I am not trying to argue who was ultimately the better runner - which is what your observation alludes to. My point was that it is factually incorrect to say no one was "faster" in Keino's era. Clarke's 5k record demonstrates that. It does not mean Clarke was always faster - clearly he wasn't - but that he achieved a faster time over that distance than Keino ever did. But there have been some here whose English is such they don't understand that "faster" is not necessarily a synonym for "better".
You have stated several runners in his era were faster than Keino. For sure in an attempt to downgrade Keino's achievements. I just responded to this totally nonsense claim: no, no one was "faster" than Keino.
Since than you again and again state that "13.16" > "13.24" (are you really too stupid to understand the format of times - even when it was explained to you 10 times?).
Because of Clarke's 7.6 seconds faster 5000m PB, to you Clarke is "faster" than Keino. Completely ignoring all the arguments which demonstrates how deluded such a phrasing is.
Now you have started to give statements of mine which I never did, not once. Stop it, imbecile.
I will have to excuse your perpetual misinterpretation of a term of basic English as you are clearly not familiar with the language. Unfortunately, you remain unaware of that deficiency.
It is a factual statement that Clarke's PBs for 5000m and 10000m were better and faster than Keino's.
But if the question is who was faster in more general.term, it doesn't tell the answer, because there is no reason to consider 5000m or 10000m as any type of a gold standard.
Why not equally use 3000m or 1500m as the gold standard, when comparing the two when...
1) Keino was faster than Clarke
2) Keino's records are better than Clarkes if one contrasts them to modern times
And
3) Keino's records in IAAF scores are better achievements than Clarke ran at longer distances?
I didn't use the phrase "beeing faster". (What is that? Is it to do with an apiary? Bees? Or is your solecism simply an indication that English is not your native tongue? I think you mean "being" - even though I don't use the word in this context.) However, your inability to understand basic English and the word "faster" is apparent. 13.16 is "faster" than 13.24. That is fact - notwithstanding your strange intellectual contortions to try to say otherwise.
How precious that you are making fun of someone who's first language is not English for a small mistake. Typical narcissist, needing to humiliate others to feel superior to them when you have no real arguments to refute what they say. How many languages do you speak fluently?
You should stick your insults up your butt. You might feel literally "anused" then.
It is a factual statement that Clarke's PBs for 5000m and 10000m were better and faster than Keino's.
But if the question is who was faster in more general.term, it doesn't tell the answer, because there is no reason to consider 5000m or 10000m as any type of a gold standard.
Why not equally use 3000m or 1500m as the gold standard, when comparing the two when...
1) Keino was faster than Clarke
2) Keino's records are better than Clarkes if one contrasts them to modern times
And
3) Keino's records in IAAF scores are better achievements than Clarke ran at longer distances?
I quite acknowledge your argument. There is more to evaluating performance than times alone - and may also depend on the times that are being considered. However, my own observations on this topic went no further than your first paragraph - that certain of Clarke's pbs were faster - in responding to an erroneous claim that "no one had been faster than Keino in his era". Your initial paragraph makes it clear such a claim is in error but it has been beyond some here to understand.
Can you imagine a country like Scotland or New Zealand :
1 / Distance running is the only viable option for a professional sporting career. For example, both Kerr brothers commit to middle-distance running. EVERY elite soccer player, rugby player, boxer, tennis player etc etc devoted themselves to distance running from their teens instead. There is also a huge financial motive as Scotland has a standard of living 1/20th of the European average.
2/ There is a rampant doping culture with no testing and EPO available over the counter in every high street pharmacy.
3/ Scottish athletes routinely lie about their ages to compete in and win international junior competitions.
4 / The best coaches in the world flock to Scotland to train 'the best natural running talent in the world'.
5/ Everybody believes that generations of haggis eating and living in the Highlands has produced 'special adaptations' in Scottish people for distance running. Books are written about it - 'Running with the Scots'. Young runners from other countries feel intimidated when competing against Scots athletes, believing they just don't have the right genes.
Now none of the above 5 things are remotely close to being the case, and yet look at how well Scotland - a country with less than 2/3 of the population of the Kalenjin and less than 1/10th that of Kenya as a whole, is doing. Scotland currently has three male sub 3:33 runners, as opposed to Kenya's 2 (last 12 months). Then the women...
