The original argument was about world records. Googling provided support for that argument.
Not quite true.
The comments I responded to clearly spoke about when Kenyan and African domination in distance events started: "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 ..."
If I'm not mistaken, Cross Country is also a distance event.
If you want to count world records, we can still count Kip Keino in the 1960s, and Henry Rono and Ben Jipcho and Samson Kimobwa and Peter Koech in the 1970s and 1980s, and Ethiopians Abebe Bikila in the 1960s and Belayneh Dinsamo in the 1980s.
The comments that Kenyan dominance began in the 1990s seem to be skipping over the 1988 Olympics, where Kenyans medaled in each of the six events 800m-marathon, with a combined four golds, two silvers, and a bronze from seven different runners.
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.
I generally agree with this, but two things can be true at the same time.
Given the population of Kenya, and the population of the Kalenjin tribe from which many of the best runners in Kenya hail, there is no way that drugs alone can account for all the Kenyan success. Drugs can't turn a random decent runner into a world class runner -- there has to be a very strong underlying ability for the drugs to do that. The sheer number of world class runners coming out a place like the size of Kenya points to something genetic and environmental going on.
That being said, that doesn't mean that some of the success isn't doping derived. Since no one knows how many Kenyans are doping and how many athletes in other countries are doping, it is impossible to know how much is one vs the other.
I feel like we need to have a discussion about PED usage has grown to the mainstream now where we are seeing an increasing amount of "hobby joggers" and "gym rats" using. Goodness how many 14:30 caliber 5k athletes do we even have in hs xc now, breaking 15 was so rare when I was in hs. If I'm a 15:00 5k/ 4:15 mile hs athlete I'm basically irrelevant to every D1 program that matters, that type of blackpill is going to push a lot of kids to the obvious answer to their problem.
And this has been happening in football for years, and it's only been easier for them to get. The hs football PED usage needs to be talked about honestly, we have small school kids now juicing for small school titles.
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'.
Anyone with brains can debunk this. There is no chance in hell that Kenyans had access to dope that others did not have in the 1960s and 1970s. I dont even have to explain how ridiculous it is to think that people from a poor, recently Independent country had more access to sophisticated drugs than people from a 1st world country who have been independent for 100s of years and have been competing for decades.
As for financial incentives, You think Kenyans are the only ones who want money ?. European and North American runners have much higher financial incentives.
And the notion that corruption is more prevalent in Kenya is bogus. Corruption is rampant all over the west. It is Europe that has a history of state sponsored doping. Mega doping scandals such as Balco and the various cycling scandals happened in Europe and North America.
I find it laughable that anyone would think that a Kenyan is more likely to dope than someone from the UK.
But, Kenya Doping Agency is basically null and void. So, I disagree with your premise. Kenya is far more likely to be doping since there is basically no internal controls for it in Kenya.
I generally agree with this, but two things can be true at the same time.
Given the population of Kenya, and the population of the Kalenjin tribe from which many of the best runners in Kenya hail, there is no way that drugs alone can account for all the Kenyan success. Drugs can't turn a random decent runner into a world class runner -- there has to be a very strong underlying ability for the drugs to do that. The sheer number of world class runners coming out a place like the size of Kenya points to something genetic and environmental going on.
That being said, that doesn't mean that some of the success isn't doping derived. Since no one knows how many Kenyans are doping and how many athletes in other countries are doping, it is impossible to know how much is one vs the other.
Rather than trying to look at Kenyan doping, and attempting to speculate that buried somewhere in the unknown, part of the answer could be doping, I tried looking at it from the other side -- in the best case with all favorable assumptions, what has doping potentially contributed to the distance performances of the much larger populations of non-East Africans, such as the Americans and Europeans and Russians, before the impact of supershoes and superspikes? No non-African doper broke 27:00 in 10000m before Solinsky. No non-African doper broke 2:06 in the marathon before the era of supershoes. Dieter Baumann was the best non-African in 5000m before supershoes, in a race he lost by nearly 13 seconds, with a time 15 seconds off the world record at the time. No non-African doper beat Coe in the 800m before supershoes, and only 2 non-Africans beat Coe in the 1500m before supershoes.
The nearly complete lack of examples leads me to believe that drugs are not powerful enough to allow the best non-Africans to bridge the gap that exists naturally between them and the best Africans.
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.
OK, now let's get real.
US sprinters began using anabolic steroids in the mid-1960's. From that point onward nearly every high level American sprinter was using them and that continued through the next 30+ years.
The BALCO scandal shook things up much more than people realize because it demonstrated how sophisticated PED use had become. If you want to see what a clean 100m championship looks like, review WC's 2003.
There are athletes and coaches out there doing it the right way and getting some success (making teams), but don't kid yourself most high level American sprinters are still using.
BTW, the Euros were every bit as bad as the Americans until the 1990's when they stopped caring about track and don't think for a moment that the South Africans or Botswanans are clean. They've never been.
ya, mexico city was ultra fake, 7300 feet, plus windy backstraight
ucla cali steroid vitamins, 1960 was lift off in the west..
said, as the reality is finally hitting the public domain where policy and discussion may proceed without dillusion.
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.
Haha. Rekrunner, better drugs are definitely good enough to bridge your racist so-called gap between East African runners on lower quality drugs and non-African runners on higher quality drugs for distance running. Exceptions to your so-called gap are numerous including the doped to the gills Chinese superstar Wang Junxia.
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.
