The Ingebrigtsen's prove that the East African 'natural born runner' superiority is a myth. Here's why.

ex-runner wrote:

Coesmet wrote:

Coevett, why do you pretend to habe startend this thread? You know it was startend by the respected poster "Natural talents", a spanisch speaker with

quite good english skills. Why are you lying?

Hahahaha

Corvette literally has no credibility at all.

Everyone sees him make things up, change his stories and lie constantly

LOL - I wasn't surprised by this at all. Same old (a la Europeans clean, Africans dirty), full of unlikely assumptions and bold lies, albeit not as crude ones as usually.

The magic is fading out wrote:

Geez...I can't imagine why. ?

Probably a coincidence. Nothing to see here!

This is an outright changing of the subject. If we focus on both Cacho and Willis, they both should have tackled the 5,000m more seriously earlier in their careers. There is no evidence that peak fitness Cacho or Willis were in anyway inferior fitness to the present young Jakob Ingebrigtsen, who just ran 13:02 in a poorly paced race (though he may well run far faster then them in future). The fact is he is tackling the event when he is on the rise. Your repeated argument to deny the existence of the epo era was that 'why did it take until Solinsky for a westerner to run under 27 minutes' post ABP is answered by the fact that Kennedy and Mottram or even Kevin Sullivan or the Irishman could have done it if they had focused on it but wasn't appealing to them.

Hilarious, we can speculate about which East Africans and Westerners were doping but I know one thing for certain that era of North African dominance was a pure fraud, simply farcical, just look at the Seville 1999 WCs 1500m & 5000m finals.

Agreed.

Both Cacho and Willis have two 1500m Olympic medals. What gives you the impression they would have done better at 5000m? Usually in Summer Olympics, there is a scheduling conflict racing both 1500m & 5000m. Usually the schedules of 1500m & 5000m overlap. Both Cacho and Willis would have been better off racing 5000m instead of 1500m according to you. That does not make sense.

The sub-text of a thread like this (and so many others like it) is that - please - someone has to be clean! If not a Kenyan then maybe a Norwegian. Pretty forlorn stuff, if that is what the sport has come to. It's a bit like trying to find virginity in a brothel.

Coevett wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But you were responding to me, and that is not what I understood by "closing the gap" in a thread praising the Ingebrigtsen's performances against the East Africans.

It is normal to come to different conclusions when we are not talking about the same thing.

But nobody understands you, and nobody knows what you are talking about.

I did start this thread, so maybe if you feel you're in a different conversation, you need to go to another thread.

It's easy to understand what Rekrunner is talking about. The rule of thumb is that it is not what you think he is saying. Then it is not that either. What you think he is saying are just "straw men". There - solved.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The sub-text of a thread like this (and so many others like it) is that - please - someone has to be clean! If not a Kenyan then maybe a Norwegian. Pretty forlorn stuff, if that is what the sport has come to. It's a bit like trying to find virginity in a brothel.

What do you expect? So many people idolize these athletes as their Gods. There's a lot of emotions involved. If any suspicion of doping is suggested of their heros then it becomes hostile. No logical discussion about it - complete anger & emotion.

What cracks me up is most everyone is willing accept the fact that nations like Morocco, Kenya, Russia, Ukraine, China, etc., are notorious dopers. But to cast any suspicions on other top performing nations such as the US, UK, Norway, Japan, etc., - some people go ballistic and any discussion becomes hostile.

So, I guess in one corner we have distance runners from nations that dope (Morocco, Kenyan, Russia, etc.) and in the other corner we have distance runners from nations that are completely clean (US, UK, Norway, etc.). Sounds unrealistic and impractical in an era of professional sports where athletes are paid to perform at the highest level and win at all costs.

It was you who changed the subject, to offer another competing pet theory that the Emperor would have had clothes if he wanted it, apparently addressing things I said long ago in other threads. I did not focus on both Cacho and Willis, but gave the results of all non-Africans of all time in what you considered the glorified event of the west, the one with all the western talent in their prime, allegedly keeping talent away from the 5000m and 10000m.

Subway Surfers wrote:

This is an outright changing of the subject. If we focus on both Cacho and Willis, they both should have tackled the 5,000m more seriously earlier in their careers. There is no evidence that peak fitness Cacho or Willis were in anyway inferior fitness to the present young Jakob Ingebrigtsen, who just ran 13:02 in a poorly paced race (though he may well run far faster then them in future). The fact is he is tackling the event when he is on the rise. Your repeated argument to deny the existence of the epo era was that 'why did it take until Solinsky for a westerner to run under 27 minutes' post ABP is answered by the fact that Kennedy and Mottram or even Kevin Sullivan or the Irishman could have done it if they had focused on it but wasn't appealing to them.

There's that key word again, "imagine". It is rather curious since I am repeatedly reminded that Moroccans are still topping the charts today with number of hematological anomalies found in ABP busts.

casual obsever wrote:

The magic is fading out wrote:

Geez...I can't imagine why. ?

Probably a coincidence. Nothing to see here!

I can't speak for others, but my interest is not so much declaring everyone or anyone clean, but to try and get people who assume doping is a good explanation for African superiority to make a positive case for that. It stands to reason if doping is the main factor, and doping is as pervasive as you suggest, among Africans, Norwegians, and everyone else, that superiority would be distributed among all of the doped populations, and not narrowly focused on selected tribes in East African valleys.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The sub-text of a thread like this (and so many others like it) is that - please - someone has to be clean! If not a Kenyan then maybe a Norwegian. Pretty forlorn stuff, if that is what the sport has come to. It's a bit like trying to find virginity in a brothel.