Imagine if the above 5 things were the case. Would it surprise anyone if Scotland completely dominated middle amd long distance running? Probably 10 x as much as Kenya currently does.
Can you imagine ...? Interesting how predominant the imagination is in these discussions.
Imagine if Scots lived and train in higher lands, and grew up at high altitude to be a heathly mature adult at 90-110 pounds (6 stones 7 pounds to 8 stones)?
And I thought you had moved on from talking about "genes" to include enviromnental influences like altitude.
Why can't you understand that the middle distances (800m and 1500m) are not Kenya's best events? These are events where non-Africans have always had a chance to be competitive. A top Coe and Cram and Ovett would have been competitive throughout the EPO-era.
How does your analysis look, for the very same small populations, for steeple, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m, 5K roads, 10K roads, 15K roads, half-marathon, marathon and cross-country, if we count performances comparable to your third place Gourley? Is it still 3-2 in Scotland's favor? How does it look for the last four decades, when East Africans started dominating the world in cross-country with the depth of top talent, long before EPO was widely used (according to you in 1992)?
What is different in 2022, than say 2021, or 2018? In other threads, Armstronglivs tries to say that, while official WADA test reports show in 2021 that ~11% of positives tests are Kenyan, for 2022, according to Coe, that fraction is now 40%, a nearly 4x increase in Kenyan doping. How does this alleged rapid increase in Kenyan doping sit with your observation of Kenyan decline in performance in the 1500m in 2022? The increased doping made the Kenyans slower?
While Kerr and Wightman have produced great (top-100) 1500m performances (Australia and Spain have also done well with two athletes each in 2022), you have to dig pretty far down the list to find your third Scot, Gourley, coming in just about the top-1000th best performance. Does that mean the whole country of Scotland now has better depth than the whole region of Kalenjins? I think you have to consider other more basic reasons why Kenyan depth is drying up on the tracks, and has been since 2010 (when the IAAF switched from Golden League to Diamond League) -- money is drying up on the track and Kenyans have followed the money to the roads. A third best Kenyan generally cannot afford to go to international meets, like the Scots can, and their domestic meets are at altitude, on inferior tracks.
To the extent that doping culture is rampant, the whole world has a rampant doping culture. If Cathal Lombard and Martin Fagan can get EPO in Ireland, and Christian Hesch can get EPO from Mexico, and virtually anyone can get it shipped from China, then the Scots can also get EPO in Scotland. Indeed, if you were consistent, you would have to suspect these Scots of doping with EPO.
And what about the women? Isn't Laura Muir a veterinarian, with access to all kinds of drugs? Vets can prescribe EPO. Why get EPO from high street pharmacies, when you can be a high street pharmacist? She can supply the whole country, men and women. Is that why the Scots have become so good? Where does your sense of conspiracy go when it comes to pasty-white non-Africans?
So doping is somehow as prevalent in Scotland as it is in Kenya, and yet, at the same time, doping doesn't actually help anyone - as the Kenyans show (and in their sheer numbers being busted they are, after all, the most reliable case studies we have these days, in the absence of volunteers for rekrunner's "studies".)
What else possibly explains the sudden unprecedented explosion of such depth of performance from such a small population? First New Zealand in the 1960s, until the IOC introduced testing, now Scotland in the 2020s, with Lord Coe at the helm?
Maybe prevalence is not the whole country, but just the handful of Scots Coevett means, with a single high street pharmacist doctor of medicine mastermind behind. A depth of 3 doesn't implicate the whole country.
It would be great if you and Coevett could get together and present a coherent unified conspiracy theory. Coevett says Kenyans are performing worse in 2022, while you say doping in Kenya has dramatically increased nearly 4-fold from 2021 to 2022. Logical conclusion: Doping made Kenyans slower.
In your reliable case study of busted Kenyans, can you name all the Kenyans that doped in 2022 that also beat the Scots?
What else possibly explains the sudden unprecedented explosion of such depth of performance from such a small population? First New Zealand in the 1960s, until the IOC introduced testing, now Scotland in the 2020s, with Lord Coe at the helm?
Maybe prevalence is not the whole country, but just the handful of Scots Coevett means, with a single high street pharmacist doctor of medicine mastermind behind. A depth of 3 doesn't implicate the whole country.
