"Any Kenyan who wins a race of importance is likely a cheater."
So more than 50% of those Kenyans are cheaters.
Ah so you do understand! Did my explanation ("i.e. over 50% of them") help?
So why did you pretend you didn't understand, and kept lying about what I said, and then faked outrage?
I have not lied about everything here, which I have told you before. I have faked nothing.
Your initial reply to Armstrong's "Any Kenyan (of some level) IS a cheater":
You are pushing it. Add a "likely" and "of importance" to your statement, and I go along with it: Any Kenyan who wins a race of importance is likely a cheater.
I was not sure what was meant with the statement.
- for any one of the big group of those Kenyans it's likely he/she is a cheater
- all of them are likely cheaters
So, you believe for a given Kenyan from this group it is more likely he/she is a cheater than not.
But the "chance" for some randomly choosen Kenyan from the group to be a cheater also could be 40% or 30% or..., right?
How did you come to your faith?
And great that you "go along with it" with a completely different statement than the one from Madstronglivs.
There's a post above that answers your question with yet another of their marathon winners banned (and we know doping doesn't help marathon runners - so you say). It's getting like swatting flies now for the AIU.
I guess the answer to my question must be "no" then. You didn't have that data point when you posted.
Are you trying to suggest Hosea Kimeli is one of Kenya's "top runners"? I think we have different ideas about how many runners can fit on the top of Kenya's pyramid of talent.
Sure, he did win the Zagreb marathon -- but in a time of 2:25:23, in a stacked field where 2nd was a Rwandan 2:29:16, and 3rd was a Croatian 2:30:51. This would rank 1308th best performance -- FOR THE WOMEN. In 2023, he is currently ranked 815 in the marathon. He is too slow to appear on my preferred "alltime athletics" listings. His best marathon is 2:17:01 - significantly slower than Abebe Bikila's barefoot 1960 Rome Marathon -- long before blood doping and EPO were popular. A 2:17 is probably not enough to put him in the top-5000 alltime. His best overall performance is a 1:01:59 in the half-marathon, 8 years ago in 2015. I'm not even sure that would put him in the top-1500 alltime.
Is that one of your best data points that you used to determine what probability says about Kenya's top-runners doping?
You moron. The post above with some of the latest sanctions against Kenyan athletes is simply a continuation of what has been happening for years. You are so ph*qing moronic you act as though it is the first and only time it has happened. You also pretend that only the lower level athletes dope when Kenyan world record holders and Olympic champions have been busted. The AIU and WADA have never suggested the top athletes aren't doping. The post merely shows that doping in Kenya is at all levels. You are certifiable.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
Ah so you do understand! Did my explanation ("i.e. over 50% of them") help?
So why did you pretend you didn't understand, and kept lying about what I said, and then faked outrage?
I have not lied about everything here, which I have told you before. I have faked nothing.
Your initial reply to Armstrong's "Any Kenyan (of some level) IS a cheater":
You are pushing it. Add a "likely" and "of importance" to your statement, and I go along with it: Any Kenyan who wins a race of importance is likely a cheater.
I was not sure what was meant with the statement.
- for any one of the big group of those Kenyans it's likely he/she is a cheater
- all of them are likely cheaters
So, you believe for a given Kenyan from this group it is more likely he/she is a cheater than not.
But the "chance" for some randomly choosen Kenyan from the group to be a cheater also could be 40% or 30% or..., right?
How did you come to your faith?
And great that you "go along with it" with a completely different statement than the one from Madstronglivs.
You lost the argument about Kenyan doping years ago. Every latest violation makes you look like an idiot.
I have not lied about everything here, which I have told you before. I have faked nothing.
Your initial reply to Armstrong's "Any Kenyan (of some level) IS a cheater":
You are pushing it. Add a "likely" and "of importance" to your statement, and I go along with it: Any Kenyan who wins a race of importance is likely a cheater.
I was not sure what was meant with the statement.
- for any one of the big group of those Kenyans it's likely he/she is a cheater
- all of them are likely cheaters
So, you believe for a given Kenyan from this group it is more likely he/she is a cheater than not.
But the "chance" for some randomly choosen Kenyan from the group to be a cheater also could be 40% or 30% or..., right?
How did you come to your faith?
And great that you "go along with it" with a completely different statement than the one from Madstronglivs.
You lost the argument about Kenyan doping years ago. Every latest violation makes you look like an idiot.
You moron. The post above with some of the latest sanctions against Kenyan athletes is simply a continuation of what has been happening for years. You are so ph*qing moronic you act as though it is the first and only time it has happened. You also pretend that only the lower level athletes dope when Kenyan world record holders and Olympic champions have been busted. The AIU and WADA have never suggested the top athletes aren't doping. The post merely shows that doping in Kenya is at all levels. You are certifiable.
Recall you said "Probability says their top runners are cheaters."
Maybe you don't know what the mathematical term "probability" means, or you are just using the term figuratively to trigger emotions. But "probability" fundamentally requires data to calculate, i.e. the ratio of doped top Kenyan runners over all top Kenyan runners.
Hence the obvious question requesting your data.
Your "continuation of what has been happening for years" is insufficient to suggest any probability, as it neglects the size of the pool of athletes. More concretely, if you want to include the 5000th ranked Kenyan marathoner in your "probability says" calculation, then your "continuation" needs to show that more than 2500 Kenyan marathoners are doped, out of that pool of 5000.
You moron. The post above with some of the latest sanctions against Kenyan athletes is simply a continuation of what has been happening for years. You are so ph*qing moronic you act as though it is the first and only time it has happened. You also pretend that only the lower level athletes dope when Kenyan world record holders and Olympic champions have been busted. The AIU and WADA have never suggested the top athletes aren't doping. The post merely shows that doping in Kenya is at all levels. You are certifiable.
