There is no “genetic superiority” when it comes to distance running. Literally everyone sub 2:09 is just doping.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't know. As far as I know, no one has yet reliably characterized how blood doping "works" on elite runners.

There is a lot of wild speculation and a broad range of theories and hypotheses about blood doping's role in distance running history.

Good point. No one really know how gravity "works", just theories and observations. Most people people believe gravity works, but the data can't full explain how. Gravity definitely doesn't work on East Africans, if properly trained, if born at altitude, etc.

Newton reliably characterized the effect of gravity for most practical purposes. There is nothing of comparable quality for the expected performance effect of blood doping on elite runners.

Wowzers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I don't know. As far as I know, no one has yet reliably characterized how blood doping "works" on elite runners.

There is a lot of wild speculation and a broad range of theories and hypotheses about blood doping's role in distance running history.

Good point. No one really know how gravity "works", just theories and observations. Most people people believe gravity works, but the data can't full explain how. Gravity definitely doesn't work on East Africans, if properly trained, if born at altitude, etc.

Will the line be drawn? wrote:

Is anyone else sick of hearing how these East Africans are just genetically superior? They are in area where getting drugs is way easier than other parts of the world and in areas where drug testing isn’t even a thing. It’s awfully funny people think these guys are just better athletes. The only thing they are doing that Americans aren’t is getting away with doping. These guys debuting at times faster than the world record times ten years ago makes zero sense, humans didn’t all of a sudden evolve to be faster in the last 10-20 years. The entire area needs banned from participating in the Olympics until they get good testing.

I can prove the OP's title wrong:

I ran a 4:09 mile in high school. Others who trained equally hard and ran the exact same workouts would only run 4:30 miles. the same example works for cross country; only the difference was over a minute. So yes, there is such a thing as genetic superiority.

And to answer the rest of your post. You're right, humans didn't evolve all of a sudden to run faster in the last 10-20 years. The reason for the jump is more people are running. Think of it like this, 100 years ago very few people ran. Literally, track was a few people showing up to compete. So, as a percentage of the population you were less likely to capture those with the most talent. Now, a lot of people run (especially in east Africa) so you are capturing the most talented athletes. They've always been there though. If they ran 50 years ago you would have seen the marathon WR 2:04-2:05 50 years ago! But they didn't run. Some because they couldn't (the money wasn't there and they needed to support their family instead of run) and ethnicity reasons. Today, their countries have developed (relative to 50 years ago) so they have more time to run. And the money exists to make it worthwhile.

So, what you're seeing a false correlation. You see the times drop all of a sudden and blame drugs. The times are only dropping because now more people are able to run. If we had the same participation rate over the last 100 years you would see the WR drop maybe 8-9 minutes over a 100 year span. Instead, that drop happens in 20 years and it looks crazy.

I'm not ruling out doping. Obviously it's happening, but the primary contributor is simply the fact that the talented people are now running whereas 20 years ago they were not.

Will the line be drawn? wrote:

Is anyone else sick of hearing how these East Africans are just genetically superior? They are in area where getting drugs is way easier than other parts of the world and in areas where drug testing isn’t even a thing. It’s awfully funny people think these guys are just better athletes. The only thing they are doing that Americans aren’t is getting away with doping. These guys debuting at times faster than the world record times ten years ago makes zero sense, humans didn’t all of a sudden evolve to be faster in the last 10-20 years. The entire area needs banned from participating in the Olympics until they get good testing.

Can we delete this post? As a coach, this ‘loser’ mentality people have is so frustrating. It’s why the best high school teams win year after year. It’s not because they happen to have the best runners grow up in their school area every year for 25 years straight.. it’s because of their mindset. They have a culture and expectation of higher standards. This leads to the behaviors that produce better runners: commitment, consistency, better training, confidence, more team support, mental strength in races, etc...

“Oh they recruit, oh they dope, oh they run crazy high mileage and will burn out...” Stop with the excuses. I went to a high school where we won our Section almost every year. We literally did not have one kid on our team from outside the area or who moved to the area for athletic purposes. We also ran Moderate mileage. (About 40-45 mpw for the average top 7 guys.. actually maybe less than that).

It’s the same for the elite athletes. I hate to break it to you, but body mass- especially how weight is distributed-matters. It’s simple biomechanics and physics. Overall lifestyle and genetics matter. Training matters. Mindset matters. People can run fast even though you can’t. Even if people are doping, (because some are) saying it’s impossible to run sub 2:09 for any human doesn’t make you any better. And there’s good evidence in psychology that having mental constructs of physical limitations probably makes you worse. If you don’t want to Africans to dominate running, don’t post this stuff indicating they’re so good, no one can possibly beat them. All it does is reinforce the idea that Americans can’t beat the Africans.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Check your stats EPO came out in 1989/90 & 2:06 already run since then.