It would be great if you and Coevett could get together and present a coherent unified conspiracy theory. Coevett says Kenyans are performing worse in 2022, while you say doping in Kenya has dramatically increased nearly 4-fold from 2021 to 2022. Logical conclusion: Doping made Kenyans slower.
In your reliable case study of busted Kenyans, can you name all the Kenyans that doped in 2022 that also beat the Scots?
I am not Coevett. My views don't require reconciling with his, any more than with yours. The claim of Kenya producing 40% of world athletics doping positives comes from the head of World Athletics. Until it is refuted I will accept it. It hasn't been refuted.
I don't purport to authoring formal studies of doping as you do, yet for all your "studies" and "research" - such as your claims to longitudinal research on performance - none have been published that we know of and none have been accepted as offering anything of merit on the topic by either antidoping experts or athletes. That says all we need to know about them.
I've never said what you say I did, you are a pure lier.
You claimed others were "faster" than Keino. Not others have beaten him on one occasion or have a better PB in one event: others were faster.
I said that's nonsense. But if we really would say Clarke was "faster" than Keino, than it's a 100% necessity to agree that Keino was "faster" than Clarke. You have never said anything to this, just denigrated me.
I am not Coevett. My views don't require reconciling with his, any more than with yours. The claim of Kenya producing 40% of world athletics doping positives comes from the head of World Athletics. Until it is refuted I will accept it. It hasn't been refuted.
I don't purport to authoring formal studies of doping as you do, yet for all your "studies" and "research" - such as your claims to longitudinal research on performance - none have been published that we know of and none have been accepted as offering anything of merit on the topic by either antidoping experts or athletes. That says all we need to know about them.
That's part of the problem -- if I ask a dozen people, I get a dozen pet theories about doping and performance, which are not all that coherent with each other. Who do I pick as the "right" one, and why?
Don't worry -- WADA will publish a 2022 testing report probably early next year with the more complete and accurate doping positive test figures, combining the World Athletics testing results with all other WADA signatories. Maybe in 2025, they will publish the 2022 ADRV report.
I don't purport to have authored any formal studies of doping. But you said you had reliable case studies.
I've never said what you say I did, you are a pure lier.
You claimed others were "faster" than Keino. Not others have beaten him on one occasion or have a better PB in one event: others were faster.
I said that's nonsense. But if we really would say Clarke was "faster" than Keino, than it's a 100% necessity to agree that Keino was "faster" than Clarke. You have never said anything to this, just denigrated me.
Stop lying.
Anyone who beat Keino was in that race "faster". They had to be or they couldn't have beaten him. Anyone whose times were faster than his were also faster by that measure. Of course, Keino was also faster than those he beat. But as I have shown - and you cannot grasp - other runners were sometimes faster than him. Since your English appears to be rudimentary you have no real idea what the word "faster" means.
I've never said what you say I did, you are a pure lier.
You claimed others were "faster" than Keino. Not others have beaten him on one occasion or have a better PB in one event: others were faster.
I said that's nonsense. But if we really would say Clarke was "faster" than Keino, than it's a 100% necessity to agree that Keino was "faster" than Clarke. You have never said anything to this, just denigrated me.
Stop lying.
Anyone who beat Keino was in that race "faster". They had to be or they couldn't have beaten him. Anyone whose times were faster than his were also faster by that measure. Of course, Keino was also faster than those he beat. But as I have shown - and you cannot grasp - other runners were sometimes faster than him. Since your English appears to be rudimentary you have no real idea what the word "faster" means.
So Keino was faster than Clarke! Wow, you got it, after something like 50 posts.
I am not Coevett. My views don't require reconciling with his, any more than with yours. The claim of Kenya producing 40% of world athletics doping positives comes from the head of World Athletics. Until it is refuted I will accept it. It hasn't been refuted.
I don't purport to authoring formal studies of doping as you do, yet for all your "studies" and "research" - such as your claims to longitudinal research on performance - none have been published that we know of and none have been accepted as offering anything of merit on the topic by either antidoping experts or athletes. That says all we need to know about them.
That's part of the problem -- if I ask a dozen people, I get a dozen pet theories about doping and performance, which are not all that coherent with each other. Who do I pick as the "right" one, and why?
Don't worry -- WADA will publish a 2022 testing report probably early next year with the more complete and accurate doping positive test figures, combining the World Athletics testing results with all other WADA signatories. Maybe in 2025, they will publish the 2022 ADRV report.
