armstronglivs: others have won, others have set the records (by far most world records from kenyans) and so on...
Which country was more successful in the period 1964 - 1979 than Kenya? Just name one country. Some more candidates: Albania, Netherlands Antilles, Central African Republic, Cayman Islands, Aruba - which one was it? Or, according to you, more than just one country? Name them.
Looking forward for more self exposition to be the unchallenged idiot of the village. But unchallenged? You have some strong opposition.
Hillarious watching your mental gymnastics in trying to establish that your Kenyan supermen are genetically advantaged. Kenio got lucky in 68, and on top of that, his performance was like that of MakhDaddy, Katir, and Ramzi all rolled into one.
All the superstars of the 60's and 70's were non-Kenyan - with the exception of Henry Rono (and he got destroyed by Steve Ovett in a distance that favoured Rono). Herb Elliott, Peter Snell, Junatoreno, Jim Ryun, Viren, John Walker, Ovett, Coe, Yifter, Bikila, Frank Shorter. All were better and more famous than Kenio or any other Kenyan.
You see, Armstrong? You have a hard opposition for the idiot of the village title.
Kenio! But I like Junatoreno even more. Is this the same athlete than Juan Toreno which you have mentioned before?
Same problem than the other madman: the concept of a country is beyond both of you.
You are the only one who constantly brings genetics into the "discussion".
Good point here: even without a superstar, Kenya by far was the most successful nation.
Vacuous waffle. An athlete who was faster doesn't have to have beaten him every time they raced. To have been faster once is enough. But if he was "faster than everyone in his era" - as you claimed - they could never have recorded faster times than him or beaten him. But they did. You are a bag of wind.
Bingo!
I have never claimed what you are saying. I have said no other runner was faster than him.
Yes, you did say that. But as I have had to repeatedly point out, several runners were. They were faster in terms of time or race performance. Because your English is rudimentary you are trying to argue a different point but don't realise it, that he was the best in his era. That is another argument - and just as debatable. In terms of intellectual skills you are the fat lady who imagines she is a ballerina. Only you can't see that.
Hillarious watching your mental gymnastics in trying to establish that your Kenyan supermen are genetically advantaged. Kenio got lucky in 68, and on top of that, his performance was like that of MakhDaddy, Katir, and Ramzi all rolled into one.
All the superstars of the 60's and 70's were non-Kenyan - with the exception of Henry Rono (and he got destroyed by Steve Ovett in a distance that favoured Rono). Herb Elliott, Peter Snell, Junatoreno, Jim Ryun, Viren, John Walker, Ovett, Coe, Yifter, Bikila, Frank Shorter. All were better and more famous than Kenio or any other Kenyan.
You see, Armstrong? You have a hard opposition for the idiot of the village title.
Kenio! But I like Junatoreno even more. Is this the same athlete than Juan Toreno which you have mentioned before?
Same problem than the other madman: the concept of a country is beyond both of you.
You are the only one who constantly brings genetics into the "discussion".
Good point here: even without a superstar, Kenya by far was the most successful nation.
To be fair, Kenya produced more also-rans than any equivalent country in running. That's your definition of "success". But doping has certainly boosted their success in the marathon.
When a country's success at running is built on EPO, you would expect their success to be greater as the distances get longer. That's exactly what we see with Kenya, who were not even close to being the best at the marathon - a long way behind Japan - as recently as the start of the 90's. Their first successes in athletics were in the 400m and 800m. This makes little sense for a people supposedly genetically advantaged for distance running. Then suddenly BOOM and EPO became available over the counter in every Kenyan High Street pharmacy. So they went from zero in the top 150 marathon times in the 80's, to dominating the top 150 times by the end of the 90s.
There wouldn't be a marathon contestant from Kenya who could be trusted to be clean. They have become the African version of the E Bloc.
I have never claimed what you are saying. I have said no other runner was faster than him.
Yes, you did say that. But as I have had to repeatedly point out, several runners were. They were faster in terms of time or race performance. Because your English is rudimentary you are trying to argue a different point but don't realise it, that he was the best in his era. That is another argument - and just as debatable. In terms of intellectual skills you are the fat lady who imagines she is a ballerina. Only you can't see that.
No, I have not said it, stop lying. I have said no runner was faster than Keino in his era. And so it is : no runner was faster than Keino.