No. He’s correct. Look at the results. Rhe change was so abrupt as to be jarring.
Rosa didn't come to Kenya until 1991.
But as far as world distance domination, it was 6 years earlier, in 1981 that the East African nations of Ethiopia and Kenya started dominating World Cross Country.
He was traveling back and forth for years before settling there in ‘90 or so.
But as far as world distance domination, it was 6 years earlier, in 1981 that the East African nations of Ethiopia and Kenya started dominating World Cross Country.
He was traveling back and forth for years before settling there in ‘90 or so.
I don't find anything confirming that. For example, the New York Times wrote back in 1997: "He began working with Kenyan athletes in 1991, his first athlete being Moses Tanui".
Nor do I find anything confirming that Dr. Rosa used EPO on his athletes, nor that EPO could do something for East African athletes that it never did for sea-level Americans and Europeans.
Europeans dominated the 1970s and 1980s because blood doping was legal. Blood doping was banned by the IOC in 1985 and soon thereafter by IAAF. So the performance of European teams like Great Britain, Italy, Finland etc. started to suffer while Kenya and Ethiopia emerged from the shadows.
1n 1987, the womens category was thorughly dominated by European teams that had state sponsored doping
Kenya did well in 1988 only on the men's side. The womens categroy was still dominated by state sponsored doping programs.
he first recombinant human EPO (rHuEPO) was approved for medical use in the US in 1989.
Thats when Kenya started to perform poorly again while Europe emerged. Morocco became stellar. Kenya performed rather poorly during the EPO era (1992 until 2004). While Europeans who never ran on the European circuit would emerge out of nowhere and win big races. I am talking the likes of Nils Schumman, Vejborn Rodal, Andre Bucher, Borzakovsky et al. All EPO freaks.
A test for EPO was formulated in around 2005. That was when European performances started to suffer again and Kenya emerged from its slump to win many medals at the 2008 Olympics after performing poorly in 2004. To put it plainly, when everyone gets tested , Kenya does well. When there is a new drug available for which there is no test, Europeans and North Americans do well using this new drug.
There is a new drug now enabling Americans, Germans , Norwegians etc to do well. Thats why they are coming out of nowhere and running fantastic times. Once this new drug is banned or a test is formulated, I expect Europeans and North Americans to start running poorly again.
Kenya is always behind the curveball when it comes to using the latest doping techniques. There are no innovative dope technicians like Salazar.
Some of this looks revisionist. It is true that Kenya did well in the late '60s and '70s, and that blood doping was eventually banned by 1985. But ...
Europeans didn't dominate as such in the '70s and '80s, as were just still able to win -- for the men, the best runners were a mix of North African, East African, and Europeans/American atheletes, and for the women, it's true that there were a lot more Eastern Europeans, Russians, Romanians, etc., many with masculine features.
East African participation was more a question of economics for the men -- how many could afford to go abroad to compete in races, besides World Cross Country? This is where European coaches and agents could help. For the women, they simply didn't compete for a long time for cultural reasons shaping views of women in sports.
Kenya did not perform poorly between 1992 and 2004, although their federations often struggled to send their best teams to Olympics and World Championships, and not just between 1992 and 2004. But generally, both Kenya and Ethiopia have been consistently outperforming the rest of the world since 1981 World Cross Country.
A test for EPO was formulated in 2000 and used at the Sydney Olympics, not 2005.
Somewhere around 2008 saw the retirements of greats like El G and Geb, and injuries for Bekele kept him off the track and podium. Around this time, the younger East African athletes started moving to the roads, especially after the format change of Golden League to Diamond League, and following the marathon records by Geb. This paved the way for Slo Mo to dominate the 5000m and 10000m distance events with much slower times, against a much weaker competition training for the roads. At the same time, the East Africans relaxed their views on women competing in sports, following the success of the rivals Dibaba and Defar.
It doesn't matter what drugs the Americans are taking. They are taking them. That's the point.
