Is Sebastian Coe the only white distance runner in the top 10?

[3.1]Miles Davis wrote:

Viren over Said - multi time WR holder and four time gold medalist. Peter Snell should be in the conversation - three gold medals and two WR's.

Also, unrelated to the white part, Farah absolutely deserves a place on this list. He didn't break any big wr's, but if you compare everyone after 2005 to KB then no one will ever measure up again, but that doesnt mean he isn't still th greatest tactician of all-time. 10 gold and 2 silver medals at worlds or Olympics is not an accident. Its so so impressive.

Snell, like Coe, was a middle distance runner.

When are some of you ever going to figure out that there is a difference between the middle distance and distance categories?

Coevett wrote:

GTFO loser wrote:

No we are upset that you, COEVETT, are still allowed to post on this site. Really, what are the Mods on this site thinking? Every post that you make brings down the average IQ a few points for every one of us. Please do everyone a kindness and disappear.

??? Only a low IQ moran would think I'm the racist here. The OP is a racist (anti-white) troll thread, and I'm correct to point out that nearly all of these 'greatest ever' runners were active during the single decade or so when EPO became available and was untestable for. The odds of these runners being the greatest ever without drugs is about zero.

Again, can you PROVE it? You are constantly making serious accusations on this matter and it's about time to remind you and LECTURE you on this, as if you were a child. Are you aware that in matters of law (which applies here since you are the one doing the LIBEL...written defamation) what you believe is irrelevant? What matters is what you can PROVE. If you can't PROVE it, shut your pie hole since your opinion is as good as used toilet paper until you can produce some EVIDENCE and PROOF.

mooonshot wrote:

Some simple logic for those on the board-

The whole athletics world has doping.

It impacts every country, from the highest GDP to the lowest.

Even with all the doping, the talent out of Eastern Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda) trumps by pure numbers that of any other nation based on performance list.

Every year there are 1.2 million more UK Men competing in athletics than in all of EA.

Every year there are 1 million + more in the USA competing in athletics than in all of EA.

USA/UK dominate more in the sprints, power, explosion. Is that because of an emphasis on nandrolone, deca, steroids, or genetically are they more predisposed to succeed in explosive sports like Western Africa?

Muscles biopsies can be studied everywhere. Research it.

Just about every line of racist rot there is bull.

1.2 million more UK men competing in athletics than in all of EA. So that includes the 50 minute obese single mothers taking part in Parkruns I guess.

An 18 year old Norwegian kid (and his older brother) just whipped all but two of East Africa's finest.

Even if it were true that 'everybody dopes' as you wish to believe, it's manifestly obvious that East Africans have had a licence to dope themselves silly for decades, slowly changing.

Believing that one race is genetically superior to another contrary, no matter what facts come to light. Now that's real hardcore racism.

Looks like the real failures at comprehension here are: You don't know what "unreliable" means. Coevett doesn't know what "substantive proof" means.

Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Contrary to Rekrunner's pseudo-scientific playing around with stats, the fact that European 1500m running went into clear decline in the 90s, despite EPO becoming available and producing ridiculous times elsewhere, is substantive proof that there wasn't a doping culture in Europe in the 80s (aside of course from the Soviet Bloc).

+1

And this is what "rekrunner" fails to comprehend with his supercilious attitude of always referencing his unreliable data on this topic.

I can understand your aversion to numbers, as they quickly contradict you. No sooner do you suggest that "Kenya and GB have the same number in the top 20", someone quickly fact checks that Kenya has 9, and GB has 2 in the top 20. You made a labored point to suggest that Kenya should outnumber GB by a factor of 20, and then inventing an alternate reality that they are equal. I didn't fact check the fact checker, but if so, we quickly saw that the factor was still 4.5x for the 1500, but for a longer event, I gave another source that calculated the factor was as high as 1700x. Other numbers related to "proven rampant and confirmed": WADA gave us numbers showing Kenya is "proven and confirmed" to dope as much as European countries like France and Italy WADA told us that there were only 16 "proven and confirmed" Kenyan cases of EPO between 2004 and 1 August 2018. And I honestly don't follow your logic here. You suggest, that the fact that Europeans peaked in 1500m in mid to late '80s, and was not be bettered by non-Africans with EPO, suggests that these peak 1980s times are proven clean? This seems to run contrary to the belief that peak times can only be achieved with doping -- the same belief you apply to Kenyans, you refuse to apply to Europeans of the 1980s. Others have argued that this peak in the 1980s, never replicated again, outside of Africa, is "substantive proof" of steroids and blood transfusions by the Europeans, by applying the same logic you only reserve for Kenyans and more generally East and North Africans.

