1. Kenyans get tested a lot more than Americans and Europeans. Kenya has the most stringent anti-doping protocols.
2. Kenyans are not sophisticated at doping as Americans and Europeans are. Americans have entire teams of Salazar type medical experts whose job it is to beat the dope tests. Many Kenyans just pop pills and hope not to get tested.
If their anti-doping protocols are so stringent why are most of their athletes popped by AIU? ADAK is asleep at the wheel.
ADAK requires all athletes to take 3 non-notice tests. If they don't, they are not eligible for national team selection.
Let's see who we got: Bracy-Williams, Coleman, Crawford, DeLoach, Drummond, Gatlin, Gay, Kerley, Knighton, Lewis, D. Mitchell, Montgomery, ...
Merritt, M. Mitchell, Pettigrew, Phillips, Roberts, Ross, Young, ...
Plus the ladies of course, from Jones to Richardson...
US dominance in sprints is known to be based on advanced training, a larger genetic base, and low altitude training. The truth will come out and athletes vindicated.
plus copious amounts of drugs,a win at all cost mentality,a lot of protection from those higher up and a pressure cooker environment,where they have to play the game to get sponsorship.
Quick googling says: 1 Kenyan WR in the 80s, and 13 in the 90s. 0 from Ethiopia in the 80s, and 11 in the 90s.
Cross Country doesn't keep World Records.
In the decade of the 1980's, both Kenya and Ethiopia began to show a depth of distance running talent unmatched by the rest of the world. This spread to the track in the 1990's.
In 1981, Ethiopia beat a strong American team, with Kenyan coming in third, beating the remaining 24 other nations. Out of 238 starters, Ethiopia placed 5 athletes in the top 15. It took a few years for Kenya to catch up, but both nations left the rest of the world behind.
Ethopia won the Senior men's team events from 1981-1985. Then Kenya took over, winning the Senior men's team event from 1986-1990, and continuing that streak until 2003.
World Athletics Cross Country Championships is the most important competition in international cross country running. Formerly held annually and organised by World Athletics (formerly the IAAF), it was inaugurated in 1973, wh...
Cross country was your distraction, when responding to <Hot Takes>'s comment about world records:
Kenya wasn't dominant in the 1960's. Or the 1970's, or the 1980's. It was the 1990's when Africa started dominating the distance events and being the only ones beating the world records.
You could have simply agreed, but you love your distractions. Classic Rekbot.
Fred Kerley, Erriyon Knighton, Marvin Bracy Williams all suspended. All medalists in 2022. As is the case with Kenya, is the long-time dominance of sprints by the US based on natural ability or other elements? In fact, given the diversity of the human population is it even possible for 1 country to dominate a particular event for decades? Take football as an example, countries dominate in phases - Italy, Brazil, Germany, Spain, Argentina etc, but no one country is able to establish perpetual dominance. So when a country like Kenya, USA starts showing signs of what looks like indefinite dominance of long distance or sprints, should this serve as a red flag? Should we will still use genetics, technology, training facilities, environment all as excuses?
If you want to include doping as an excuse for fast performances, you need more information.
Regardless of country, with rare exceptions, the best sprinters are of West African descent, and the best runners are of East African descent. Call that a combination of genetics and environment and motivation if you want. Drugs are not powerful enough to bridge that gap, with the potential exception for steroids for women in shorter events.
If this is the case, why do we hardly see any good sprinters coming from West Africa itself? If that region is the source of elite sprint genetics, why don't they dominate like their East African counterparts?
Almost all the College Athletes, I can't think of one who is suspicious, Almost all of them dominated in High School, and were probably considered fast by classmates since they were 7-10 years old they were fast for their age back then, now they are fast for any age, and if they chose to run track until they are 110 years old, they would be fast for people over 100. Speed deteriorates after age 30-35, but they are still fast for their age, as long as they workout a little and don't get extremely fat.
Every single runner, male of female, making the 100 or 200 semis at Worlds/Olympics is a doper, and anyone who follows this sport knows it. Everybody just doesn’t want them to be blatant about it.
Keni Harrison, Masai Russell, Jenna Prandini, Phyllis Francis, Kori Carter, Athing Mu... this isn't hard?
Mu is the only one you named who is not suspicious.
What on earth distinguishes Mu from everyone else? She's a generational talent yes, but I'm sure you'll turn around and call Sydney and every other generational talent a doper. Kori Carter has 1 medal in an event that was woefully underdeveloped when she was running and a PB of 53 low... there's literally nothing suspicious about her. I've also literally never heard anyone suspect Keni Harrison of anything with any shred of justification (nor the others, which was the question)
Mu is the only one you named who is not suspicious.
What on earth distinguishes Mu from everyone else? She's a generational talent yes, but I'm sure you'll turn around and call Sydney and every other generational talent a doper. Kori Carter has 1 medal in an event that was woefully underdeveloped when she was running and a PB of 53 low... there's literally nothing suspicious about her. I've also literally never heard anyone suspect Keni Harrison of anything with any shred of justification (nor the others, which was the question)
I think Sydney is clean too. I wouldn’t have any suspicions about Harrison, but she was Prandini’s training partner and Prandini is highly suspicious. I think all of our women’s 100 hurdlers are dirty though. I will grant you Kori Carter is not super suspicious, but she was sponsored by Nike and went to Stanford.
