We can't deny the existence of a doping culture in Kenya, but we need to understand the reasons which affect not only Kenya or Africa, but all the world.
Big pharma (and wheapons factories) are 2 in the top 3 business in the world. This fact can explain because the level of doping grows in any Country, and because at the moment there are in Africa 27 different wars, that never go to the end, because for Contries producing and selling wheapons this is a business they don't want to lose.
Today, in TV and in Media, there is a continuous brainwash for presenting supplements as absolutely necessary for a better life, also for people not doing any physical work.
This mentality, in the last 10-15 years, built very deep roots in the mind of the young generation, in every Country, and not only for athletes training in hard way in any kind of sport. If sedentary people take a lot of supplements, there is no reason because athletes (professional or not, strong or less strong) don't follow the wave, looking for external aids.
The ground is too fertil for cultivating the idea of a widespread doping, and the cultural individual level can do the difference.
This is one of the reasons that don't make me to accept the current behavior of antidoping: the overevaluation of a role of many substances considered illegal on the performances, at the end is a stimulus for people who want to dope, hoping to be lucky and not tested, thinking to have big advantages, that really don't exist.
The chain is clear : with doping, athletes think the recovery can be quicker, and they can train more, both in volume and intensity. So, the direct connection with the level of the performance is between training and performance itself, and the influence of doping can have an INDIRECT action on the performance.
But the question is : How many athletes tried to reach the same level of volume and intensity in training, WITHOUT ANY DOPING, in clean way ? Are we sure that is it not possible to train in the best way without looking for some external aid (legal or illegal, the mentality is the same) ? Are we sure that 3 hard session per week can produce more results than 2 sessions of higher intensity, with longer recovery in the middle ?
What I want to say is that it's possible to have athletes bettering WR without any doping and with limited use of legal supplements, changing the training system.
This means that the idea that "if the athlete number 5 in the world is doped, it's not possible the 4 athletes in front of him are clean" is a total stupidity, because doesn't consider the different individual talent, and different type of training.
I never gave my athletes supplements (I speak abou legal substances) because I think athletes asking for external aid go to limit the co, and this is not a theorynfidence in their own strength. This was the experience I had with my top athletes, who always refused to take something because wanted to be the number one in the world thanks to their own qualities, and this motivation was of sure stronger than any drug they could take. This was for Shaheen in steeple, for Bordin and Baldini Olympic Champions in Marathon, for Moses Mosop WR holder of 25 and 30 km on track, for Florence Kiplagat WR holder of HM, and for all my athletes before 2015. Only after that date, somebody started to ask if could have some supplement "because other athletes used", and I never gave explaining the reasons because I don't believe in the real effect.
Yes, I don't have any proof that my athletes couldn't run faster with doping, this is a theory only. But I have the proof that in clean way was possible to win 14 times World Championships, to better 3 WR on track and 6 WR on road (without to consider some European record and many NR in different Countries), and this is not a theory, but a fact.
Earlier this year, the AIU announced that the AIU/ADAK was significantly increasing the testing of second-tier athletes, more than doubling (~2.5x) the total registered pool of athletes tested, and nearly tripling (~2.9x) the number of Kenyan tests for the year 2023.
Even if we assumed "world average" prevalence (not to mention unintentional doping due to negligence during medical treatments, and a lack of anti-doping information and education) within such a large pool of talented athletes, no one should be surprised by an increase in the number of busts from "the tier of athletes underneath those in the Road Running Integrity Programme".
The AIU said in July:
"Increasing the depth of testing in a country with so much talent is vitally important"
"That pyramid (of top-class athletes) is hundreds, or even thousands, of athletes"
"Given the increased testing that will take place, this number (of AAFs) is expected to rise in the coming months."
We can't deny the existence of a doping culture in Kenya, but we need to understand the reasons which affect not only Kenya or Africa, but all the world.