I don't purport to have authored any formal studies of doping. But you said you had reliable case studies.
You regularly claim to have done "research", based on your "data" looking at "historical studies" of performance, from which you have made claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of doping. None of your "studies" have been published by a credible source and none have been endorsed by any expert. As your research lacks any credibility that it might have obtained through expert review it is of no more value than a roll of toilet paper. Less - as toilet paper has its uses.
This post was edited 55 seconds after it was posted.
Anyone who beat Keino was in that race "faster". They had to be or they couldn't have beaten him. Anyone whose times were faster than his were also faster by that measure. Of course, Keino was also faster than those he beat. But as I have shown - and you cannot grasp - other runners were sometimes faster than him. Since your English appears to be rudimentary you have no real idea what the word "faster" means.
So Keino was faster than Clarke! Wow, you got it, after something like 50 posts.
Sadly, the part you cannot grasp is that your claim that "no one was faster than Keino" is completely wrong. English must be a very difficult language for you.
You regularly claim to have done "research", based on your "data" looking at "historical studies" of performance, from which you have made claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of doping. None of your "studies" have been published by a credible source and none have been endorsed by any expert. As your research lacks any credibility that it might have obtained through expert review it is of no more value than a roll of toilet paper. Less - as toilet paper has its uses.
I don't ever make any of those claims. It's like you cut up keywords, and put them in a hat, and brain scrambled them and then pulled them back out again. I have taken good looks at all time performances, searching for the emporer's clothes.
But look at the evolution of your false claims: In one post, you've gone from "purport to authoring studies of doping as you do", to the next post "doing "research" based on "data" looking at "historical studies"(sic)".
Do you know which lies you want to stick with, or will you keep fabricating new lies every time the old ones are debunked like you change socks?
If the standard to express my real world data based opinions is being published in a peer reviewed journal, who else here at letsrun forum meets that standard? This is a public forum. Is it no standard for conspiracies and baseless allegations, and another for opinions based on real world observations?
If that is your standard for posting, it does raise the question why you ever posted in the first place as you have not published anything worth printing even on toilet paper.
For sure the claim is correct. If not, then others - like Clarke - were "faster". And then Keino was "faster" than Clarke. As well as 100 others who were "faster" than Clarke.
In your using of "being faster" for almost any pair of runners A and B, A is "faster" than B and B is "faster" than A.
Wonderful contribution to the subject.
At the moment there are some other mad "discussions" like this one here going on in letsrun with you involved, for example that a 2 second difference in the 1500 is the same as a 2 second difference in a 3000 - with the definitive conclusion that a 10.58 in the 100 is worth the same as a 2:01:10 in the marathon.
More and more people in letsrun get it which kind of person you are and that any discussion with you is totally useless.
My english is good enough to spot all the nonsense you produce regularly.
You regularly claim to have done "research", based on your "data" looking at "historical studies" of performance, from which you have made claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of doping. None of your "studies" have been published by a credible source and none have been endorsed by any expert. As your research lacks any credibility that it might have obtained through expert review it is of no more value than a roll of toilet paper. Less - as toilet paper has its uses.
I don't ever make any of those claims. It's like you cut up keywords, and put them in a hat, and brain scrambled them and then pulled them back out again. I have taken good looks at all time performances, searching for the emporer's clothes.
But look at the evolution of your false claims: In one post, you've gone from "purport to authoring studies of doping as you do", to the next post "doing "research" based on "data" looking at "historical studies"(sic)".
Do you know which lies you want to stick with, or will you keep fabricating new lies every time the old ones are debunked like you change socks?
If the standard to express my real world data based opinions is being published in a peer reviewed journal, who else here at letsrun forum meets that standard? This is a public forum. Is it no standard for conspiracies and baseless allegations, and another for opinions based on real world observations?
If that is your standard for posting, it does raise the question why you ever posted in the first place as you have not published anything worth printing even on toilet paper.
The point about your "research" never finding its way into publication is that it therefore has no more weight or credibility or substance than any other opinion expressed here - including those you dismiss. You strike a pose of intellectual rigor through your "studies" - but that is all it is, a pose. And a rather empty one at that, as it merely reflects your unending obsession with denying the obvious about doping. If your researches had any significance they would have been published and been welcomed by experts in the field. But no chance of that. And you know it.