It's difficult for me to address what appears to be a lack of capacity for comprehension. I think for some posters, it would be an improvement if they actually read what I wrote, but it seems they don't get that far. For others, they read it, but then parrot back something else. For example, "effect is exaggerated" often becomes "doesn't work". And yet still others, I'm sure understand perfectly well, but then purposefully misrepresent it, either for satirical amusement, or to mask an inability to argue against it. Perhaps it would help if you had access to an educated adult to help with comprehension.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It's easy to understand what Rekrunner is talking about. The rule of thumb is that it is not what you think he is saying. Then it is not that either. What you think he is saying are just "straw men". There - solved.

casual obsever wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

Hahahaha

Corvette literally has no credibility at all.

Everyone sees him make things up, change his stories and lie constantly

LOL - I wasn't surprised by this at all. Same old (a la Europeans clean, Africans dirty), full of unlikely assumptions and bold lies, albeit not as crude ones as usually.

Yes, it is funny isn't it Observski? I make exactly the same points I've made for the last 3 years here, in intentionally sloppy English under another name, and some here think it can't possibly have been the 'racist' Coevett (btw, the idea that I was racist for attributing the dominance of the East Africans to doping originated with you).

ex-runner wrote:

Coesmet wrote:

Coevett, why do you pretend to habe startend this thread? You know it was startend by the respected poster "Natural talents", a spanisch speaker with

quite good english skills. Why are you lying?

Hahahaha

Corvette literally has no credibility at all.

Everyone sees him make things up, change his stories and lie constantly

You're a complete rat, it must be down to all the EPO and roids addling your brain. Sometimes you appear to extend the olive branch and want to discuss things like adults, then the next moment you're back to childish name calling and slanders.

You can ask the mod or Rojos to compare the ips. I was in London when I started this thread but I'm sure I posted under my registered name there a couple of times.

Willis, Henrik, Centro wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

I remember a couple of years ago arguing with the likes of Coevett who claimed that 3:35 was around the clean limit for humans. This was based around the fact that no white runners were running any faster at that time and he also cited Herb Elliot and Jim Ryun or whatever. All the Africans were running 3:30

Fast forward to 2019 and now we have had 3 white guys run 3:30 this year. The Africans aren't running any slower.

Now the Europeans are competitive again because they are running faster, but the analysis is it's because the drug testing has increased...???

Very interesting assessments lol.

Do mean actually a couple of years ago or roughly?

I'm answering to ex-doper because I can't find his post, but these are total lies here. Again, probably his brain is mush due to all the doping.

I never said the clean limit was 3:35 you clown, I'm not even a believer in 'clean limits'. I just once questioned whether a Kenyan has ever ran 3:3x clean, to make the point that all Kenyan performances are sadly now suspect.

You're the one who is claiming that the likes of potato Tim MUST be doping because they are running faster than some notional 'clean limit' that you've come up with in your tiny brain.

I've clearly and consistently put forward the argument that the reason why European and especially British middle-distance running declined from the end of the 80's is because of the African invasion, and the myth that was immediately propagated by racist losers like yourself that it was due to some kind of ebony genetic superiority rather than EPO.

I've consistently put forward the argument, including in this thread which I started, that the reason why European and British running is making massive strides forward now is because to any sane, intelligent person who doesn't have some kind of weird fetish, East Africans are not geneticaly superior runners, and non-Africans can perfectly well compete with them if they have enough self-belief, especially now with the knowledge that the dopers are finally starting to get caught and the mess in Africa at last cleaned up so everyone is on a level playing field.

Oh, to clarify. I'm not saying that they would be any better at 5000m, 1500m was clearly their event. What I am saying to Rekrunner is the west likely had a lot of milers with unrealized potential over longer distances. Both Cacho and Willis likely had far greater 5,000m talent then 13:46.65 and 13:20.33 respectively. There is really no incentive to race 5,000m or further when you can earn more money and more glory as milers. Utility maximizers.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Oh, to clarify. I'm not saying that they would be any better at 5000m, 1500m was clearly their event. What I am saying to Rekrunner is the west likely had a lot of milers with unrealized potential over longer distances. Both Cacho and Willis likely had far greater 5,000m talent then 13:46.65 and 13:20.33 respectively. There is really no incentive to race 5,000m or further when you can earn more money and more glory as milers. Utility maximizers.

Curious: What's paying the most these days...the track or the roads? And where would the big sponsors be putting more pressure on the athletes to win - the track or the roads? (or maybe both?).

How long do sponsors play around with underperforming athletes? It's seems like there are so many who want a shot at the big time that sponsors may have very little patience with underperforming athletes who are not winning.

Coevett wrote:

Yes, it is funny isn't it Observski? I make exactly the same points I've made for the last 3 years here, in intentionally sloppy English under another name, and some here think it can't possibly have been the 'racist' Coevett (btw, the idea that I was racist for attributing the dominance of the East Africans to doping originated with you).

Well, several people outed you right from the start as the lying OP...

And no - everyone here aside from the usual suspects realizes that you are a hard-core racist because of your openly racist remarks, some of which I repeated here in the moderation thread: