The article was initially entiteld, "Zane Robertston!!!!" but we changed it to make it more descriptive. Here is our article on his bust and fake excuses (he said he went to a hospital for a COvid-19 vaccine but they gave him EPO instead) which points out that in 2016 he expressed frutation at the amount of doping in the sport:
Henry Rono (born 12 February 1952, in Kapsabet) is a Kenyan retired track and field athlete who specialised in various long-distance running events. Although he never competed at the Olympics, Rono is remembered as one of the...
Rono actually broke 4 world records in '78. The 5k, 10k, 3k steeple and 3k. In terms of the major track events listed above that makes him the only Kenyan world recorder holder apart from Keino from the early '60's till 1980. Keino set the 3k and 5k records in '65. (The 5k record was demolished the same year by Clarke). All the other world records over the other distances listed were set by non-Kenyans.
Since 1939, when Rudolf Harbig has run 1:46.6 for 800m, the 800 WR always at least was 1.5 seconds stronger than the 880y record (a distance less than 0.6% longer than the 800). Trying to belittle Kenyan running success again and again because no record in the 880y, is hard to beat in its pure ridiculousness.
But Armstrong challenges himself constantly. The last real WRs in the 3 Miles and in the 6 Miles both were set in 1965. After this just a few intermediate times were recogniced.
Pure stupidity and ignorance to ask for those records again and again.
In the 16 year period 1964 - 1979, no other nation has set as many track distance running WRs than Kenya: namely 10.
In the events Kenyans have set no WR in this period, they really came very close to do so:
0.07 s in the 800m
around 1s in the 1000m, the 1500m and in the Mile
The only nation who was close to this in the given period was GB.
They didn't set 10 wr's on the track. Keino set 2 in '65, and Rono 4 in '78.
You will interpret it that way because you are as dense as a brick.
The AIU has identified the existence of elements of a criminal practice. That isn't the same as the bringing of charges against any named individual and obtaining a conviction, which is not the role of the AIU but the police and the Courts.
But of course your diversion to who has been tried and convicted for criminal fraud in this investigation when no charges have been laid is your risible effort to deny what the AIU has uncovered. That's like saying there no black market till someone's been convicted. A denier to your last tiresome gasp.
Once again, instead of sharing knowledge in a field of expertise you claim to possess, you tellingly choose personal insult, with some name calling for good measure, because you believe I threaten your belief in conspiracies.
I know what they AIU said -- but is it correct? Maybe while you were bartending, you met some real lawyers who have the expertise you claim, to interpret it for you, and you could share that with us.
If what the AIU says isn't factually correct, prove it otherwise.
A criminal conviction isn't necessary to confirm the AIU has identified the existence of a criminal practice, which isn't limited to a crime committed by a single identifiable individual. It is analogous to revealing the existence of a drug ring. The conviction of a single offender isn't required to establish that, only the guilt of that offender.
But the most telling aspect of the AIU'S investigation is the degree of organisation and subterfuge it has shown in the doping practices of a country with serious doping issues. Only one who is blindfolded cannot see that.
Why would you say "still"? They were produced for you three months ago.
I gave you a deal.
They weren't. List them next to the events above. You and your little doping denial stooges are making the claim. Support it. But you can't. There are only Keino and Rono. You are totally full of sh*te.
Sure they were. You are still missing 2 Kenyans.
We are also making the claim that you cannot use the search function to answer this easy question for yourself. This is an easy opportunity to prove us wrong.
Another question -- how can I be sure if I supply the names, you will read it? Because this exact question has actually been answered three times by "slowwer": once as a reply to himself on January 5th, once as a reply to you, either the 5th or 6th, and once as a reply to Coevett on the 6th. The reply to you was deleted, because he called you bad names, but not before you quoted it in your response on January 7th.
