Stop being purposely disingenuous Sloweer, it rather harms the cool headed, rational, and 'scientific' look you're trying to give to your Victorian throwback racist ideas. You're trying to argue that Kenyans have some kind of special adaptation for distance running, yet the fastest sprinter in Africa is a Kenyan. Is he just some kind of anomaly? The standard racist view is that East Africans have genes for distance running and West Africans genes for sprinting. Do you disagree with that? Why are both the fastest African sprinter in history and the best African javelin thrower in history both Kenyan? Are 'special adapations' the explanation here, and if so, how are they reconciled with 'special adapations' for distance running?
-
111
-
slowwer wrote:
BTW, what are you talking about? He ran 6:55. What time do I have wrong? Are you feeling ok?110 -
Slowwer and Rekrunner - can you please say whether you agree with the following statement, or at least that you can see it contains a large amount of truth?
Ethiopia and Kenya are the only two countries in the world in which the only realistic way a young, fit, and healthy person can become a professional sportsperson is through distance running.
110 -
BTW, in that same race that Omanyala ran 6:55, white British youngster Charlie Dobson ran a fine 6:61. Seems nobody told him about only West Africans having 'special adaptations' for sprinting either.
19 -
Coevett wrote:
BTW, what are you talking about? He ran 6:55. What time do I have wrong?2000? 3000? steeple?
Btw, nothing racist to realise that since decades the best sprinters are from West Africa and the best distance runners are from East Africa.
I have no doubt there are extremely small dutch people.
One word for you: genes - genele - gènes - gene - Gene -jeni - gének - genler - geny - 유전자
11 -
Coevett wrote:
Slowwer and Rekrunner - can you please say whether you agree with the following statement, or at least that you can see it contains a large amount of truth?
Ethiopia and Kenya are the only two countries in the world in which the only realistic way a young, fit, and healthy person can become a professional sportsperson is through distance running.
Completely irrelevant, completely nonsensical, completely wrong, completely stupid statement. So, a true Coevett.
12 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Then we see Keino was just one in a nest of corruption.
Not really, because the charges were dropped.
That is part of the corruption. Friends in high places.
311 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're a liar. To you doping is never a problem with Kenyans because they don't benefit from it and they are all accidental positives from eating contaminated pork - like Shelby.
No lie. Of course it's a problem for the sport, and not just a problem confined to Kenya.
I heard the AIU found 60% of positive tests occurs outside of Kenya.
Can you tell me who performance benefitted from within that 60%? Not the Ethiopians or Ugandans, because they aren't testing positive. Jake and Jakob?
Potential for performance enhancement is just one of several concerns.
One country incurred 40% of violations. The 60% is everybody else - the rest of the world. You do see there is a difference in proportions there?
310 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The IOC developed a programme for drug testing in 1967, because of the increase in the use of performance enhancing drugs which had been occurring in the years before then. The chief difference in doping in the '50's and '60's compared to earlier decades was the development of synthetic drugs, such as anabolic steroids and testosterone. Blood doping had first been developed after WWII and was said to be present in elite sport in the late '60's. Since we know that doping had increased in that decade - resulting in the IOC programme - and yet there was no testing until the Mexico Olympics it follows that those who were doping were able to do so with virtual impunity. Indeed, blood doping remained legal till the early '80's. It is apparent that the freedom to dope has changed in more recent years for the Kenyan cheats, who are now many of them being caught. One thing we can be sure of - they weren't paragons of sporting virtue in those earlier decades who then suddenly lost their doping "virginity" in 2012 to now lead the world in doping violations.
Boy, that puts the unprecedented, out of nowhere, flash in the pan 1960s success of Lydiard and Cerutty in a brand new light for me. Out of nowhere, they upset the world, and dominated for nearly a decade, in an era of no testing and increased doping with virtual impunity, and then scattered like cockroaches in the light of 1967 IOC doping controls.
"Champions are everywhere". Yeah, right. Wink, wink. I get the code now.
And in other words, what I hear you saying is that you really do not have any tangible evidence of any significant Kenyan doping before 2012, when Australian "scientists" found below average blood doping. All your notions and beliefs and fears about Kenyan doping between 1956 and 2012 have no real tangible evidential basis in fact or reality. Do you recall that in 2013, Turkey had 53 ADRVs, Russia had 40 ADRVs, India had 30 ADRVs, and Kenya only had 9? That's memorialized at the WADA website. Where were the Turkish and Russian and Indian performances? Where were the cries from fans to ban Turkey and India?
I think what happened is that foreign agents imported a foreign doping culture into Kenya, relatively recently, and then local chemists and doctors opportunistically joined in the exploitation of the largest proven pool of distance talent. After all, we don't need any evidence for personal pet conspiracy theories.
