There is no “genetic superiority” when it comes to distance running. Literally everyone sub 2:09 is just doping.

slowwer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The great majority of this thread has become a diversion. It is an attempt to prove that there is no connection between the idealised Kenya of the past and the country that it has become - one of the transparently worst dopers in distance running today. Yet if Kenya was historically a world leader in the sport, - as is claimed - without doping, there is no adequate reason given for why it should have become the virtual East German equivalent that it has today. Talent and success don't require doping - so we are told. Yet, here they are - one of the worst offenders. The reason for that will indeed lie in the past. They will have begun doping any way they could once they entered the sport, and that means was available decades ago.

If the enormous Kenyan success (not "success" Army) in the 1960s and 1970s was just due to doping is something I can't know. Maybe it was.

But you are denying that they have had this success. Despite all the amount of facts which were presented to you in just this thread. You still deny they have had this success. You have challenged it so far by the name of some individuals. Anything, absolutely anything which I have written in this thread is just completely correct. Any number. Any resasoning. To wipe this just away without going into some point is just eye opening (the unbelievable Keino/Clarke issue - a 6 second better 5k PB from Clarke manifests that he is faster, despite regularly losing to Keino at the big one to Keino, despite over 7 seconds better PB from Keino in the 1500m and Mile - hey, Keino is faster than Clarke if you ADD their 1500m and 5000m times (and Clarke has regularly raced over 1500m/Mile, also during his prime) - IF Clarke is faster than Keino (as you claimed) than it's a 100% consequence that Keino is faster than Clarke). But you will NEVER accept when beeing wrong, never.

The USA (250 million population?) still has had much more depth back then. But the still relatively low number of Kenyan top runners resulted in leading in almost any measurable metric someone might think of.

The altitude of Mexico 68 might have some favor for Kenyans compared to most other countries, but Temu has beaten Clarke also at the 66 Commonwealth Games (same for Keino) and Kenya also was the most successful nation in Mexico in the middle distances. Kenya was also the most successful in the middle distances in Munich - a pure fact, if you like it or not.

Kenya today is not the equivalent of the GDR from the late 1960s to 1990. In the GDR there was a state organized program going, talents were searched right from Kindergaten, doping was organized by the federation.

The GDR success wah heavily influenced by doping, but also here doping is just one of many reasond for the success. As far as we know, the doping in Kenya is an individual affair (or from some groups). But not state organized. The runners who dope do it to have mor success, it's not hard to understand (no hard for you). Kenya as hundreds or thousands of runners, much more than any other nation. How many dope? We don't know. 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%? We just don't know.

BUt we know that Kenya was the most successful nation in the period 1964 - 1979 in the track distances. If you still dispute this despite the enormous amount of facts which I have presented, than name just a single country which you thin was more successful in this period. Than we can compare them. To wipe this just away, is just an statement about yourself.

Now point on my username which you don't like, change the period, ask me something different which I have answerd several times, tell me Herb Elliott would have won in Montreal and Peter Snell in Los Angeles if not for..., just write squirrel(?), point on the fact that I'm not a native speaker and so on.

Coevett wrote:

slowwer wrote:

You have stated that you will leave the sport if there will be proof that Coe and Ovett were dopers.

You wouldn't. You would NEVER accept it. You don't even accept the most objective measure which we have in this sport: times and medals. A proof for Coe and Ovett beeing dopers would be challenged by you until death.

Yes I would, although I don't think I said that. I probably said that if one or two British middle-distance runners of today got busted, I would leave the sport. Or that if it was proven Coe or Ovett (or Cram) doped, then I would doubt all of them.

Kenya was not the leading distance running nation, no matter how you try to arbitarily set boundaries on your claim. You can't ignore the fact that they were non-existant in the marathon, which most people consider the ultimate yardstick of 'distance running' success. Look at all the marathoners that other countries produced. A fair few of them would surely have shone on the track if they had chosen to pursue that.

Kenya enjoyed success on the track in the 60's and 70's because they were full-time professional athletes who were fortunate enough to be able to continue their careers well past the age at which most Western athletes were effectively forced to retire at. Despite that, the biggest stars and the best runners of the 60's and 70's were not Kenyan. There are also strong reasons to believe doping was an issue with Kenyans even in the 60's and 70's, not least as Armstrong points out, they are doping en masse today, so their culture is prone to it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

slowwer wrote:

If the enormous Kenyan success (not "success" Army) in the 1960s and 1970s was just due to doping is something I can't know. Maybe it was.