So here's my offer again: If I supply the names, will you be honest and courageous enough to admit that you were wrong and ignorant and incompetent? Or will you be a keyboard coward, and find some creative way to blame your failures on me and "slowwer"? Are you confident enough in your ability and knowledge to take that risk? Because saying "no", or saying nothing, means you lack self-confidence in your internet search skill competence, and your track history knowledge.
Simply say "yes I accept your offer unconditionally", and I will directly provide you the years, the names of the Kenyans, and the track events, for all 10 world records, from 4 Kenyans, in 4 track events, as you request, but were unable to find out by yourself.
Once again, instead of sharing knowledge in a field of expertise you claim to possess, you tellingly choose personal insult, with some name calling for good measure, because you believe I threaten your belief in conspiracies.
I know what they AIU said -- but is it correct? Maybe while you were bartending, you met some real lawyers who have the expertise you claim, to interpret it for you, and you could share that with us.
If what the AIU says isn't factually correct, prove it otherwise.
A criminal conviction isn't necessary to confirm the AIU has identified the existence of a criminal practice, which isn't limited to a crime committed by a single identifiable individual. It is analogous to revealing the existence of a drug ring. The conviction of a single offender isn't required to establish that, only the guilt of that offender.
But the most telling aspect of the AIU'S investigation is the degree of organisation and subterfuge it has shown in the doping practices of a country with serious doping issues. Only one who is blindfolded cannot see that.
Shifting the burden to "prove otherwise" is a curious way for you to constructively contribute and share knowledge and expertise you say you have.
I didn't require a criminal conviction to suspect a crime -- but the criminal legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty does". That's something I learned from you.
In your educated opinion, according to what the AIU described, was the AIU possibly a victim of a crime? Why does it rise to the level of a crime? Will they report it to the police and prosecute it? Will they file a civil suit?
Seems like someone with a law degree and Bar experience could offer educated commentary, rather than choosing to lob a stream of personal insults and then punting and shifting the burden on the one who took your self-proclaimed credentials for granted.
Since 1939, when Rudolf Harbig has run 1:46.6 for 800m, the 800 WR always at least was 1.5 seconds stronger than the 880y record (a distance less than 0.6% longer than the 800). Trying to belittle Kenyan running success again and again because no record in the 880y, is hard to beat in its pure ridiculousness.
But Armstrong challenges himself constantly. The last real WRs in the 3 Miles and in the 6 Miles both were set in 1965. After this just a few intermediate times were recogniced.
Pure stupidity and ignorance to ask for those records again and again.
In the 16 year period 1964 - 1979, no other nation has set as many track distance running WRs than Kenya: namely 10.
In the events Kenyans have set no WR in this period, they really came very close to do so:
0.07 s in the 800m
around 1s in the 1000m, the 1500m and in the Mile
The only nation who was close to this in the given period was GB.
So what? Kenyan and Ethiopian athletes were in near unique positions in the 60's and 70's. In the casre of Rono, he was recurited to college in the USA when he was in his mid-twenties (despite never attending high school in Kenya), and by an American who clearly believed that Kenyans had 'special adaptations'. So he was able to run full-time during his athletic peak. As soon as Athletics became professional in the 80's, his times were obliterated. And in his summer of breaking four world records, he was destroyed over two miles by a 22 year old Brit who had just ran 1:44.0 in coming second (to a doper) in the European Championships.
If what the AIU says isn't factually correct, prove it otherwise.
A criminal conviction isn't necessary to confirm the AIU has identified the existence of a criminal practice, which isn't limited to a crime committed by a single identifiable individual. It is analogous to revealing the existence of a drug ring. The conviction of a single offender isn't required to establish that, only the guilt of that offender.
But the most telling aspect of the AIU'S investigation is the degree of organisation and subterfuge it has shown in the doping practices of a country with serious doping issues. Only one who is blindfolded cannot see that.
Shifting the burden to "prove otherwise" is a curious way for you to constructively contribute and share knowledge and expertise you say you have.
I didn't require a criminal conviction to suspect a crime -- but the criminal legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty does". That's something I learned from you.
In your educated opinion, according to what the AIU described, was the AIU possibly a victim of a crime? Why does it rise to the level of a crime? Will they report it to the police and prosecute it? Will they file a civil suit?
Seems like someone with a law degree and Bar experience could offer educated commentary, rather than choosing to lob a stream of personal insults and then punting and shifting the burden on the one who took your self-proclaimed credentials for granted.
You can't tell the difference between proof in a court of law of a crime committed by an individual and an investigation that has revealed what appear to be criminal practices. I am not interested in trying to enlighten someone who can't understand that. Your raising an irrelevant point in the discussion doesn't weaken what the AIU has uncovered through its investigations.
They weren't. List them next to the events above. You and your little doping denial stooges are making the claim. Support it. But you can't. There are only Keino and Rono. You are totally full of sh*te.
Sure they were. You are still missing 2 Kenyans.
We are also making the claim that you cannot use the search function to answer this easy question for yourself. This is an easy opportunity to prove us wrong.
Another question -- how can I be sure if I supply the names, you will read it? Because this exact question has actually been answered three times by "slowwer": once as a reply to himself on January 5th, once as a reply to you, either the 5th or 6th, and once as a reply to Coevett on the 6th. The reply to you was deleted, because he called you bad names, but not before you quoted it in your response on January 7th.
So here's my offer again: If I supply the names, will you be honest and courageous enough to admit that you were wrong and ignorant and incompetent? Or will you be a keyboard coward, and find some creative way to blame your failures on me and "slowwer"? Are you confident enough in your ability and knowledge to take that risk? Because saying "no", or saying nothing, means you lack self-confidence in your internet search skill competence, and your track history knowledge.
Simply say "yes I accept your offer unconditionally", and I will directly provide you the years, the names of the Kenyans, and the track events, for all 10 world records, from 4 Kenyans, in 4 track events, as you request, but were unable to find out by yourself.
List the names next to the events I have provided. Oh - you can't.
You can't tell the difference between proof in a court of law of a crime committed by an individual and an investigation that has revealed what appear to be criminal practices. I am not interested in trying to enlighten someone who can't understand that. Your raising an irrelevant point in the discussion doesn't weaken what the AIU has uncovered through its investigations.
I did not raise any point, but invited you to give insightful commentary in a domain you self-claim to have education and experience.
At this point it remains unclear whether your reason for not doing so is a refusal as you suggest, rather than inability. I predicted you would "be a keyboard coward, and find some creative way to blame your failures on me", and you only confirmed my prediction.
I don't doubt that your interest lies in false arrogance and personal insult, rather than establishing credibility with constructive contributions in your domain, and blaming me for your choice.
You can't tell the difference between proof in a court of law of a crime committed by an individual and an investigation that has revealed what appear to be criminal practices. I am not interested in trying to enlighten someone who can't understand that. Your raising an irrelevant point in the discussion doesn't weaken what the AIU has uncovered through its investigations.
I did not raise any point, but invited you to give insightful commentary in a domain you self-claim to have education and experience.
At this point it remains unclear whether your reason for not doing so is a refusal as you suggest, rather than inability. I predicted you would "be a keyboard coward, and find some creative way to blame your failures on me", and you only confirmed my prediction.
I don't doubt that your interest lies in false arrogance and personal insult, rather than establishing credibility with constructive contributions in your domain, and blaming me for your choice.
You are slow to pick this up but I have no respect for you, your intelligence or your integrity. You make no "constructive contributions". That is why I am not interested in engaging with you on this subject. Your view as to why I don't is your usual self-serving garbage.
List the names next to the events I have provided. Oh - you can't.
Simply say the words "yes I accept your offer unconditionally", and I promise to quickly put an end to your months of ignorant/incompetent flapping like a fish.