Big pharma (and wheapons factories) are 2 in the top 3 business in the world. This fact can explain because the level of doping grows in any Country, and because at the moment there are in Africa 27 different wars, that never go to the end, because for Contries producing and selling wheapons this is a business they don't want to lose.
Today, in TV and in Media, there is a continuous brainwash for presenting supplements as absolutely necessary for a better life, also for people not doing any physical work.
This mentality, in the last 10-15 years, built very deep roots in the mind of the young generation, in every Country, and not only for athletes training in hard way in any kind of sport. If sedentary people take a lot of supplements, there is no reason because athletes (professional or not, strong or less strong) don't follow the wave, looking for external aids.
The ground is too fertil for cultivating the idea of a widespread doping, and the cultural individual level can do the difference.
This is one of the reasons that don't make me to accept the current behavior of antidoping: the overevaluation of a role of many substances considered illegal on the performances, at the end is a stimulus for people who want to dope, hoping to be lucky and not tested, thinking to have big advantages, that really don't exist.
The chain is clear : with doping, athletes think the recovery can be quicker, and they can train more, both in volume and intensity. So, the direct connection with the level of the performance is between training and performance itself, and the influence of doping can have an INDIRECT action on the performance.
But the question is : How many athletes tried to reach the same level of volume and intensity in training, WITHOUT ANY DOPING, in clean way ? Are we sure that is it not possible to train in the best way without looking for some external aid (legal or illegal, the mentality is the same) ? Are we sure that 3 hard session per week can produce more results than 2 sessions of higher intensity, with longer recovery in the middle ?
What I want to say is that it's possible to have athletes bettering WR without any doping and with limited use of legal supplements, changing the training system.
This means that the idea that "if the athlete number 5 in the world is doped, it's not possible the 4 athletes in front of him are clean" is a total stupidity, because doesn't consider the different individual talent, and different type of training.
I never gave my athletes supplements (I speak abou legal substances) because I think athletes asking for external aid go to limit the co, and this is not a theorynfidence in their own strength. This was the experience I had with my top athletes, who always refused to take something because wanted to be the number one in the world thanks to their own qualities, and this motivation was of sure stronger than any drug they could take. This was for Shaheen in steeple, for Bordin and Baldini Olympic Champions in Marathon, for Moses Mosop WR holder of 25 and 30 km on track, for Florence Kiplagat WR holder of HM, and for all my athletes before 2015. Only after that date, somebody started to ask if could have some supplement "because other athletes used", and I never gave explaining the reasons because I don't believe in the real effect.
Yes, I don't have any proof that my athletes couldn't run faster with doping, this is a theory only. But I have the proof that in clean way was possible to win 14 times World Championships, to better 3 WR on track and 6 WR on road (without to consider some European record and many NR in different Countries), and this is not a theory, but a fact.
So it is the fault of antidoping that so many athletes dope, because banning drugs actually persuades athletes they will get better results from doping? Reverse psychology at work. You'll do it if you're told not to - even if that's not the intended outcome. It must work if it's banned. It's obviously all the fault then of WADA and antidoping. They should legitimise and not ban doping; by legalising it they are saying it doesn't work. Then the athletes won't be tempted to dope. Sure.
And then there's the point that with no experience of doping or coaching athletes that you know have doped you know for a fact that they can get better results clean. To be sure of that, wouldn't you have needed to actually observe the effects of drugs on their performances?
Renato, you may be an expert on elite athletic performance - because you have years of experience of that - but you have none of doping. Are you an expert also on medicines that your athletes might use if they fall sick? You know what works better for their sickness than their doctors do? Those that advise WADA are experts on drugs and the effects those drugs have on the human body. Many athletes have direct experience of those drugs - in every kind of sport. The pharmaceutical experts, doctors and athletes all know more about it than you. And the athletes dope because they get better results than if they compete clean. Or they are simple-minded morons who will believe anything. Is that really Lance Armstrong?
Earlier this year, the AIU announced that the AIU/ADAK was significantly increasing the testing of second-tier athletes, more than doubling (~2.5x) the total registered pool of athletes tested, and nearly tripling (~2.9x) the number of Kenyan tests for the year 2023.
