1972 Finland 3 golds 1 bronze. Kenya 1 gold 2 silvers (excluding the joke event the steeplechase, 1 silver).
One Finnish runner in the top 10 marathon times for 1972, no Kenyan yet to break the top 300 all time.
At the 72 Olympics, Finland was the most successful nation, yes. And your conclusions?
(btw. missing Kenyan medals - as you did also here - and ignoring Kenyan medals - as you did also here - is your attempt to justify your wrong conclusion.
Kenya before 1980 has faster NRs than Finland in the 800m, 1000m, 1500m, 1 Mile, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m, steeple. Because of Lasse Viren you think Finland was more successful than Kenya? It seems you found another country besides Bayi and Ovett: Viren. Where is this country located and what has this country achieved in the 800m, 1500m, steeple?
You are right -- that is not what makes it incomplete. What makes it incomplete is that the AIU doesn't include data from NADOs and RADOs.
Before you can compare Kenya to other countries, you need to normalize the data.
The AIU draws on data from WADA, which includes data from all sources on testing.
But the fact remains you can produce no data that shows Kenya has not incurred 40% of doping positives over 2022. No source has contested the 40% figure or claimed that it misrepresents Kenya's position - and NO ONE FROM KENYA, who would have every reason to do so if it was misleading.
If there is any other data that might be included you don't know what that data might show. Ultimately, however, your intention is to suggest that Kenyan doping is far less than what the 40% figure represents. You can produce nothing that shows that.
Did Coe say that his figure comes from WADA data? Does the AIU? I find myself only disagreeing with statements from Armstronglivs, not Coe or the AIU. I see the AIU reporting the opposite, that NADOs and RADOs are not included in their reports, and that AIU testing is biased towards high performing athletes. This would be a first.
In any case, the 40% statement does not come from the AIU, but from Coe, president of World Athletics. I can't be sure he accurately represented what 40% was, in a verbal news conference, as he did not produce the data and context that 40% is supposed to represent.
I have produced a fact that it cannot be 2022 -- since the quote comes before 2022 was over.
I have produced no fact challenging 40%, because I agreed with 40% as something roughly consistent with AIU's overall testing (positive and negative) figures from 2020 and 2021. I disagree with any suggestion that it is complete, and representative.
Only when WADA produces their 2022 ADRV report, will we see how accurate 40% is in "the sport".
The AIU draws on data from WADA, which includes data from all sources on testing.
But the fact remains you can produce no data that shows Kenya has not incurred 40% of doping positives over 2022. No source has contested the 40% figure or claimed that it misrepresents Kenya's position - and NO ONE FROM KENYA, who would have every reason to do so if it was misleading.
If there is any other data that might be included you don't know what that data might show. Ultimately, however, your intention is to suggest that Kenyan doping is far less than what the 40% figure represents. You can produce nothing that shows that.
Did Coe say that his figure comes from WADA data? Does the AIU? I find myself only disagreeing with statements from Armstronglivs, not Coe or the AIU. I see the AIU reporting the opposite, that NADOs and RADOs are not included in their reports, and that AIU testing is biased towards high performing athletes. This would be a first.
In any case, the 40% statement does not come from the AIU, but from Coe, president of World Athletics. I can't be sure he accurately represented what 40% was, in a verbal news conference, as he did not produce the data and context that 40% is supposed to represent.
I have produced a fact that it cannot be 2022 -- since the quote comes before 2022 was over.
I have produced no fact challenging 40%, because I agreed with 40% as something roughly consistent with AIU's overall testing (positive and negative) figures from 2020 and 2021. I disagree with any suggestion that it is complete, and representative.
Only when WADA produces their 2022 ADRV report, will we see how accurate 40% is in "the sport".
You think Kenya was the most successfull distance running nation in an arbitary time period because of Keino, a highly suspicious athlete, and despite no Kenyan runner making the top 300 marathon or half-marathon times in that period.
1972 was the most representative Olympic year in your arbitary time period. No boycotts and no altitude. Finland had a population of less than 5 million, and an unfavorable climate. Yes, they were likely doping, but probably no less than Kenyans at the time. Do the Finns have special adaptations?
In all your "data", who outside Armstrong do you rely upon to observe the effects of EPO? It appears you are doing exactly what you accuse others of, which is to come to conclusions about the effects of a drug based solely in how fast they ran - or didn't - without knowing who was using the drug. You have absolutely no data on who was doping and who wasnt - yet you claim to know EPO's effects in the marathon. Very scientific.