What on earth distinguishes Mu from everyone else? She's a generational talent yes, but I'm sure you'll turn around and call Sydney and every other generational talent a doper. Kori Carter has 1 medal in an event that was woefully underdeveloped when she was running and a PB of 53 low... there's literally nothing suspicious about her. I've also literally never heard anyone suspect Keni Harrison of anything with any shred of justification (nor the others, which was the question)
I think Sydney is clean too. I wouldn’t have any suspicions about Harrison, but she was Prandini’s training partner and Prandini is highly suspicious. I think all of our women’s 100 hurdlers are dirty though. I will grant you Kori Carter is not super suspicious, but she was sponsored by Nike and went to Stanford.
The USA has a systematic problem with doping in sprinters and had for years.
remember AIU did not catch him through testing alone with system either the control in place are terrible or they are there not to catch US dopers. Which is what sponsors of require.
Doping does not happen in isolation, therefore if we conclude one group of athletes are doping, the odds are in favor of other groups doping too, like the longer sprints and middle distance too.
therefore daily testing is probably where we need to go too, or continuous blood testing band a bit like a glucose monitor - where an athlete must have two years of continuous clean testing to compete in the trails, worlds and Olympics.
Watch all the athletes transfer to the enhanced games where they stop micro dosing and move to macro dosing
Cross country was your distraction, when responding to <Hot Takes>'s comment about world records:
Kenya wasn't dominant in the 1960's. Or the 1970's, or the 1980's. It was the 1990's when Africa started dominating the distance events and being the only ones beating the world records.
You could have simply agreed, but you love your distractions. Classic Rekbot.
What distraction? As you just confirmed, "Hot Takes" made several comments about "domination", including "Kenya wasn't dominant in ... the 1980's" and "when Africa started dominating the distance events ..." and, one you left out, "The 1990's also seem to be when EPO was running rampant ...".
Cross Country is also a distance event. It is arguably the most competitive distance event in the world, requiring a depth of top talent. East African distance world domination started at least as far back as 1981, seemingly about a decade before EPO was running rampant (in American/European cycling).
For a demonstration of world spanking Kenyan domination before 1990, just look at 1988: Kenya placed 6 runners in the top-7, and 8 runners in the top-9. Kenya's 8th runner beat the entire non-African world! Only Ethiopia penetrated the top-10, with 5th place Abebe Mekonnen robbing Kenya of the perfect sweep, and Haji Bulbula rounding out the top-10. The rest of the world was led by the French Paul Arpin, nearly 80 seconds behind the winner.
East Africans weren't just a flash in the pan, but have been dominating in distance events with a depth of top talent for at least 45 years.
If you want to include doping as an excuse for fast performances, you need more information.
Regardless of country, with rare exceptions, the best sprinters are of West African descent, and the best runners are of East African descent. Call that a combination of genetics and environment and motivation if you want. Drugs are not powerful enough to bridge that gap, with the potential exception for steroids for women in shorter events.
If this is the case, why do we hardly see any good sprinters coming from West Africa itself? If that region is the source of elite sprint genetics, why don't they dominate like their East African counterparts?
I don't give sprinting much thought, but I suppose that is more a question of opportunity and infrastructure and support required to nurture that talent and bring the athletes to the track. Or maybe it is also a question of combining West African genetics over centuries with other non-West African genes to make them even stronger. It still seems like a combination of genetics and environment and opportunity creating a gap that non-Africans cannot bridge with drugs (except potentially women on steroids).
For centuries many West Africans were exported to many countries around the world as slaves, because they were strong, unlike the East Africans. For East Africans, the European coaches and agents had to go where the talent was concentrated, although a small number have since emigrated to other countries. This wasn't necessary for West Africans, as local talent was already abundant in countries like the United States, Jamaica, and the UK.
The bigger question is where we can find any of the non-West Africans from the rest of the world? Someone like Christophe Lemaitre becomes a great white hope, but in all-time world rankings, he is #79 in the 100m, and a more impressive #32 in the 200m. (Is there any non-West African faster than him?)
Fred Kerley, Erriyon Knighton, Marvin Bracy Williams all suspended. All medalists in 2022. As is the case with Kenya, is the long-time dominance of sprints by the US based on natural ability or other elements? In fact, given the diversity of the human population is it even possible for 1 country to dominate a particular event for decades? Take football as an example, countries dominate in phases - Italy, Brazil, Germany, Spain, Argentina etc, but no one country is able to establish perpetual dominance. So when a country like Kenya, USA starts showing signs of what looks like indefinite dominance of long distance or sprints, should this serve as a red flag? Should we will still use genetics, technology, training facilities, environment all as excuses?
So Kenya has been doping since the 1960s ? How did they get access to drugs that westerners didn't have access to in 1968 ?
Yes, since the 60s, and EPO was until very recently sold over the counter in Iten high street pharmacies. But the main reason Kenyans dope more than others is because of the corruption and financial incentives. And yes to the OP - the genetic 'natural born runner' myth has been used to mask the doping problem since the 60s - that is why the hardcore doping apologists and shills here rabidly defend it and accuse anybody who questions it of being 'racist'.
