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

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.

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.

I think you are losing sight of what your original arguments were: "Doping was known to be present in the '56 Olympics. So how do you know that drugs weren't available in the late '60s and '70's when Kenya entered running?" and the above "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."

These sweeping comments are not unique to Kenya. This, coupled with your given of "drugs = performance", means we should equally suspect all of the high performances from New Zealand and Australia and American of the '60s, and additionally, the USA and the Brits in the '70s and the '80s, because, after all "how do you know that drugs weren't available?"

Another thing that supports the view of recent changes in doping and anti-doping, specifically in 2022 (and a significant part of that 40% that has impressed you so much), comes from the AIU again. New for 2022 in Kenya is an increase in the positive results from one single glucocorticoid, coinciding with WADA changes with respect to when it is legal. According to an AIU press release:

"a recent trend in Kenyan athletics regarding triamcinolone acetonide, with ten Kenyan athletes testing positive for that prohibited substance between 2021 and 2022"

"... (and until 1 January 2022), glucocorticoids were not prohibited when administered by local injection".

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

None in New Zealand running. Kenya is currently the world leaders for doping in distance running.

Nearly every successful athletics coach or athlete active in the world today consciously or unconsciously emulates Lydiard's training system by laying an endurance base and making use of periodisation for peak performance. While the direct influence Lydiard exerted on the East African athletes is a matter for debate, what is indisputable is that the Kenyan and Ethiopian athletes do significant amounts of endurance work and make use of periodisation.

While the work he did in the late 1960s in Finland is generally acknowledged to have led to the renaissance in Finnish distance running in the 1970s (with Pekka Vasala winning gold in the 1500 metres at the 1972 Munich Olympics and Lasse Virén winning gold in both the 5000 metres and 10,000 metres at the 1972 Olympics and the 1976 Montreal Olympics), his coaching experiences in Mexico and Venezuela were less successful. Lydiard was forced to leave both countries because of what he perceived as a lack of support for his coaching efforts and the needs of athletes there.

Coevett wrote:

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.

slowwer wrote:

Coevett wrote:

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.

Trying to follow Coevett's thinking (hard task, I know) little bit.
- Kenyans are mainly successful in distance running
- on the other hand, in concrete circumstances: Kenyans are not successful (many "westerners" in fact are and always were much better, could be much better if..., any Kenyan success is just an "success" (the notion of the other mad man, I know), Brits could and should have run 3:28 in 1980 - Kenyans have a "natural limit" of 3:35, Kenya was just one of some African countries (and for sure did nothing special on the world scale) before 1980 against an enormous amount of data and so on
- he takes a unspectacular "6:55" (given in minutes and seconds - hours/minutes?) from a 9.77A/9.86 guy as inducement that Kenyans are one of only two nations which can only be successful in distance running !!
- because Kenyans can - as he claimes - only be successful in distance running, this success (which in fact he denies) can just be singly the result of cheating, no other explanations should be taken into consideration
- he tries to convince anybody that Kenyans are just too stupid, too untalented, maybe have the wrong genes Coevett?, to naturally succeed in sport at all
- so any success which they have (but which he denies they have at all) is due to cheating
And, no, Coevett, if the tallest Japanese guy is taller than the tallest Dutch guy, it would not disprove that Dutch guys have some predestination (probably manifested in their genes, Coevett) for being big when on average they are 12 centimeter larger than the Japanese and being the tallest on earth.

Why do Kenyans almost solely cheat in distance running and West Africans almost solely in sprinting?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doping was possible in the '60's but not widespread in the way it has become. None of the countries you compare with Kenya have a demonstrated track record in doping, as Kenya does. In the US only a few individuals have been caught. None in New Zealand running. Kenya is currently the world leaders for doping in distance running. They have likely always doped when they had the chance.

A big reason for that is that there was no regular testing until the formation of WADA around 2000! Also as we learned from Lance Armstrong and Russia, rich countries are better at covering up their tracks, so that track records are not developed.

Of course doping was always "possible" and "present" in "sport" and at "sometime" became "widespread". If that is the depth of quality of your argument, then we can arbitrarily pick and chose what we want, when we want, by whomever we want, and whereever we want. This is why your conclusions are so unpersuasive.

Remind me again, when do you think that Kenya's "track record in doping" started? You keep saying "likely", but what makes you think it is likely? Maybe I missed your catalog of evidence, but did you present any evidence of widespread doping before 2012, when Australian scientists reported that blood doping suspicion between 2001-2012 was below the global average for both Kenya and Ethiopia?

The point of asking you for real world facts and evidence is to confirm which of your rambling beliefs can be supported by facts, and evidence, and which can be safely ignored.

Coevett wrote:

slowwer wrote:

Trying to follow Coevett's thinking (hard task, I know) little bit.
- Kenyans are mainly successful in distance running
- on the other hand, in concrete circumstances: Kenyans are not successful (many "westerners" in fact are and always were much better, could be much better if..., any Kenyan success is just an "success" (the notion of the other mad man, I know), Brits could and should have run 3:28 in 1980 - Kenyans have a "natural limit" of 3:35, Kenya was just one of some African countries (and for sure did nothing special on the world scale) before 1980 against an enormous amount of data and so on
- he takes a unspectacular "6:55" (given in minutes and seconds - hours/minutes?) from a 9.77A/9.86 guy as inducement that Kenyans are one of only two nations which can only be successful in distance running !!
- because Kenyans can - as he claimes - only be successful in distance running, this success (which in fact he denies) can just be singly the result of cheating, no other explanations should be taken into consideration
- he tries to convince anybody that Kenyans are just too stupid, too untalented, maybe have the wrong genes Coevett?, to naturally succeed in sport at all
- so any success which they have (but which he denies they have at all) is due to cheating
And, no, Coevett, if the tallest Japanese guy is taller than the tallest Dutch guy, it would not disprove that Dutch guys have some predestination (probably manifested in their genes, Coevett) for being big when on average they are 12 centimeter larger than the Japanese and being the tallest on earth.

Why do Kenyans almost solely cheat in distance running and West Africans almost solely in sprinting?

Only bothered reading the last sentence of that, but it's clear Kenyans cheat at all distance, probably in the javelin and field events too. They have had their two best sprinters busted, and 400m runners too.

You don't have much grasp of logic. Doping might be more effective for Kenyan distance runners than sprinters because of a variety of reasons. Even if it is true that Kenyans are more genetically predisposed for distance running than sprinting, it doesn't say anything about whether their 'domination' of distance running is due to doping or not.

Ironic you dismiss the Kenyan sub 9.9 guy as an outlier, but rely on Keino as proof that Kenyans were the most successful distance nation between April 22nd 1964 and July 3rd 1979, and thus genetically advantaged.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Direct political intervention by government MP's saw Keino's charges dropped. That is commonly called corruption in systems where the political and judicial branches are separate. But you wouldn't know that.

I thought you concerned with the criminal nature, not the corruption. Then they are certainly in the same quantum -- both accused of corruption, while both having friends in high places. And wouldn't the police, and the criminal investigations department, be the "excecutive" branch? Why are you talking about the "judicial" branch?

Another possibility is that there simply was no direct political intervention. The only ones telling this story is you and Coevett -- two posters with questionable credibility, questionable neutrality, and not beyond fabricating imaginary extensions to partial truths, and/or falling for them. This is a compelling reason for me to think the opposite is more likely, because Coevett has a thing against Kenyans, and you have a thing against reality.