Coevett wrote:

Contrary to Rekrunner's pseudo-scientific playing around with stats, the fact that European 1500m running went into clear decline in the 90s, despite EPO becoming available and producing ridiculous times elsewhere, is substantive proof that there wasn't a doping culture in Europe in the 80s (aside of course from the Soviet Bloc).

+1000

His silence is deafening.

I bet he is still enjoying them Kenyan potatoes he and his boys got served last night.

How do you like them potatoes?

This is a good question that bears repeating and deep reflection. If performance enhancing drug use is "rampant", and it is naive to think performance enhancing drugs are not highly "effective", even for the fastest runners, we should not expect to see long term single outliers, or narrow regional dominance consistently from the same relatively small populations.

very serious question wrote:

This doesn't explain why a single runner could dominate for 10 years (and could go on after the perioud to set many more WRs)

You consider someone who, broke the WR at the 1500m and the WR over the similar distance of 1 mile three times (more than any other since WW2) , and the only male to retain the Olympic title over the distance, to be someone 'who could race well over the distance'? He is one of the all-time great 1500m runners, 800m runners and by definition middle distance runners.

No, he was born in the East End and comes English cockney roots.

Yres, I'll give you that. He was a middle-distance runner not a distance runner, but in this thread I presume the OP is referring to any athlete not a sprinter; i.e. 800m +!?

No, he is 3/4 English and can trace his family tree back many centuries.

Let me help you out, OP. Drop Aouita and Kiptanui for Nurmi and Viren. Some people are also taking issue with Komen. I share wtfunny's view:

For those who disagree, we can remove Komen and add Zatopek or Elliott instead. I'm assuming this is a middle and long distance list based on your inclusion of Coe.

rekrunner wrote:

This is a good question that bears repeating and deep reflection.

If performance enhancing drug use is "rampant", and it is naive to think performance enhancing drugs are not highly "effective", even for the fastest runners, we should not expect to see long term single outliers, or narrow regional dominance consistently from the same relatively small populations.

It's tempting to attribute this success to specific genetic advantage, but there doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence for such an explanation.

In summary, the genotyping of two candidate genes to assess the phenomenal physical performance observed among African runners did not show them to be the determinants for the sporting success in medium- and long-distance running. However, in order to exclude the possibility of genetic factors being directly responsible for the Africans’ performance, other studies need to be undertaken to investigate the frequency of variants from other nuclear candidate genes, in these specific cohorts

something to think about wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This is a good question that bears repeating and deep reflection.

If performance enhancing drug use is "rampant", and it is naive to think performance enhancing drugs are not highly "effective", even for the fastest runners, we should not expect to see long term single outliers, or narrow regional dominance consistently from the same relatively small populations.

It's tempting to attribute this success to specific genetic advantage, but there doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence for such an explanation.

At least Rekrunner is being explicit as to his motivation to simultaneously accuse EVERYONE of doping AND claiming that doping doesn't work.

Well, I guess having a fetish for the idea that East Africans are some kind of subset of humanity with radically different genes isn't as bad as being a paid up Russian troll.

But sorry Rekrunner, the level of proven and indisputable doping coming out of Kenya is at the point now where we should be wondering why Kenyans aren't more dominant than they are and have been.

When you say "EVERYONE", in reality what *I* accuse athletes of is indicated by WADA published ADRV reports, and by different prevalence studies: - An estimated 15% (men) to 22% (women) IAAF athletes blood dope -- maybe less according to the study authors - At least 29%-34% of WC track athletes (men and women, sprinters, field and distance) dope -- maybe more according to the study authors - Once I said "up to 57%", which comes from Pan Arab athletes across 28 sports More studies are needed. When you say "doping doesn't work", in reality I only ask the same question you just did -- why weren't non-Africans more dominant? When you say "genes", you are creating a false dichotomy of "genes" versus "doping". I chose nature *AND* nurture. When you talk about "the level of proven and indisputable doping", I defer to WADA ADRV reports that show Kenya's *proven doping* is on par with countries like France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil, and less than Russia, Morocco, India, Romania, or the United States. One recent WADA report, sticking to what has been "proven and indisputable doping" shows that Kenyan doping is mainly NANDRALONE (35%), CORITCOSTEROIDS (13%), and EPO (12%). More recent reports are needed. I would ask similar questions: - the level of proven and indisputable doping coming out of Russia (or India, or France, or Italy, or Romania, etc.) is at the point now where we should be wondering why Russians (or Indians, or French, or Italians, or Romanians, etc.) aren't more dominant than they are and have been.