You are slow to pick this up but I have no respect for you, your intelligence or your integrity. You make no "constructive contributions". That is why I am not interested in engaging with you on this subject. Your view as to why I don't is your usual self-serving garbage.
More confirmation you are pretending to make a choice, and then blaming your choice on me.
It's also another example of a long list of claims you make, but eventually fail to substantiate when asked, while blaming others for that failure.
It is clear your interest lies in false arrogance and personal insults.
Why would you say "still"? They were produced for you three months ago.
I gave you a deal.
They weren't. List them next to the events above. You and your little doping denial stooges are making the claim. Support it. But you can't. There are only Keino and Rono. You are totally full of sh*te.
Yes they were. On page 43. Why do you persist with this lie?
List the names next to the events I have provided. Oh - you can't.
Simply say the words "yes I accept your offer unconditionally", and I promise to quickly put an end to your months of ignorant/incompetent flapping like a fish.
What are you afraid of?
I'm waiting for you to list the names next to the events I identified from 800 to the marathon.You claimed there were many more Kenyan world record holders between 1965-80 than the two I could find. Put up or shut up.
They weren't. List them next to the events above. You and your little doping denial stooges are making the claim. Support it. But you can't. There are only Keino and Rono. You are totally full of sh*te.
Yes they were. On page 43. Why do you persist with this lie?
Is it really so hard for you to put a name next to the events I listed? I suppose it is when there aren't many.
You are slow to pick this up but I have no respect for you, your intelligence or your integrity. You make no "constructive contributions". That is why I am not interested in engaging with you on this subject. Your view as to why I don't is your usual self-serving garbage.
More confirmation you are pretending to make a choice, and then blaming your choice on me.
It's also another example of a long list of claims you make, but eventually fail to substantiate when asked, while blaming others for that failure.
It is clear your interest lies in false arrogance and personal insults.
But you earn every one. There isn't a bigger liar and propagandist on these boards.
Once again, instead of sharing knowledge in a field of expertise you claim to possess, you tellingly choose personal insult, with some name calling for good measure, because you believe I threaten your belief in conspiracies.
I know what they AIU said -- but is it correct? Maybe while you were bartending, you met some real lawyers who have the expertise you claim, to interpret it for you, and you could share that with us.
If what the AIU says isn't factually correct, prove it otherwise.
A criminal conviction isn't necessary to confirm the AIU has identified the existence of a criminal practice, which isn't limited to a crime committed by a single identifiable individual. It is analogous to revealing the existence of a drug ring. The conviction of a single offender isn't required to establish that, only the guilt of that offender.
But the most telling aspect of the AIU'S investigation is the degree of organisation and subterfuge it has shown in the doping practices of a country with serious doping issues. Only one who is blindfolded cannot see that.
If it had been serious and organised they would not have invented a clearly non existing Doctor.
My guess is that inventing medical excuses and lies has been the simple way out of problems ; hardly sophisticated criminal conspiracy.
The legal implications of the AIU investigation that led to a suggestion of "a conspiracy to commit fraud" are quite simple.
The AIU discovered a practice where individuals were apparently working together in breach of the laws and rules that apply to medical practice in order to circumvent rules that apply to sporting competition. Their working together is a "conspiracy" when it has an unlawful motive; the breach of rules applying to medical practice (the passing off of communications and certification purporting to be from a medical professional, who was nonexistent) is unlawful, and the purpose of this conspiracy to defeat rules that apply to the participation in sport constitutes the basis of a "fraud". According to the AIU, that is what the facts of their investigation suggest is occurring.
To bring criminal charges against anyone involved requires that a) they were involved, b) they committed unlawful acts (which is conspiracy to commit a fraud), and c) they did so with intent. To prove the latter all it requires is that it be shown they knew what they were doing. The responsibility for bringing offenders to account under the criminal law is solely that of the police and the courts, who may use the information the AIU has uncovered as evidence.