Note Armstrong's observations are confounded by all the other drugs he was taking, not to mention placebo effect derived from the decision to go down the path of one of the most sophisticated doping campaigns ever.
It is basic logic that if all of the people in a selected group lack a certain characteristic, this would include all dopers and non-dopers alike without knowing who is who.
While you keep saying "no data", my concluding "so few, by so little" among non-Africans during the decades of the EPO-era is one that is based on publicly available performance data, and would seem to contradict popular beliefs that EPO is both prevalent and powerful for the marathon.
This clear observation over decades from 90% of the world suggests that your assumptions of up to 80% doping prevalence, combined with Coevett's assumption of up to 10 minutes from EPO for the marathon, cannot be supported by and cannot predict the observable and publicly available performance data.
While you keep saying "no data", I have also provided some data showing that 8 out of 9 World Champion and Olympic marathon medalists between 2001-2012, were not considered suspicious by two Australian scientists looking at a large database of more than 5000 athletes.
You think Kenya was the most successfull distance running nation in an arbitary time period because of Keino, a highly suspicious athlete, and despite no Kenyan runner making the top 300 marathon or half-marathon times in that period.
1972 was the most representative Olympic year in your arbitary time period. No boycotts and no altitude. Finland had a population of less than 5 million, and an unfavorable climate. Yes, they were likely doping, but probably no less than Kenyans at the time. Do the Finns have special adaptations?
I suppose that was for "slowwer" not me. I think East African world domination started in 1981 in World Cross Country, a decade before EPO was widely considered to be widely used among distance running athletes. It naturally extended to track in the 1990s, and then to the roads in the 2000s.
The AIU draws on data from WADA, which includes data from all sources on testing.
But the fact remains you can produce no data that shows Kenya has not incurred 40% of doping positives over 2022. No source has contested the 40% figure or claimed that it misrepresents Kenya's position - and NO ONE FROM KENYA, who would have every reason to do so if it was misleading.
If there is any other data that might be included you don't know what that data might show. Ultimately, however, your intention is to suggest that Kenyan doping is far less than what the 40% figure represents. You can produce nothing that shows that.
Did Coe say that his figure comes from WADA data? Does the AIU? I find myself only disagreeing with statements from Armstronglivs, not Coe or the AIU. I see the AIU reporting the opposite, that NADOs and RADOs are not included in their reports, and that AIU testing is biased towards high performing athletes. This would be a first.
In any case, the 40% statement does not come from the AIU, but from Coe, president of World Athletics. I can't be sure he accurately represented what 40% was, in a verbal news conference, as he did not produce the data and context that 40% is supposed to represent.
I have produced a fact that it cannot be 2022 -- since the quote comes before 2022 was over.
I have produced no fact challenging 40%, because I agreed with 40% as something roughly consistent with AIU's overall testing (positive and negative) figures from 2020 and 2021. I disagree with any suggestion that it is complete, and representative.
Only when WADA produces their 2022 ADRV report, will we see how accurate 40% is in "the sport".
Wherever or whoever conducts the doping test the subsequent laboratory analysis is conducted by a WADA-approved laboratory. Hence, all data on positives go to one source and are available from that source, which is WADA. Because it is a central source of information, nobody is waiting for data on testing results to come from any other source once WADA has the result from its laboratories. Hence, Kenya's 40% of the total of world positives is comprehensive, which is why Coe is able to make the statement he did that has not been challenged or contradicted.
You say the data cannot be from 2022 because he made his statement in November and not December. You've really exceeded yourself there. So, because the data can only be for 11 months of the year and not 12 it therefore isn't for 2022? So what year does that 11 months of data apply to? Do you think the last remaining month of the year is going to nullify the results of the previous 11? Your claim that 11 months of the year "isn't 2022" qualifies as easily the most moronic statement I have seen on a doping thread - and that is saying something.
You think Kenya was the most successfull distance running nation in an arbitary time period because of Keino, a highly suspicious athlete, and despite no Kenyan runner making the top 300 marathon or half-marathon times in that period.
1972 was the most representative Olympic year in your arbitary time period. No boycotts and no altitude. Finland had a population of less than 5 million, and an unfavorable climate. Yes, they were likely doping, but probably no less than Kenyans at the time. Do the Finns have special adaptations?