Kenyans have been shown to dope in distance running more than anyone else in the modern era. Although the doping options in the '60's and '70's were fewer testing was also very limited. So what are the chances that Kenyan sporting culture only suddenly changed in the last 5 years or so, when winning would have been just as important fifty years ago as it is today?
As for making the facile comparison with Lydiard's athletes in the '60's, the revolution in training methods together with a few rare talents is enough to explain their success. Over the decades we see that New Zealand has not revealed a tradition of doping, none of its best runners has incurred a doping violation and by official assessment it is seen as one of the countries least at risk of doping. It is interesting to note that New Zealand's prominence in running receded as doping became more prevalent in the sport. By comparison, we see Kenya, with its 40% of the world's doping violations in athletics. I can always count on your ignorance.
411 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Kenyans have been shown to dope in distance running more than anyone else in the modern era. Although the doping options in the '60's and '70's were fewer testing was also very limited. So what are the chances that Kenyan sporting culture only suddenly changed in the last 5 years or so, when winning would have been just as important fifty years ago as it is today?
As for making the facile comparison with Lydiard's athletes in the '60's, the revolution in training methods together with a few rare talents is enough to explain their success. Over the decades we see that New Zealand has not revealed a tradition of doping, none of its best runners has incurred a doping violation and by official assessment it is seen as one of the countries least at risk of doping. It is interesting to note that New Zealand's prominence in running receded as doping became more prevalent in the sport. By comparison, we see Kenya, with its 40% of the world's doping violations in athletics. I can always count on your ignorance.
What a load of waffle. These are all the same tired arguments of a doping denier, which you are.
We all know what "revolution in training methods" really means, wink, wink. Don't be so naive. Man has been running for millenia, and training hasn't really changed since the days of Arthur Newton.
Of course New Zealand didn't get caught doping in the '60s because there was no testing! Not until IOC introduced doping controls in 1967. What else can possibly explain why their performances receded? This also coincided with Lydiard's taking his "training" to Finland and Mexico. Blood transfusions became popular in Finland, and I don't have to explain that Mexico is a mecca for drugs -- Christian Hesch anyone?
What New Zealand pioneered in the '60s became the blueprint for GDR and Ma's Army and Morocco. Their performances similarly came out of nowhere, and then receded, once doping controls were ramped up.
13 -
Coevett wrote:
Slowwer and Rekrunner - can you please say whether you agree with the following statement, or at least that you can see it contains a large amount of truth?
Ethiopia and Kenya are the only two countries in the world in which the only realistic way a young, fit, and healthy person can become a professional sportsperson is through distance running.
Sure, no problem.
I do not agree with that statement.
12 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
No lie. Of course it's a problem for the sport, and not just a problem confined to Kenya.
I heard the AIU found 60% of positive tests occurs outside of Kenya.
Can you tell me who performance benefitted from within that 60%? Not the Ethiopians or Ugandans, because they aren't testing positive. Jake and Jakob?
Potential for performance enhancement is just one of several concerns.
One country incurred 40% of violations. The 60% is everybody else - the rest of the world. You do see there is a difference in proportions there?
Sure I can see this partial statistic from just one anti-doping organization. We know that the AIU ramped up their focus on Kenya over the last few years.
What I haven't seen yet:
- What proportion of overall testing was on Kenyans?
- You told me performance was a given. Who of the remaining 60% performed like the Kenyans?
13 -
rekrunner wrote:
Coevett wrote:
Slowwer and Rekrunner - can you please say whether you agree with the following statement, or at least that you can see it contains a large amount of truth?
Ethiopia and Kenya are the only two countries in the world in which the only realistic way a young, fit, and healthy person can become a professional sportsperson is through distance running.
Sure, no problem.
I do not agree with that statement.
So you think in Kenya and Ethiopia there are other sports that it is realistic for a healthy and fit young person to become professional and earn a living from? If so, which are these sports? The only professional sportsmen I know of in Kenya other than athletics (99% distance runners) is soccer, and the last I checked there was a grand total of 3 professional Kenyan soccer players.
Or do you think there are other countries in the same situation as Kenya and Ethiopia where the only realistic path to earning a full-time living from sport is distance running? If so, which are these countries? Uganda? No - Uganda actually is quite successful in a number of other professional sports. Perhaps Somalia and Eritrea? Maybe.
28 -
slowwer wrote:
Coevett wrote:
BTW, what are you talking about? He ran 6:55. What time do I have wrong?2000? 3000? steeple?
Btw, nothing racist to realise that since decades the best sprinters are from West Africa and the best distance runners are from East Africa.
I have no doubt there are extremely small dutch people.