The point is pointless until you it is established that there is a new drug, and the Americans are taking the new drug, and the new drug is the thing that enables running 3:27, 7:22, and 12:45.
Meanwhile, it has already been established that new shoes are increasing efficiency across the board, enabling more training and faster racing.
Some of this looks revisionist. It is true that Kenya did well in the late '60s and '70s, and that blood doping was eventually banned by 1985. But ...
Europeans didn't dominate as such in the '70s and '80s, as were just still able to win -- for the men, the best runners were a mix of North African, East African, and Europeans/American atheletes, and for the women, it's true that there were a lot more Eastern Europeans, Russians, Romanians, etc., many with masculine features.
East African participation was more a question of economics for the men -- how many could afford to go abroad to compete in races, besides World Cross Country? This is where European coaches and agents could help. For the women, they simply didn't compete for a long time for cultural reasons shaping views of women in sports.
Kenya did not perform poorly between 1992 and 2004, although their federations often struggled to send their best teams to Olympics and World Championships, and not just between 1992 and 2004. But generally, both Kenya and Ethiopia have been consistently outperforming the rest of the world since 1981 World Cross Country.
A test for EPO was formulated in 2000 and used at the Sydney Olympics, not 2005.
Somewhere around 2008 saw the retirements of greats like El G and Geb, and injuries for Bekele kept him off the track and podium. Around this time, the younger East African athletes started moving to the roads, especially after the format change of Golden League to Diamond League, and following the marathon records by Geb. This paved the way for Slo Mo to dominate the 5000m and 10000m distance events with much slower times, against a much weaker competition training for the roads. At the same time, the East Africans relaxed their views on women competing in sports, following the success of the rivals Dibaba and Defar.
Europeans won every distance event at the 1983 World Athletics championships. By contrast Kenya had no medals. Ethiopia had no medals Kenya only won 2 medals at the 1984 Olympics while Europeans did much better winning several gold medals . On the womens side, Europeans won almost all the distance events despite the boycotts by USSR and East Germany. There were no North Africans with the exception of Aouita. And no other East Africans won any medals in 1984.
Kenya indeed performed poorly during the EPO era: 1992: 2 Gold
1996 : 1 Gold
2000: 2 Gold
2004: 1 Gold
And Bekele was not injured at the 2004 Olympics in fact he won a gold medal in the 10K and almost won the 5K
The East African dominance started at the ‘87 WCs when Rosa provided Kenya with a flotilla of athletes loaded on EPO. Things really took off at the ‘88 Games. It’s taken decades for other runners to start to catch up via improved training methods and slighly better testing.
Yes, it needed decades to catch up...
The lifetime PBs of the Kenyan winners from '87 and '88:
Konchellah 1:43.06 (WR 1:41.73)
Ereng 1:43.16 (WR1:41.73)
Rono 3:34.54 (WR 3:29.46 - best non-African 3:29.67)
Ngugi 13:11.14 (WR 12:58.39 - best non-African 13:00.41)
Kipkoech 27:38.63 (WR 27:13.81)
Kariuki 8:05.51 (WR 8:05.4 - best non-African 8:08.57)
It doesn't matter what drugs the Americans are taking. They are taking them. That's the point.
The point is pointless until you it is established that there is a new drug, and the Americans are taking the new drug, and the new drug is the thing that enables running 3:27, 7:22, and 12:45.
Meanwhile, it has already been established that new shoes are increasing efficiency across the board, enabling more training and faster racing.
It doesn't need a single "new" drug. There are plenty to choose from and they continue to be developed.
There are world records still standing that were set in the old shoes. So - no - the shoes aren't "increasing efficiency across the board". Some may benefit but it isn't uniform and doesn't explain why performances are now increasing, as the shoes have been available for years.
Furthermore, it is being argued here that athletes are training less, which is supposed to be more effective. Any explanation will do - except doping.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Some of this looks revisionist. It is true that Kenya did well in the late '60s and '70s, and that blood doping was eventually banned by 1985. But ...