Recall you said "Probability says their top runners are cheaters."
Maybe you don't know what the mathematical term "probability" means, or you are just using the term figuratively to trigger emotions. But "probability" fundamentally requires data to calculate, i.e. the ratio of doped top Kenyan runners over all top Kenyan runners.
Hence the obvious question requesting your data.
Your "continuation of what has been happening for years" is insufficient to suggest any probability, as it neglects the size of the pool of athletes. More concretely, if you want to include the 5000th ranked Kenyan marathoner in your "probability says" calculation, then your "continuation" needs to show that more than 2500 Kenyan marathoners are doped, out of that pool of 5000.
The data that we can rely on to show the probability of Kenya's doping is the constant flushing out of the dopers by the AIU. It has gone on for years and shows no signs of ending. It is at all levels in their sport. How many crooked athletes do we have find (there have been over two hundred) in order to conclude their sport is crooked?
The data that we can rely on to show the probability of Kenya's doping is the constant flushing out of the dopers by the AIU. It has gone on for years and shows no signs of ending. It is at all levels in their sport. How many crooked athletes do we have find (there have been over two hundred) in order to conclude their sport is crooked?
Recall again you said "Probability says their top runners are cheaters", not "their sport is crooked" -- changing the goalpost.
As I explained, the data you rely on is insufficient to calculate probabilities.
You said "top runners", and now you say "all levels", again lowering your goalpost.
Rekrunner is an obvious troll. Please please ignore him or her.
Obviously- but he is always so hungry for attention!
Everyone wants to pretend to be a psychologist.
I get a lot of unwanted attention. I am only hungry for facts, evidence, and observations, so that I may draw my own logical conclusions. I do not have any appetite for bias and fallacy and faith.
Armstronglivs spoke of probability -- one of the areas of math I studied with great interest. It seems obvious to request the data he uses to estimate such probabilities for Kenya's top athletes. His response focuses on a numerator, but probabilities are a ratio, requiring knowing the corresponding denominator, to arrive at a fraction between 0 and 1 (inclusive).
Rekrunner is an obvious troll. Please please ignore him or her.
Borrowing the psychologist's hat, I really have to wonder at the psychology behind calling me an obvious troll, simply for asking for the data Armstronglivs uses to estimate "probabilities" -- a quantity that can only be calculated with data from a representative cross-section of a population.
It's like people do not want to admit that they have believed for years/decades, does not logically follow from all the known facts, evidence and observations, but relies heavily on its very assumption. Is it intellectual insecurity? Denial? A fear of admitting what you thought you knew for so long has never been knowledge? A longing to belong to a group of like-minded people?
Putting back on the mathematician's hat, If we go with his "over 200 Kenyans", there are still two unknowns (ignoring the uncertainty of what he really means by "top runners"): how large the tested Kenyan population is, and how to adjust the number of busts to the number of dopers. In other words, both his numerator and denominator are unknown -- requiring favorable assumptions to arrive at his conclusion of what "probability says ...".
The data that we can rely on to show the probability of Kenya's doping is the constant flushing out of the dopers by the AIU. It has gone on for years and shows no signs of ending. It is at all levels in their sport. How many crooked athletes do we have find (there have been over two hundred) in order to conclude their sport is crooked?
Recall again you said "Probability says their top runners are cheaters", not "their sport is crooked" -- changing the goalpost.
As I explained, the data you rely on is insufficient to calculate probabilities.
You said "top runners", and now you say "all levels", again lowering your goalpost.
I'll make it really simple for you. All the evidence points to the fact that Kenyan running is crooked. We see their best athletes doping along with journeymen. Their sport can't be trusted. But, by all means, slither around and look for loopholes so you don't have to acknowledge reality. That's what you do.
Lol you didn't simply ask for data - you asked for data for 1,000,000 times in your over 10,000 posts over and over again. For data, that you surely must know by now but still pretend to not exist.
Not to mention your 100,000 troll posts under your letter salad troll sock puppets.
Recall again you said "Probability says their top runners are cheaters", not "their sport is crooked" -- changing the goalpost.
As I explained, the data you rely on is insufficient to calculate probabilities.
You said "top runners", and now you say "all levels", again lowering your goalpost.
I'll make it really simple for you. All the evidence points to the fact that Kenyan running is crooked. We see their best athletes doping along with journeymen. Their sport can't be trusted. But, by all means, slither around and look for loopholes so you don't have to acknowledge reality. That's what you do.
You keep changing the subject. If you can't stand by your own claims, why should I be expected to accept them?
Everything you say is really simple. But this new goalpost doesn't help you determine what probability says about Kenya's "top runners" doping.
Given your repeated representation that as many as 1 in 2 athletes are doped, the "crooked running" is not unique to Kenya, but exists around the world.
Lol you didn't simply ask for data - you asked for data for 1,000,000 times in your over 10,000 posts over and over again. For data, that you surely must know by now but still pretend to not exist.
Not to mention your 100,000 troll posts under your letter salad troll sock puppets.
Technically I did not even ask for the data, but asked if Armstronglivs possessed the ability to provide it: "Can you provide the data you used to determine probability?"
For someone who has already concluded what probability says, that should be an easy request to fulfill. As everyone can see for themselves, that answer is clearly "no".
Sure some data does exist and some data has been provided, and I have much, if not all, of that limited data. As I have clearly explained, all of the data I "surely must know by now" from all sources over all time is still insufficient to enable me to estimate the probability of Kenya's top runners that are doping.
I can only conclude that Armstronglivs is using the term figuratively as his own emotional release and to trigger emotional responses. It worked.