This was adressed to me? If a 16 year period is "arbitrary", than any period is arbitrary. Was GB the most successful middle distance running nation in the period 1977 - 1986 (or even 1988)? No chance, the period is arbitrary. In the 1990s GB has not not much succes at all. How many times do you want to lie about Keino? Nobody has ever said Kenya was the most successful nation because of Keino, but you continue to write this nonsense. Because you have no argument but you don't want to accept the obvious reality. Kenya was the most successful nation (track) in this time period (you can start in 68, or 70 or 72 if you prefer, in the early 80s they were not so successful, in the 80s at all they were no. 2 behind GB, but with arguments for no. 1) because of:
Kipchoge Keino Henry Rono Mike Boit Amos Biwott Naftali Temu Wilson Kiprugut John Kipkurgat James Maina Samson Kimobwa John Ngeno Ben Jipcho Wilson Waigwa Richard Yuma Evans Mogaka Peter Lemashon Mike Musyoki James Munyala Kiprotich Rono Robert Ouko Ben Kogo Cosmas Silei Daniel Omwanza Paul Mose Joel Cheruiyot
Because they have set the most World Records
Because the have won the most medals at the Olympics (despite the 76 boycott)
Because they have won 55% of the Gold medals and 43% of all medals at the Commonwealth Games
Because they are the only ones to bring an athlete in the top 2 in the all-time list in any track event
So, not "because of Keino" - OK? But we can wait for the next time you bring this laughable attempt. Because you don't have any argument and you just don't want to accept the easy fact. Like a child closing his eyes in an attempt to deny reality.
In all your "data", who outside Armstrong do you rely upon to observe the effects of EPO? It appears you are doing exactly what you accuse others of, which is to come to conclusions about the effects of a drug based solely in how fast they ran - or didn't - without knowing who was using the drug. You have absolutely no data on who was doping and who wasnt - yet you claim to know EPO's effects in the marathon. Very scientific.
Note Armstrong's observations are confounded by all the other drugs he was taking, not to mention placebo effect derived from the decision to go down the path of one of the most sophisticated doping campaigns ever.
It is basic logic that if all of the people in a selected group lack a certain characteristic, this would include all dopers and non-dopers alike without knowing who is who.
While you keep saying "no data", my concluding "so few, by so little" among non-Africans during the decades of the EPO-era is one that is based on publicly available performance data, and would seem to contradict popular beliefs that EPO is both prevalent and powerful for the marathon.
This clear observation over decades from 90% of the world suggests that your assumptions of up to 80% doping prevalence, combined with Coevett's assumption of up to 10 minutes from EPO for the marathon, cannot be supported by and cannot predict the observable and publicly available performance data.
While you keep saying "no data", I have also provided some data showing that 8 out of 9 World Champion and Olympic marathon medalists between 2001-2012, were not considered suspicious by two Australian scientists looking at a large database of more than 5000 athletes.
You are just saying it over again in your typically long-winded fashion but you are simply doing what you criticise others for, which is arrive at doping conclusions based on performance, while having no data on who is doping and who isn't on which you can determine degrees of performance enhancement or otherwise. You are little more than a village witch-doctor mouthing incantations in the belief that you can make rain.
So what that "two Australian scientists" (a whole two! And Australian!) didn't see "suspicious" performances amongst marathon medallists? Since they don't know who is doping and who isn't their view as to what is "suspicious" is as subjective as yours. They are as much in the dark as you are. The flood of doping busts amongst Kenyan distance runners shows that athletes have a far better understanding of performance enhancement than academics pondering the data of race results. Like you. Except you aren't even an academic or specialist in the subject of doping. You are only a propagandist.
You think Kenya was the most successfull distance running nation in an arbitary time period because of Keino, a highly suspicious athlete, and despite no Kenyan runner making the top 300 marathon or half-marathon times in that period.
1972 was the most representative Olympic year in your arbitary time period. No boycotts and no altitude. Finland had a population of less than 5 million, and an unfavorable climate. Yes, they were likely doping, but probably no less than Kenyans at the time. Do the Finns have special adaptations?