But you are denying that they have had this success. Despite all the amount of facts which were presented to you in just this thread. You still deny they have had this success. You have challenged it so far by the name of some individuals. Anything, absolutely anything which I have written in this thread is just completely correct. Any number. Any resasoning. To wipe this just away without going into some point is just eye opening (the unbelievable Keino/Clarke issue - a 6 second better 5k PB from Clarke manifests that he is faster, despite regularly losing to Keino at the big one to Keino, despite over 7 seconds better PB from Keino in the 1500m and Mile - hey, Keino is faster than Clarke if you ADD their 1500m and 5000m times (and Clarke has regularly raced over 1500m/Mile, also during his prime) - IF Clarke is faster than Keino (as you claimed) than it's a 100% consequence that Keino is faster than Clarke). But you will NEVER accept when beeing wrong, never.

The USA (250 million population?) still has had much more depth back then. But the still relatively low number of Kenyan top runners resulted in leading in almost any measurable metric someone might think of.

The altitude of Mexico 68 might have some favor for Kenyans compared to most other countries, but Temu has beaten Clarke also at the 66 Commonwealth Games (same for Keino) and Kenya also was the most successful nation in Mexico in the middle distances. Kenya was also the most successful in the middle distances in Munich - a pure fact, if you like it or not.

Kenya today is not the equivalent of the GDR from the late 1960s to 1990. In the GDR there was a state organized program going, talents were searched right from Kindergaten, doping was organized by the federation.

The GDR success wah heavily influenced by doping, but also here doping is just one of many reasond for the success. As far as we know, the doping in Kenya is an individual affair (or from some groups). But not state organized. The runners who dope do it to have mor success, it's not hard to understand (no hard for you). Kenya as hundreds or thousands of runners, much more than any other nation. How many dope? We don't know. 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%? We just don't know.

BUt we know that Kenya was the most successful nation in the period 1964 - 1979 in the track distances. If you still dispute this despite the enormous amount of facts which I have presented, than name just a single country which you thin was more successful in this period. Than we can compare them. To wipe this just away, is just an statement about yourself.

Now point on my username which you don't like, change the period, ask me something different which I have answerd several times, tell me Herb Elliott would have won in Montreal and Peter Snell in Los Angeles if not for..., just write squirrel(?), point on the fact that I'm not a native speaker and so on.

You are rehearsing the same tendentious arguments as you have throughout this thread, and because of the way you have formulated your views you arrive at the same predetermined conclusions. The fact remains that in 24 years Kenya produced only two Olympic champions. The rest of the winners in the same events came from other countries, as did the world record holders. So while present at a high level Kenya was not dominant at that time.

The other fact is that Kenya is one of the worst dopers in the sport. It didn't begin yesterday.

slowwer wrote:

about the marathon wrote:

This thread is about genetics and doping and the marathon (read the title again), yet you "insist" to exclude the marathon and doping and genetics in the discussion. What a blatant distraction, yet people are actually falling for your trolling.

You have addressed your last post to me, Coevett. I have nothing said about genetics.

Kenyans almost havn't raced the Marathon at all before 1980 (ask malmo).

My point was that Kenyans already were extremely successful before 1980. This fact could be used for further improvement n the discussion. But with such imbeciles like you and Armstrong it takes dozens of pages until you just understood the point at all.

With normal people open for arguments it would just have needed a few posts to check the validity of the point.

For sure genetics are also important, but they were not the point here at all.

Armstronglivs wrote:

slowwer wrote:

You have addressed your last post to me, Coevett. I have nothing said about genetics.

Kenyans almost havn't raced the Marathon at all before 1980 (ask malmo).

My point was that Kenyans already were extremely successful before 1980. This fact could be used for further improvement n the discussion. But with such imbeciles like you and Armstrong it takes dozens of pages until you just understood the point at all.

With normal people open for arguments it would just have needed a few posts to check the validity of the point.

For sure genetics are also important, but they were not the point here at all.

You just continue to get the facts wrong. From 1956 (when you say a Kenyan came 7th in something at the Olympics) till 1980, in the events from the 800 to the marathon, Kenya produced only two Olympic champions - Keino and Temu. In that time Kenya never featured anywhere in the marathon. So much distance running natural talent. Actually - not so much. But we know doping changed that picture. They are world leaders today at that.