Haha. Rekrunner, better drugs are definitely good enough to bridge your racist so-called gap between East African runners on lower quality drugs and non-African runners on higher quality drugs for distance running. Exceptions to your so-called gap are numerous including the doped to the gills Chinese superstar Wang Junxia.
Indeed, just look at the numerous wins of f. ex.: Coe, Decker, Baumann, Yunxia, Schumann, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Ingebritsen, Wightman, Kerr, Hocker, and Gressier.
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.
Haha. Rekrunner, better drugs are definitely good enough to bridge your racist so-called gap between East African runners on lower quality drugs and non-African runners on higher quality drugs for distance running. Exceptions to your so-called gap are numerous including the doped to the gills Chinese superstar Wang Junxia.
You are simply repeating me, as I already mentioned "the potential exception for steroids for women in shorter events".
Having said that, most of the 1990s Chinese records have been beaten now by the East African women, with the exception of the 3000m.
Haha. Rekrunner, better drugs are definitely good enough to bridge your racist so-called gap between East African runners on lower quality drugs and non-African runners on higher quality drugs for distance running. Exceptions to your so-called gap are numerous including the doped to the gills Chinese superstar Wang Junxia.
Indeed, just look at the numerous wins of f. ex.: Coe, Decker, Baumann, Yunxia, Schumann, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Ingebritsen, Wightman, Kerr, Hocker, and Gressier.
What am I supposed to see when I look at these wins? None of these athletes are better than the best East Africans, with the exception of Yunxia in the 3000m (steroids for women), and Ingebrigtsen in the 3000m, with the advantage of supershoes.
Indeed, just look at the numerous wins of f. ex.: Coe, Decker, Baumann, Yunxia, Schumann, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Ingebritsen, Wightman, Kerr, Hocker, and Gressier.
What am I supposed to see when I look at these wins? None of these athletes are better than the best East Africans, with the exception of Yunxia in the 3000m (steroids for women), and Ingebrigtsen in the 3000m, with the advantage of supershoes.
That the statement "Exceptions to your so-called gap are numerous" is correct, hence my "Indeed". Now you are backpedaling with "None of these athletes are better...", and exclude runners in supershoes although they are also available to and worn by Africans. Also, what? Not better? Aren't winners better? Aren't world record holders better?
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?
There are three US sprinters? WOW! I could have sworn that I have read many posts here claiming that US athletes are never banned.
What am I supposed to see when I look at these wins? None of these athletes are better than the best East Africans, with the exception of Yunxia in the 3000m (steroids for women), and Ingebrigtsen in the 3000m, with the advantage of supershoes.
That the statement "Exceptions to your so-called gap are numerous" is correct, hence my "Indeed". Now you are backpedaling with "None of these athletes are better...", and exclude runners in supershoes although they are also available to and worn by Africans. Also, what? Not better? Aren't winners better? Aren't world record holders better?
Backpedalling?
What I said is the same as my initial statement: "Regardless of country, with rare exceptions, the best sprinters are of West African descent, and the best runners are of East African descent."
There is still a significant gap between Coe, Decker, Baumann, Yunxia, Schumann, Radcliffe, Shobukhova, Ingebrigtsen, Wightman, Kerr, Hocker, and Gressier compared to the best runners of East African descent, with the rare exceptions of Yunxia and Ingebrigtsen in the 3000m.
It's also not clear for most of your examples, what role drugs played in their performances bridging the gap, if any, with the rare potential exception Yunxia.
But it is clear that supershoes have helped runners from all countries improve in the last 8 years or so. This is not meant to exclude supershoe performances, but something to take into account when asking if drugs helped non-East Africans bridge the performance gap between them and the best East African runners.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
The simplest answer is that a significant number of successful runners from every country are doping. We try to say it is this country or this coach or these events . . . But it is wishful thinking. I bet almost everyone on this board would say that all cyclists are suspect--regardless of country or coach. We are able to see the truth about another sport but as to our sport we come up with all sorts of stories as to why some athlete/coach/country is clean. . .
Drugs are not hard to find in the US. You want EPO? Send someone to Mexico or pay off someone at a hospital. You want testosterone? Just go into the medicine cabinet of most 50 year old men. People who want to cheat are going to find ways to cheat. People who do not want to cheat will refrain from cheating even when they have the opportunity.
The idea that Kenyans have a special incentive to cheat because of money is dumb. All sorts of people cheat for no good reason. Regina Jacobs was not making millions from her drug use. Barry Bonds was making great money before he cheated. Pete Rose did not need to bet on baseball. Emmanuel Clase did not need to bet on baseball. The kid in gym class who puts his foot on the starting line (not behind it) is not getting more money.
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?
Yes, they are all dirty. I don't really care though. Makes the sport more interesting. If you want to complain about "purity of sport" then get rid of sponsorships. This sport hasn't been "pure" or "equal" for decades.
And yes, I think other countries sprint teams should dope as well, not just the US. Botswana obviously went balls to the wall this year and it made the world championships far more exciting.
The simplest answer is that a significant number of successful runners from every country are doping. We try to say it is this country or this coach or these events . . . But it is wishful thinking. I bet almost everyone on this board would say that all cyclists are suspect--regardless of country or coach. We are able to see the truth about another sport but as to our sport we come up with all sorts of stories as to why some athlete/coach/country is clean. . .
+1
It's a simple answer, but partial -- it's not just the successful runners who are doping. The unsuccessful ones are tested less, if at all, and some want to be successful at all costs. Where there is incentive, there is temptation, regardless of level or success.
If you are doping, you might be successful, or you might not be. If you are successful, you might be doping, or you might not be. Difficult to tell one from the other.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.