This was adressed to me? If a 16 year period is "arbitrary", than any period is arbitrary. Was GB the most successful middle distance running nation in the period 1977 - 1986 (or even 1988)? No chance, the period is arbitrary. In the 1990s GB has not not much succes at all. How many times do you want to lie about Keino? Nobody has ever said Kenya was the most successful nation because of Keino, but you continue to write this nonsense. Because you have no argument but you don't want to accept the obvious reality. Kenya was the most successful nation (track) in this time period (you can start in 68, or 70 or 72 if you prefer, in the early 80s they were not so successful, in the 80s at all they were no. 2 behind GB, but with arguments for no. 1) because of:
Kipchoge Keino Henry Rono Mike Boit Amos Biwott Naftali Temu Wilson Kiprugut John Kipkurgat James Maina Samson Kimobwa John Ngeno Ben Jipcho Wilson Waigwa Richard Yuma Evans Mogaka Peter Lemashon Mike Musyoki James Munyala Kiprotich Rono Robert Ouko Ben Kogo Cosmas Silei Daniel Omwanza Paul Mose Joel Cheruiyot
Because they have set the most World Records
Because the have won the most medals at the Olympics (despite the 76 boycott)
Because they have won 55% of the Gold medals and 43% of all medals at the Commonwealth Games
Because they are the only ones to bring an athlete in the top 2 in the all-time list in any track event
So, not "because of Keino" - OK? But we can wait for the next time you bring this laughable attempt. Because you don't have any argument and you just don't want to accept the easy fact. Like a child closing his eyes in an attempt to deny reality.
Yet another village witch doctor, reading the chicken entrails on the ground.
Wherever or whoever conducts the doping test the subsequent laboratory analysis is conducted by a WADA-approved laboratory. Hence, all data on positives go to one source and are available from that source, which is WADA. Because it is a central source of information, nobody is waiting for data on testing results to come from any other source once WADA has the result from its laboratories. Hence, Kenya's 40% of the total of world positives is comprehensive, which is why Coe is able to make the statement he did that has not been challenged or contradicted.
You say the data cannot be from 2022 because he made his statement in November and not December. You've really exceeded yourself there. So, because the data can only be for 11 months of the year and not 12 it therefore isn't for 2022? So what year does that 11 months of data apply to? Do you think the last remaining month of the year is going to nullify the results of the previous 11? Your claim that 11 months of the year "isn't 2022" qualifies as easily the most moronic statement I have seen on a doping thread - and that is saying something.
These are all your words, not Coe's and not the AIU's, and not WADA's. Once again I find myself only questioning your words.
Although Coe did not, the world will have to wait until WADA compiles all the data from the AIU, and from all other NADOs and RADOs.
Similarly Coe did not specify 11 months, nor even 2022. He said "over the course of one year". All the rest, again, comes from you.
This was adressed to me? If a 16 year period is "arbitrary", than any period is arbitrary. Was GB the most successful middle distance running nation in the period 1977 - 1986 (or even 1988)? No chance, the period is arbitrary. In the 1990s GB has not not much succes at all. How many times do you want to lie about Keino? Nobody has ever said Kenya was the most successful nation because of Keino, but you continue to write this nonsense. Because you have no argument but you don't want to accept the obvious reality. Kenya was the most successful nation (track) in this time period (you can start in 68, or 70 or 72 if you prefer, in the early 80s they were not so successful, in the 80s at all they were no. 2 behind GB, but with arguments for no. 1) because of:
Kipchoge Keino Henry Rono Mike Boit Amos Biwott Naftali Temu Wilson Kiprugut John Kipkurgat James Maina Samson Kimobwa John Ngeno Ben Jipcho Wilson Waigwa Richard Yuma Evans Mogaka Peter Lemashon Mike Musyoki James Munyala Kiprotich Rono Robert Ouko Ben Kogo Cosmas Silei Daniel Omwanza Paul Mose Joel Cheruiyot
Because they have set the most World Records
Because the have won the most medals at the Olympics (despite the 76 boycott)
Because they have won 55% of the Gold medals and 43% of all medals at the Commonwealth Games
Because they are the only ones to bring an athlete in the top 2 in the all-time list in any track event
So, not "because of Keino" - OK? But we can wait for the next time you bring this laughable attempt. Because you don't have any argument and you just don't want to accept the easy fact. Like a child closing his eyes in an attempt to deny reality.
Yet another village witch doctor, reading the chicken entrails on the ground.
Great contribution to the forum and the subject.
On a par with
- wrong numbers galore (up to 80% difference to the correct one if helpful for you)
- presenting informative facts like Kenyans have set no World Record in the 6 Miles
- lying what I have said
- "13.16" > "13.24"
- wonderful logic like almost anybody at the top is doping, but also, the majority of non Kenyans (non East Africans?) trying to reach the top legitimately
You are just saying it over again in your typically long-winded fashion but you are simply doing what you criticise others for, which is arrive at doping conclusions based on performance, while having no data on who is doping and who isn't on which you can determine degrees of performance enhancement or otherwise. You are little more than a village witch-doctor mouthing incantations in the belief that you can make rain.