Even if we assumed "world average" prevalence (not to mention unintentional doping due to negligence during medical treatments, and a lack of anti-doping information and education) within such a large pool of talented athletes, no one should be surprised by an increase in the number of busts from "the tier of athletes underneath those in the Road Running Integrity Programme".
The AIU said in July:
"Increasing the depth of testing in a country with so much talent is vitally important"
"That pyramid (of top-class athletes) is hundreds, or even thousands, of athletes"
"Given the increased testing that will take place, this number (of AAFs) is expected to rise in the coming months."
Increasing the testing of Kenyan athletes - which you say is the cause of so many busts - is analogous to cracking down on organised crime. You would expect to catch more fish than if you were going after honest business folks.
What I want to say is that it's possible to have athletes bettering WR without any doping and with limited use of legal supplements, changing the training system.
This means that the idea that "if the athlete number 5 in the world is doped, it's not possible the 4 athletes in front of him are clean" is a total stupidity, because doesn't consider the different individual talent, and different type of training.
It's possible they are not doped... but when you have athletes at the very top beating the times of known dopers by significant margins it is pragmatic to conclude they may likely be doping as well.
So doping does work for Kenyans, just like everyone else?
Did it "work" for everyone else?
That's why they dope in the numbers they do, in every sport, and for decades - that is, unless Lance Armstrong and everyone else who has doped (and their coaches, trainers and physicians - and especially Kenyan distance runners, who dope in their droves), is a simple-minded moron who doesn't realise doping is no more effective than scattering chicken entrails on the ground.
Because you cannot bear the thought that your favourite athletes dope you wrongly infer that a lack of authoritative data on how much drugs will aid marathon runners' performances (because doped runners don't provide that data) allows the inference that drugs don't aid their performances. Wrong. Lack of data on performance doesn't prove there is no performance gain. In essence, your position is that if you don't know something then it doesn't exist. Yet so many athletes still choose to dope. You are then reduced to suggesting they must be gullible dupes - with no evidence for maintaining that. It is an argument based on your ignorance of the subject - if you can't see performance gains the athletes that dope must be fools.
Armstronglivs, you don't catch the point. I don't have experience of doping, because I believe in training only. Maybe my athletes could improve with doping, maybe not, because there is no proof of what could happen, everything is pure speculation.
But explain me why I have to think not possible to be at the top in clean way, when I had this experience personally, and this is a fact, not a specualtion.
The same when we speak about the advantages of the new shoes.
I had athletes as Moses Mosop (2:03:06 his first marathon, and 40 days later WR of 25 km and 30 km on track) who used shoes with 16mm of sole, we looked for shoes with very thin sole, exactly the opposite of the shoes of today. And I had another athlete, good but of sure not in the category of top champions (Jonathan Maiyo), who in one year ran 5 times between 59'02" and 59'28" in HM, and 2:04:56 in marathon wearing Mizuno with the sole of 10mm in front and 14mm rear. So, tell me, when I hear to speak about 4 min of advantage, do you think I can believe this is reality, or propaganda only ?
Armstronglivs, you don't catch the point. I don't have experience of doping, because I believe in training only. Maybe my athletes could improve with doping, maybe not, because there is no proof of what could happen, everything is pure speculation.
Incredible. In the one sentence you say you have no experience with doping, in the other you say their performance enhancing effects are purely speculative. Just leave this topic to people who do have experience or actually understand the chemistry behind the PEDs.
Secondly, there is never going to be a RCT study comparing doped athletes to natural ones, that is not an ethical study to conduct. That is not an excuse to claim there is no evidence for the efficacy of PEDs, only a moron would suggest that.
A moron is who doesn't think possible to beat a WR without doping. This is exactly what happened with some of my athletes. This was not a supposition, but a FACT, and who thinks doping can give big advantage has to explain how was possible to beat some WR in clean way.