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.
Doping does exist around the world but Kenyans are its champions. And you are the dopers' apologist, wherever they may be. It's your disease.
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.
Doping does exist around the world but Kenyans are its champions. And you are the dopers' apologist, wherever they may be. It's your disease.
Oh really? How many Kenyan skiers are doping? How many Kenyan baseball players? How many Kenyan tennis players? Are you sure they are the champions of doping? Of course you are. But you are wrong.
Doping does exist around the world but Kenyans are its champions. And you are the dopers' apologist, wherever they may be. It's your disease.
Oh really? How many Kenyan skiers are doping? How many Kenyan baseball players? How many Kenyan tennis players? Are you sure they are the champions of doping? Of course you are. But you are wrong.
Running is their main sport. I don't care what they do in their minority sports but I doubt it would be much different. They obviously like to cheat.
Doping does exist around the world but Kenyans are its champions. And you are the dopers' apologist, wherever they may be. It's your disease.
So, what do you think how many of the top 1000 (100) distance runners from the various countries/areas are dopers?
Kenya ?
Ethiopia ?
Uganda ?
Morocco ?
Algeria ?
Italy ?
Spain ?
Norway?
Great Britain ?
New Zealand ?
USA ?
Africa ?
Europe ?
America ?
Australia ?
World ?
I said doping is around the world but Kenyans are amongst the worst in the sport - if not the worst. We see that. It doesn't change that to discuss doping country by country.
Just in case you thought doping was limited to Kenyan distance runners - children are fair game as well. Really, what sort of people do this. A terrible thing.
So, what do you think how many of the top 1000 (100) distance runners from the various countries/areas are dopers?
Kenya ?
Ethiopia ?
Uganda ?
Morocco ?
Algeria ?
Italy ?
Spain ?
Norway?
Great Britain ?
New Zealand ?
USA ?
Africa ?
Europe ?
America ?
Australia ?
World ?
I said doping is around the world but Kenyans are amongst the worst in the sport - if not the worst. We see that. It doesn't change that to discuss doping country by country.
Would be of no interest to know the number of dopers in the various countries, right?
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.
Doping does exist around the world but Kenyans are its champions. And you are the dopers' apologist, wherever they may be. It's your disease.
I just can't get this statement "Probability says their top runners are cheaters" out of mind.
But apparently you can -- now it's everything but "probability". Is it because you can't produce the data? What magimatics lets you estimate a fraction, when you lack both the top and bottom numbers?
What do you reckon the "probability" of AIU Kenyan "top runner" dopers is? 10%? 40%? 80%? Out of how many "top" athletes?
I said doping is around the world but Kenyans are amongst the worst in the sport - if not the worst. We see that. It doesn't change that to discuss doping country by country.
Would be of no interest to know the number of dopers in the various countries, right?
You just have absolutely no clue.
The topic is Kenyan doping; not global doping - as one who apparently has no clue what the thread is about. In the context of global doping it is nonetheless unarguable that Kenya is one of the worst in this sport - if not the worst. We don't need to discuss doping country by country in order to know that.
Doping does exist around the world but Kenyans are its champions. And you are the dopers' apologist, wherever they may be. It's your disease.
I just can't get this statement "Probability says their top runners are cheaters" out of mind.
But apparently you can -- now it's everything but "probability". Is it because you can't produce the data? What magimatics lets you estimate a fraction, when you lack both the top and bottom numbers?
What do you reckon the "probability" of AIU Kenyan "top runner" dopers is? 10%? 40%? 80%? Out of how many "top" athletes?
I just can't get this statement "Probability says their top runners are cheaters" out of mind.
But apparently you can -- now it's everything but "probability". Is it because you can't produce the data? What magimatics lets you estimate a fraction, when you lack both the top and bottom numbers?
What do you reckon the "probability" of AIU Kenyan "top runner" dopers is? 10%? 40%? 80%? Out of how many "top" athletes?
Definitely a terminal disease.
So despite drawing a strong conclusion about what "probability says" about Kenya's "top runners", you seem unable to tell me whether that probability is 10% or 40% or 80%. Why is that? Why do you fail to stand by your own statements? Is it because you need things to be simple, and complicating things with numbers is a bridge too far?
Would be of no interest to know the number of dopers in the various countries, right?
You just have absolutely no clue.
The topic is Kenyan doping; not global doping - as one who apparently has no clue what the thread is about. In the context of global doping it is nonetheless unarguable that Kenya is one of the worst in this sport - if not the worst. We don't need to discuss doping country by country in order to know that.
For comparing Kenya to others no need to have any info about those others: Armstronglivs. He doesn't even need numbers about Kenya.
So despite drawing a strong conclusion about what "probability says" about Kenya's "top runners", you seem unable to tell me whether that probability is 10% or 40% or 80%. Why is that? Why do you fail to stand by your own statements? Is it because you need things to be simple, and complicating things with numbers is a bridge too far?
The fact is that doping is throughout Kenyan running; the probability is that any given runner at the top is doping.
Would be of no interest to know the number of dopers in the various countries, right?
You just have absolutely no clue.
The topic is Kenyan doping; not global doping - as one who apparently has no clue what the thread is about. In the context of global doping it is nonetheless unarguable that Kenya is one of the worst in this sport - if not the worst. We don't need to discuss doping country by country in order to know that.
Technically the topic is Kenyan busts, but why not answer the question then just for Kenya? What do you think how many of the top 1000 (100) distance runners from Kenya are dopers?
So despite drawing a strong conclusion about what "probability says" about Kenya's "top runners", you seem unable to tell me whether that probability is 10% or 40% or 80%. Why is that? Why do you fail to stand by your own statements? Is it because you need things to be simple, and complicating things with numbers is a bridge too far?
The fact is that doping is throughout Kenyan running; the probability is that any given runner at the top is doping.
The way you use certain vague words renders your posts meaningless, floating in the ether with no obvious anchor point back into reality to give proper perspective.
"throughout": The fact is that doping is throughout worldwide running. Kenya is not unique. It brings no added value to say that doping is throughout Kenyan running. On the contrary, it takes away value from any point about top runners.
"probabilty": The probability is what? Small? Likely? More likely than not? Without knowing how many runners are tested, and how many top runners are tested, the microscopic window that the AIU provides through busts does not give us any clear indication of the probabilty of doping among top runners.