So what that "two Australian scientists" (a whole two! And Australian!) didn't see "suspicious" performances amongst marathon medallists? Since they don't know who is doping and who isn't their view as to what is "suspicious" is as subjective as yours. They are as much in the dark as you are. The flood of doping busts amongst Kenyan distance runners shows that athletes have a far better understanding of performance enhancement than academics pondering the data of race results. Like you. Except you aren't even an academic or specialist in the subject of doping. You are only a propagandist.
On the contrary, to the extent I'm drawing conclusions, they are based on a notable lack of high quality performances, especially from countries known to dope, given a set of common assumptions about widespread prevalence and high effect. The scientific thing to do is to revisit some or all of the assumptions that lead to such predictions and refine the model, if possible, or to reject it, if not.
The Australian scientists looked at Off-scores of blood data -- the kind of metric WADA uses to determine who is blood doping. This is real data from real IAAF tested athletes. They are not completely in the dark, and neither am I.
You are just saying it over again in your typically long-winded fashion but you are simply doing what you criticise others for, which is arrive at doping conclusions based on performance, while having no data on who is doping and who isn't on which you can determine degrees of performance enhancement or otherwise. You are little more than a village witch-doctor mouthing incantations in the belief that you can make rain.
So what that "two Australian scientists" (a whole two! And Australian!) didn't see "suspicious" performances amongst marathon medallists? Since they don't know who is doping and who isn't their view as to what is "suspicious" is as subjective as yours. They are as much in the dark as you are. The flood of doping busts amongst Kenyan distance runners shows that athletes have a far better understanding of performance enhancement than academics pondering the data of race results. Like you. Except you aren't even an academic or specialist in the subject of doping. You are only a propagandist.
On the contrary, to the extent I'm drawing conclusions, they are based on a notable lack of high quality performances, especially from countries known to dope, given a set of common assumptions about widespread prevalence and high effect. The scientific thing to do is to revisit some or all of the assumptions that lead to such predictions and refine the model, if possible, or to reject it, if not.
The Australian scientists looked at Off-scores of blood data -- the kind of metric WADA uses to determine who is blood doping. This is real data from real IAAF tested athletes. They are not completely in the dark, and neither am I.
The numbers of Kenyan athletes busted in recent years shows there was likely something the scientists missed in the blood data. Doping wasn't invented yesterday.
The numbers of Kenyan athletes busted in recent years shows there was likely something the scientists missed in the blood data. Doping wasn't invented yesterday.
The sport corruption in Africa is at the level as the politics in it.
Look at what happened at Addis Abeba in the latest days, two countries corrupt the whole decisions of the continent and this video that reflect what motivate these people:
On the contrary, to the extent I'm drawing conclusions, they are based on a notable lack of high quality performances, especially from countries known to dope, given a set of common assumptions about widespread prevalence and high effect. The scientific thing to do is to revisit some or all of the assumptions that lead to such predictions and refine the model, if possible, or to reject it, if not.
The Australian scientists looked at Off-scores of blood data -- the kind of metric WADA uses to determine who is blood doping. This is real data from real IAAF tested athletes. They are not completely in the dark, and neither am I.
The numbers of Kenyan athletes busted in recent years shows there was likely something the scientists missed in the blood data. Doping wasn't invented yesterday.
I know only too well that doping wasn't invented yesterday. Blood doping was developed a century ago, when two French scientists discovered that plasma from anemic rabbits caused red blood cells to increase within a few hours. As far back as the 1930's, Popeye showed us the power of spinach, and ever further back, thousands of years ago, in 50 BC, we know doping was well established among the Gauls, as Asterix and Obelix developed superhuman strength from the potions brewed by the ancient druid Getafix.
Why don't you share some more of your vast knowledge with us? What do you reckon these Australian scientists missed?
Oh that's right. I know why. You aren't even an academic or specialist in the subject of doping. You are only a propagandist. Your sharpest tool is your ability to insult the intelligence of those you cannot rebut.
Of course I know the Australian scientists only looked at hemoglobin and reticulyte values, but this does generally rule out suspicion of EPO and blood transfusions for most Kenyans (8 out of 9) and Ethiopians (11 out of 12) and marathon medals won (8 out of 9) between 2001-2012 -- an era when Kenyans and Ethiopians found another gear in the marathon, with the fastest averaging 2:03:30, while the fastest non-Africans and North Africans stagnated around 2:07:00 the entire period. The best non-blood doping candidates are glucosteroids and nandrolone, but I'm unaware of any endurance research on these doping products finding performance benefits. Maybe that is the right direction for the first study on marathons.