Good point. The first 2:09 is from 1967, over 50 years ago, the first 2:06 from 1988, over 30 years ago.

Couple of other observations in this context without judging:

Male, non-African, marathon progression

1950s: 2:15:17

1960s: 2:09:36 (6:19) – start of blood transfusions

1970s: 2:09:06 (0:36) – cold war doping

1980s: 2:07:12 (1:54) – cold war doping

1990s: 2:06:05 (1:07) – EPO became available

2000s: NA – EPO testing started

2010: 2:05:48 (0:17 in two decades) – ABP started

Male, African, marathon progression

1950s: ???

1960s: 2:12:11

1970s: NA -

1980s: 2:06:50 (5:21 in two decades)

1990s: 2:05:42 (1:08) – EPO became available

2000s: 2:03:59 (1:43) – EPO testing started

2010s: 2:01:39 (2:20) – ABP started

Blood doping factors:

Blood transfusions became common in the 60s, cold war doping serious sometime in the 70s, EPO around 1990ish.

Unreliable EPO test came around 2000, a better one around 2005, ABP (i.e., first test for homologous blood transfusions) in 2009, first ban because of ABP in 2012, corrupt Diack stepped down in 2015.

Other factors:

Famine in Ethiopia in 73, last famine in Ethiopia ended 85, European coaches professionalized African training in the 90s, marathon pacing got serious in the 00s, the 4% shoes came in this decade (allegedly 1% right there, i.e. 1:14 of the 2:20 improvement of this decade).

I bet there are plenty of slower than 2:09 guys doping too.

casual obsever wrote:

Blood doping factors:

Blood transfusions became common in the 60s...

Except that there are zero known "real" blood doping cases from the 1960s nor any evidence that it was known that transfusion-induced supranormal hemoglobin was beneficial at sea level.

The reception of the Ekblom-Åstrand research was very negative and dismissive from scientifiic viewpoint in 1970s and the East Germans never adopted the method (used hypoxic training) and even the Russians and Italians conducted their own time trials before they adopted the method in the mid-1970s and late 1970s.

That's your opinion. In addition to your Ekblom-Åstrand, Leigh-Smith wrote in a review from 2004 (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/1/99):

The first alleged use of blood boosting in sport was in the 1960s, when a French four times winner of the Tour de France (1961–1964) was named as one of the first cyclists to use the technique. Widespread use among endurance athletes (especially running, cycling, and cross country skiing) started after the 1968 Olympic Games, in Mexico City which is situated at an altitude of 2300 m.1 Here the athletes from higher altitudes performed better in the endurance events because of various physiological acclimatisation adaptations, including increased red blood cell (RBC) mass.5 Blood boosting was the method adopted by many athletes after Mexico to increase their aerobic performance.6 It did not come to general public attention until the early 1970s when it was termed “blood doping” by the media.7,8

And let's not forget that the scientific reports started in the 40s. Who knows who read that and tried it out...

I had a similar experience in HS. I always seemed to improve a little faster than most. I was better at distance but could run a 1:58 800. By no means great but better than most. Funny part about that is in my gym class I was 6th in a 600m race we had. So, even though I was All-State in cross and the 3200 I never even thought I was the most talented runner in my school. It just happened the more talented people chose other sports. I often wondered what the 5 guys that beat me could have done in the longer events if they put in the work I did. I ran in a very competitive state chances are I wouldn't have done well if everyone that could of been great decided to be great. I've also always wondered if there was 5 kids at my school how many other kids in America have a lot of talent but just never run.

In East Africa, I am just guessing but I think more of the people with talent are running. This is what is and has caused the large separation between them and the rest of the world. Does this make the East Africans "genetically superior"? I'd have to say yes. When their most talented line up against the rest of the worlds somewhat talented.

As a whole I'd say the rest of the world is equal but their best talent isn't even showing up.

As for the drugs/EPO. Can a drug really make a person go past their max potential? I'd say no. 100% is 100%.

Can EPO help the people that do not train long enough, hard enough, or properly get to their max potential? Maybe.

EPO can get a person closer to 100% of their potential quicker and easier though.

I had a brother that was a sub 29 10k runner. He would train around 65 miles a week. From following LRC I'd say if he would of taken EPO (Not available when he ran) He could of easily been sub 28 possibly a low 27 10k runner. From following a few people on here that seem to know how the blood works. With EPO it would of acted as if he was training at closer to 100+ miles a week giving him a much larger aerobic base. Wow!!! How his genetics would have improved.

Using him as an example, then would make me question. How many of these sub 28 and sub 27 runners are really sub 29 runners juiced up? From the busts lately it appears to be a lot. Since we can only speculate we will never have a good answer.