Europeans didn't dominate as such in the '70s and '80s, as were just still able to win -- for the men, the best runners were a mix of North African, East African, and Europeans/American atheletes, and for the women, it's true that there were a lot more Eastern Europeans, Russians, Romanians, etc., many with masculine features.
East African participation was more a question of economics for the men -- how many could afford to go abroad to compete in races, besides World Cross Country? This is where European coaches and agents could help. For the women, they simply didn't compete for a long time for cultural reasons shaping views of women in sports.
Kenya did not perform poorly between 1992 and 2004, although their federations often struggled to send their best teams to Olympics and World Championships, and not just between 1992 and 2004. But generally, both Kenya and Ethiopia have been consistently outperforming the rest of the world since 1981 World Cross Country.
A test for EPO was formulated in 2000 and used at the Sydney Olympics, not 2005.
Somewhere around 2008 saw the retirements of greats like El G and Geb, and injuries for Bekele kept him off the track and podium. Around this time, the younger East African athletes started moving to the roads, especially after the format change of Golden League to Diamond League, and following the marathon records by Geb. This paved the way for Slo Mo to dominate the 5000m and 10000m distance events with much slower times, against a much weaker competition training for the roads. At the same time, the East Africans relaxed their views on women competing in sports, following the success of the rivals Dibaba and Defar.
Europeans won every distance event at the 1983 World Athletics championships. By contrast Kenya had no medals. Ethiopia had no medals Kenya only won 2 medals at the 1984 Olympics while Europeans did much better winning several gold medals . On the womens side, Europeans won almost all the distance events despite the boycotts by USSR and East Germany. There were no North Africans with the exception of Aouita. And no other East Africans won any medals in 1984.
Kenya indeed performed poorly during the EPO era: 1992: 2 Gold
1996 : 1 Gold
2000: 2 Gold
2004: 1 Gold
And Bekele was not injured at the 2004 Olympics in fact he won a gold medal in the 10K and almost won the 5K
So your judgement of the '70s and '80s boils down to the 1983 World Championships and 1984 Olympics?
And your assessment of 1992-2004 is based on Olympic Gold medals? In that window, Kenya was setting world records in the 1990s in the 5000m (Kiptanui and Komen) and 10000m (Ondieki, Sigei, Tergat).
Shouldn't you look at everything? World Championship medals, Olympic medals, World Cross Country, non-championship IAAF track season, world records, and road racing?
If we look at Cross Country, Kenya didn't really come around until 1985. Then for 18 years between 1986-2003, Kenya won the senior men's event every year. They took second to Ethiopia in 2004,2005, and then won again between 2006-2011, before Ethiopia winning again between 2013-2017 with Kenya placing 3rd (2013) and 2nd (2015/2017).
There were no bad years between 1992-2004.
Of we look at Olympic medal count, 1992-2004 is not unusual. The increase from 2008 on seems more like an increase in the women's medal count.
1984 Los Angeles 3 1988 Seoul 9 1992 Barcelona 8 1996 Atlanta 8 2000 Sydney 7 2004 Athens 7 2008 Beijing 16 2012 London 13 2016 Rio de Janeiro 13 2020 Tokyo 10 2024 Paris 11
World Championship medal count shows a similar pattern:
1983 Helsinki 0 1987 Rome 3 1991 Tokyo 8 1993 Stuttgart 10 1995 Gothenburg 6 1997 Athens 7 1999 Seville 6 2001 Edmonton 8 2003 Paris 4 2005 Helsinki 7 2007 Osaka 13 2009 Berlin 11 2011 Daegu 17 2013 Moscow 12 2015 Beijing 16 2017 London 11 2019 Doha 11 2022 Eugene 10 2023 Budapest 10
I said Bekele was injured "somewhere around 2008", and not 2004.
There's no point revisiting the past, much of it is unprovable.