One word for you: genes - genele - gènes - gene - Gene -jeni - gének - genler - geny - 유전자
A small Dutch person doesn't disprove the notion that the Dutch have genes for tallness. The fastest African sprinter in history being Kenyan does rather disprove the notion that Kenyans lack the genetics for sprinting.
The claim that Dutch people have genes predisoposing them to tall heights and the Japanese don't, isn't disproven in the slightest by pointing to a small Dutch person. If the tallest Japanese man was taller than the tallest Dutchman who ever lived, it ought to make you question the claim.
18 -
Coevett wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Sure, no problem.
I do not agree with that statement.
So you think in Kenya and Ethiopia there are other sports that it is realistic for a healthy and fit young person to become professional and earn a living from? If so, which are these sports? The only professional sportsmen I know of in Kenya other than athletics (99% distance runners) is soccer, and the last I checked there was a grand total of 3 professional Kenyan soccer players.
Or do you think there are other countries in the same situation as Kenya and Ethiopia where the only realistic path to earning a full-time living from sport is distance running? If so, which are these countries? Uganda? No - Uganda actually is quite successful in a number of other professional sports. Perhaps Somalia and Eritrea? Maybe.
It seems like a very complex topic to attempt to reduce to a statement with a couple of "onlys".
The best Kenyan and Ethiopian runners mainly come from a few regions at altitude -- most healthy fit young Kenyans and Ethiopians not from the regions cannot realistically earn a professional living in distance running.
Besides soccer, a number of Kenyans seem to play cricket and field hockey and boxing and basketball. Chris Froome became a cyclist.
Ethiopia has a few soccer players too.
Here, knock yourself out:
10 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Not really, because the charges were dropped.
That is part of the corruption. Friends in high places.
Are you talking about Coe now?
11 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
One country incurred 40% of violations. The 60% is everybody else - the rest of the world. You do see there is a difference in proportions there?
Sure I can see this partial statistic from just one anti-doping organization. We know that the AIU ramped up their focus on Kenya over the last few years.
What I haven't seen yet:
- What proportion of overall testing was on Kenyans?
- You told me performance was a given. Who of the remaining 60% performed like the Kenyans?
Deflection. How the other 60% performed is completely irrelevant to the fact that Kenyans lead the world now in cheating.
11 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
That is part of the corruption. Friends in high places.
Are you talking about Coe now?
You should acquaint yourself with the facts. You wouldn't sound so stupid. Coe wasn't facing criminal charges in his country's criminal courts.
11 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Kenyans have been shown to dope in distance running more than anyone else in the modern era. Although the doping options in the '60's and '70's were fewer testing was also very limited. So what are the chances that Kenyan sporting culture only suddenly changed in the last 5 years or so, when winning would have been just as important fifty years ago as it is today?
As for making the facile comparison with Lydiard's athletes in the '60's, the revolution in training methods together with a few rare talents is enough to explain their success. Over the decades we see that New Zealand has not revealed a tradition of doping, none of its best runners has incurred a doping violation and by official assessment it is seen as one of the countries least at risk of doping. It is interesting to note that New Zealand's prominence in running receded as doping became more prevalent in the sport. By comparison, we see Kenya, with its 40% of the world's doping violations in athletics. I can always count on your ignorance.
What a load of waffle. These are all the same tired arguments of a doping denier, which you are.
We all know what "revolution in training methods" really means, wink, wink. Don't be so naive. Man has been running for millenia, and training hasn't really changed since the days of Arthur Newton.
Of course New Zealand didn't get caught doping in the '60s because there was no testing! Not until IOC introduced doping controls in 1967. What else can possibly explain why their performances receded? This also coincided with Lydiard's taking his "training" to Finland and Mexico. Blood transfusions became popular in Finland, and I don't have to explain that Mexico is a mecca for drugs -- Christian Hesch anyone?
What New Zealand pioneered in the '60s became the blueprint for GDR and Ma's Army and Morocco. Their performances similarly came out of nowhere, and then receded, once doping controls were ramped up.
Facetiousness requires wit, which you sadly lack.
11 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Sure I can see this partial statistic from just one anti-doping organization. We know that the AIU ramped up their focus on Kenya over the last few years.
What I haven't seen yet:
- What proportion of overall testing was on Kenyans?
- You told me performance was a given. Who of the remaining 60% performed like the Kenyans?
Deflection. How the other 60% performed is completely irrelevant to the fact that Kenyans lead the world now in cheating.
Hardly.
We can't make much sense of "40%" without knowing how many tests the AIU conducted on Kenyans in the first place.
I've been asking for years to establish a conclusive connection to better elite performance, and you always bounce back to superficial "doping is present in sport" sermons and "it is given" presumptions. The only conclusive connection seems to be assuming it in the first place.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.