Didn't you concede earlier that, assuming you are right, and Coe is right about 40% in 2022, the Kenyan doping problem must have greatly increased only after 2019 -- the year WADA's official reporting showed only 12% of ADRVs were Kenyan? The 2019 figure (12%) is actually quite consistent with the lower levels of blood doping suspicion found in the Kenyan (11%) and Ethiopian (8%) and among marathon medalists (11%). The global average was 14%.
Looking forward to the forthcoming trove of knowledge.
The numbers of Kenyan athletes busted in recent years shows there was likely something the scientists missed in the blood data. Doping wasn't invented yesterday.
I know only too well that doping wasn't invented yesterday. Blood doping was developed a century ago, when two French scientists discovered that plasma from anemic rabbits caused red blood cells to increase within a few hours. As far back as the 1930's, Popeye showed us the power of spinach, and ever further back, thousands of years ago, in 50 BC, we know doping was well established among the Gauls, as Asterix and Obelix developed superhuman strength from the potions brewed by the ancient druid Getafix.
Why don't you share some more of your vast knowledge with us? What do you reckon these Australian scientists missed?
Oh that's right. I know why. You aren't even an academic or specialist in the subject of doping. You are only a propagandist. Your sharpest tool is your ability to insult the intelligence of those you cannot rebut.
Of course I know the Australian scientists only looked at hemoglobin and reticulyte values, but this does generally rule out suspicion of EPO and blood transfusions for most Kenyans (8 out of 9) and Ethiopians (11 out of 12) and marathon medals won (8 out of 9) between 2001-2012 -- an era when Kenyans and Ethiopians found another gear in the marathon, with the fastest averaging 2:03:30, while the fastest non-Africans and North Africans stagnated around 2:07:00 the entire period. The best non-blood doping candidates are glucosteroids and nandrolone, but I'm unaware of any endurance research on these doping products finding performance benefits. Maybe that is the right direction for the first study on marathons.
Didn't you concede earlier that, assuming you are right, and Coe is right about 40% in 2022, the Kenyan doping problem must have greatly increased only after 2019 -- the year WADA's official reporting showed only 12% of ADRVs were Kenyan? The 2019 figure (12%) is actually quite consistent with the lower levels of blood doping suspicion found in the Kenyan (11%) and Ethiopian (8%) and among marathon medalists (11%). The global average was 14%.
Looking forward to the forthcoming trove of knowledge.
Coe is right about the 40% figure - no one has officially disputed or corrected it - and you have no data to disprove it.
East Africans have shown the genetic ability and agility to evade testing for decades. So once again it comes back to the genes.
In addition to growing up running. We have all heard of the droves of east Africans running 4 miles to school, 4 miles home, while under 14 years of age. That's 40 MPW, just Monday to Friday. Add to this, LDR is the ticket out, similar to the NBA in our country. So what we see is the best of the best from eastern Africa, in our country's races. Just like when you watch an NBA game. They are the best of the best of the best.
Coe is right about the 40% figure - no one has officially disputed or corrected it - and you have no data to disprove it.
The "40% figure" was the only thing I did not challenge -- it was all the rest of your words, and your fantastic explanations that came from you, and not Coe, which I disregard completely.
But as you keep insisting, there must surely be something wrong with it. Coe's figure, and the data behind it, has not been corroborated nor confirmed, in a detailed written report, neither by the AIU, nor by WADA.
Coe is right about the 40% figure - no one has officially disputed or corrected it - and you have no data to disprove it.
The "40% figure" was the only thing I did not challenge -- it was all the rest of your words, and your fantastic explanations that came from you, and not Coe, which I disregard completely.
But as you keep insisting, there must surely be something wrong with it. Coe's figure, and the data behind it, has not been corroborated nor confirmed, in a detailed written report, neither by the AIU, nor by WADA.
If it was wrong or misleading it would have been disputed or corrected - especially by the Kenyans. It hasn't.
What it shows is the Kenya far outstrips any other nation currently for doping positives in athletics. No other country equals or tops 40% of doping positives in athletics in the last year.
If it was wrong or misleading it would have been disputed or corrected - especially by the Kenyans. It hasn't.
What it shows is the Kenya far outstrips any other nation currently for doping positives in athletics. No other country equals or tops 40% of doping positives in athletics in the last year.