Coevett wrote:

At least Rekrunner is being explicit as to his motivation to simultaneously accuse EVERYONE of doping AND claiming that doping doesn't work.

Well, I guess having a fetish for the idea that East Africans are some kind of subset of humanity with radically different genes isn't as bad as being a paid up Russian troll.

But sorry Rekrunner, the level of proven and indisputable doping coming out of Kenya is at the point now where we should be wondering why Kenyans aren't more dominant than they are and have been.

Interesting paper. Is this directed at me, or just a general discussion? Personally, I am not tempted to attribute success to *only* genetics, or *only* doping, or *only* genetics and doping. I gather for these two candidate genes (ACE and ACTN3), the genetic factor is not conclusive. But humans have more than two genes: "The genetic inheritance of about 20,000 genes defines each of us as human beings." Similarly "mtDNA" and the "Y-chromosome", "did not provide genetic evidence" to help understand African performance. I'm inclined to agree with the paper that the answer to performance is complex: "Several factors in the complex interaction between genotype and phenotype have been proposed to explain the particular success of African runners, or the "African runners phenomenon", including: genetic predisposition; high maximum oxygen uptake (O2max) values; highest concentration of hemoglobin; relatively high hematocrit; the development of good metabolic efficiency (based on somatotype characteristics); favorable muscle fiber composition; profile of oxidative enzymes; the traditional Kenyan/Ethiopian diet; constant altitude training; and motivation to achieve economic success and social mobility." And rather than looking for a "smoking gene", "research in this area is moving toward the "age of genomics", ie, the simultaneous study of multiple genes as well as the whole genome, rather than focusing on single candidate genes." Because it is not yet conclusive, "other studies need to be undertaken to investigate the frequency of variants from other nuclear candidate genes, in these specific cohorts."

something to think about wrote:

It's tempting to attribute this success to specific genetic advantage, but there doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence for such an explanation.

In summary, the genotyping of two candidate genes to assess the phenomenal physical performance observed among African runners did not show them to be the determinants for the sporting success in medium- and long-distance running. However, in order to exclude the possibility of genetic factors being directly responsible for the Africans’ performance, other studies need to be undertaken to investigate the frequency of variants from other nuclear candidate genes, in these specific cohorts

what are you talking about? wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

The Tanzanians were the best Africans in the mid-to-late 1970s, unfortunately for them the Italians and the Dutch never went there so just like the West they fell behind.

Though recently, Ugandans have greatly increased their dominance and numbers on the world stage. I wonder why? ???

Ah but those Ugandans are a special breed just look at this

(3:44 point) Add that to Dutch managers and Italian coaches using "proper training" and you've got a recipe for super runners.

I know one thing, Soulimon is definitely on the sauce.

Subway Surfers wrote:

I know one thing, Soulimon is definitely on the sauce.

Who's Soulimon??

what are you talking about? wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

The Tanzanians were the best Africans in the mid-to-late 1970s, unfortunately for them the Italians and the Dutch never went there so just like the West they fell behind.

Though recently, Ugandans have greatly increased their dominance and numbers on the world stage. I wonder why? ???

Subway Surfers wrote:

I know one thing, Soulimon is definitely on the sauce.

Dijibouti (where he's from) only got round to ratifying the anti-doping convention a few years ago (the 182nd country to sign it), so they are likely well behind even Epiopia as far as testing is concerned.

Subway Surfers wrote:

The Tanzanians were the best Africans in the mid-to-late 1970s, unfortunately for them the Italians and the Dutch never went there so just like the West they fell behind.

Kenya was the best in African distance running in the mid-to-late 1970s, not Tanzania.