Journalist Feargal McKay debunked that TDF winner claim by a physiologist in his essay some six years ago, and historian John Gleaves found it unlikely that transfusion blood doping was really prevalent ever after conducting his research. The TDF winner case wasn't blood doping even when some reinfusion experiment took place:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-the-use-of-blood-transfusions-in-cycling/

I don't know who read about the altitude-adaptation research of the 1940s, but apparently the two countries that were most innovative in their PED use with least moral objections didn't either find no reason to blood dope or did it only in the mid-1970s onwards. And the blood doping research tradition didn't "start" in the 1940s because there there were no subsequent papers until 1970s, so likely no blood doping tradition started then if there were some random items proving the efficacy ex post facto with rhe later knowledge.

That having been written, there are zero known blood doping cases prior to the Ekblom-Åstrand research of the early 1970s.

DC Wonk wrote:

Anyone who thinks that people like Bernard Lagat don't have some inherent physiological advantages over the majority of the population have never been 44. How much those advantages play a role in his success I don't know, because Lagat has trained for many many years at a high level. For some, the drop-off from optimal performances happens like cliff, and for others it's a very slow, gradual decline.

But I definitely believe that people like Rupp and Kipchoge have significant physical capabilities that only a small percentage of the population will have at any given time. On top of that, add years of disciplined training, and you get results.

Tell me is Lagat really all that superior to Jack Foster, who didn't have carbon plate shoes or pacers?

Why is this bigoted racist thread allowed to remain?????

It's been up for more than a day, and I'm sure it's been reported many times, yet the thread is still up.

This is another example of how terrible this website is.

Exactly. It's entirely possible that Lagat has all the inherent physiological advantages AND took EPO to help get him to 3:26.

Aragon wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Blood doping factors:

Blood transfusions became common in the 60s...

Except that there are zero known "real" blood doping cases from the 1960s nor any evidence that it was known that transfusion-induced supranormal hemoglobin was beneficial at sea level.

How do you know that? Links please.

dunes runner wrote:

Why is this bigoted racist thread allowed to remain?????

It's been up for more than a day, and I'm sure it's been reported many times, yet the thread is still up.

This is another example of how terrible this website is.

Probably because denying racial supremacy is the opposite of racism.

Qwertu wrote:

Borderline wrote:

Just pointing this out. EPO hit the scene and the world record went from 2:09 to 2:01 in a matter of 20 years. Yet we are supposed to think these athletes are just getting better by magic.

Ah, yes. People tend to forget that the only two possible mechanisms for sport-wide progression over time are EPO and magic. That’s why every athlete who’s run a mile faster than Bannister is either a doper, a witch, or both.

One of the reasons I read letsrun: in this cesspit of sophomoric trolls, such gems of witticism may be found :)

Qwertu wrote:

Ah, yes. People tend to forget that the only two possible mechanisms for sport-wide progression over time are EPO and magic. That’s why every athlete who’s run a mile faster than Bannister is either a doper, a witch, or both.

How do you tell which?

Do they float?

What else floats?

Little rocks, wood..... Another witch!

So throw a witch into the water next to them, and see if they stay at the same level!

Aragon wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Blood doping factors:

Blood transfusions became common in the 60s...

Except that there are zero known "real" blood doping cases from the 1960s nor any evidence that it was known that transfusion-induced supranormal hemoglobin was beneficial at sea level.

The reception of the Ekblom-Åstrand research was very negative and dismissive from scientifiic viewpoint in 1970s and the East Germans never adopted the method (used hypoxic training) and even the Russians and Italians conducted their own time trials before they adopted the method in the mid-1970s and late 1970s.

Then why were your fellow countrymen using blood transfusions for sea level races? (e.g. , Maaninka, Vainio and more than likely Viren). I think the way these guys dominated major events and the multiple Olympic gold medals by Viren is sufficient evidence for me.

Blood Doping Finns wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Except that there are zero known "real" blood doping cases from the 1960s nor any evidence that it was known that transfusion-induced supranormal hemoglobin was beneficial at sea level.

The reception of the Ekblom-Åstrand research was very negative and dismissive from scientifiic viewpoint in 1970s and the East Germans never adopted the method (used hypoxic training) and even the Russians and Italians conducted their own time trials before they adopted the method in the mid-1970s and late 1970s.

Then why were your fellow countrymen using blood transfusions for sea level races? (e.g. , Maaninka, Vainio and more than likely Viren). I think the way these guys dominated major events and the multiple Olympic gold medals by Viren is sufficient evidence for me.

Viren was offered like a million dollars by a German newspaper for a tell all interview. He declined it. One of the Brits who came behind Viren at the Olympics become close friends and said he thought he was clean. If I had to bet on it, I would bet on Viren being clean. Just because some of the top Kenyans are doping, I don't think all top Kenyans are doping. I have always got the vibe that people who accuse Viren and Waldemar Cierpinski are just jealous. Listen and read what Frank Shorter has said about Waldemar Cierpinski. I just get a emotional feeling from Frank, not one based on objective facts.