We all agree that a number of Americans, and perhaps other nationalities (likely those athletes training in the US) are on a new, exclusive drug.
On the new drug: Hocker, Rooks, Hoppel - add to the list!
Are you suggesting visiting this now in the present is provable?
Who is "we all"? I don't think there is any consensus that such a new, exclusive drug with such a performance enhancing capability, even exists, or that any of these record setting Americans are on any drug. Much of "we all" believe that this is the predictable and predicted outcome of increased efficiency in shoes.
But despite the proven efficiency in the latest generation of shoes, you would have us believe that all these world, national, college, and even high school records are being set by all these athletes on some new drug, yet the best minds of the letsrun forum have no clue what it could be? One suggestion was EPO and nandrolone -- neither new nor exclusive.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
It doesn't need a single "new" drug. There are plenty to choose from and they continue to be developed.
There are world records still standing that were set in the old shoes. So - no - the shoes aren't "increasing efficiency across the board". Some may benefit but it isn't uniform and doesn't explain why performances are now increasing, as the shoes have been available for years.
Furthermore, it is being argued here that athletes are training less, which is supposed to be more effective. Any explanation will do - except doping.
It doesn't need any drug at all -- the new shoes are a more than adequate explanation for what we have observed in the last 5-8 years. There are plenty to choose from and they continue to be developed.
Some of the toughest long-standing records long considered unbreakable have been shattered in the supershoe era -- from Daniel Komen to Qu Yunxia to Paula Radcliffe. It is only a matter of time before the remaining records (longer than 800m) are broken.
Your intellectual problem is that the existence of shoes, and the increased efficiency for elite performances is proven, while the existence of drugs with any alleged performance enhancement benefit for elite performances is not.
Who is arguing "training less"? I saw most people arguing more threshold training, and that the shoes also allow more volume and intensity of training with quicker recovery.
I'm never asking for the explanations from those with strong beliefs coupled with no real knowledge, but substantial evidence.
He was traveling back and forth for years before settling there in ‘90 or so.
I don't find anything confirming that. For example, the New York Times wrote back in 1997: "He began working with Kenyan athletes in 1991, his first athlete being Moses Tanui".
Nor do I find anything confirming that Dr. Rosa used EPO on his athletes, nor that EPO could do something for East African athletes that it never did for sea-level Americans and Europeans.
Oh come on! lol
How many athletes associated with Rosa have been popped - and that’s with lax testing in Africa
Africans may possibly be higher responders to EPO, I believe a study should be done. After all, doctors have to take race into consideration when dispenaing all kinds of other drugs, EPO, Mircera,etc are likely no different.
It doesn't need a single "new" drug. There are plenty to choose from and they continue to be developed.
There are world records still standing that were set in the old shoes. So - no - the shoes aren't "increasing efficiency across the board". Some may benefit but it isn't uniform and doesn't explain why performances are now increasing, as the shoes have been available for years.
Furthermore, it is being argued here that athletes are training less, which is supposed to be more effective. Any explanation will do - except doping.
It doesn't need any drug at all -- the new shoes are a more than adequate explanation for what we have observed in the last 5-8 years. There are plenty to choose from and they continue to be developed.
Some of the toughest long-standing records long considered unbreakable have been shattered in the supershoe era -- from Daniel Komen to Qu Yunxia to Paula Radcliffe. It is only a matter of time before the remaining records (longer than 800m) are broken.
Your intellectual problem is that the existence of shoes, and the increased efficiency for elite performances is proven, while the existence of drugs with any alleged performance enhancement benefit for elite performances is not.
Who is arguing "training less"? I saw most people arguing more threshold training, and that the shoes also allow more volume and intensity of training with quicker recovery.
I'm never asking for the explanations from those with strong beliefs coupled with no real knowledge, but substantial evidence.
Drugs have been part of the sport for decades. You are the only one who doesn't yet seem to know that. You are also the only one who thinks runners use shoes for performance benefits but never gain from the drugs they use.