The AIU tests more Kenyans because more Kenyans are doping. They would be stupid to do it if it weren't so and the infractions incurred show their approach is justified.
This is only partly true. The AIU's Rule 15 explains in better detail that the AIU considers and balances two factors: international success and doping risk.
It looks like the AIU is also raising questions about New Zealand, who might join Kenya as a Category A country deemed to be at high risk of doping:
"New Zealand has been told by the international body, Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), that it could face additional monitoring, including the same conditions imposed on nations like Kenya, Ethiopia and Belarus, if it does not improve its standards."
So how many NZ distance runners have been busted in the country's history? Oh, yeah - the same as are busted every month in Kenya. Another particularly stupid comparison from you.
No, you didn't. And you conflated the BBC report with Coe's claim.
Before you butted in, the exchange between "consistency" and me was about BBC Africa's quote of "serving bans", and not about Coe's quote of "doping positives". If anything, we established the difference between the BBC quote and Coe's.
The BBC report was a misquote. The correct quote from Coe related to "doping positives", not serving bans. Another stupid piece of deflection.
Before you butted in, the exchange between "consistency" and me was about BBC Africa's quote of "serving bans", and not about Coe's quote of "doping positives". If anything, we established the difference between the BBC quote and Coe's.
The BBC report was a misquote. The correct quote from Coe related to "doping positives", not serving bans. Another stupid piece of deflection.
Before you butted in, the exchange between "consistency" and me was about BBC Africa's quote of "serving bans", and not about Coe's quote of "doping positives". If anything, we established the difference between the BBC quote and Coe's.
The BBC report was a misquote. The correct quote from Coe related to "doping positives", not serving bans. Another stupid piece of deflection.
That is exactly what I said. BBC Africa's statement about "serving bans" is not Coe's statement, and the BBC statement is incorrect, according to data from the AIU:
"The BBC (Lynne Wachira, BBC Africa) is now reporting something else "serving bans", while Coe reportedly said "doping positives".
It's not clear what the BBC counted here either, but the AIU currently lists some 550 ineligible athletes, and only 67 of them are Kenyan. That is around 12% of the AIU's global list of ineligible persons."
The BBC report was a misquote. The correct quote from Coe related to "doping positives", not serving bans. Another stupid piece of deflection.
That is exactly what I said. BBC Africa's statement about "serving bans" is not Coe's statement, and the BBC statement is incorrect, according to data from the AIU:
"The BBC (Lynne Wachira, BBC Africa) is now reporting something else "serving bans", while Coe reportedly said "doping positives".
It's not clear what the BBC counted here either, but the AIU currently lists some 550 ineligible athletes, and only 67 of them are Kenyan. That is around 12% of the AIU's global list of ineligible persons."
Back to reducing 40% to 12%. That's far too high. You know it's really only about 1.2%. You're failing in your denying of Kenyan doping.
That is exactly what I said. BBC Africa's statement about "serving bans" is not Coe's statement, and the BBC statement is incorrect, according to data from the AIU:
"The BBC (Lynne Wachira, BBC Africa) is now reporting something else "serving bans", while Coe reportedly said "doping positives".
It's not clear what the BBC counted here either, but the AIU currently lists some 550 ineligible athletes, and only 67 of them are Kenyan. That is around 12% of the AIU's global list of ineligible persons."
Back to reducing 40% to 12%. That's far too high. You know it's really only about 1.2%. You're failing in your denying of Kenyan doping.
12% "serving bans" comes from the AIU (Coe's organization). If there is any reduction, take that up with Coe and the AIU.
This is what Coe said : "Over the course of one year 40% of all the positives recorded in global athletics are in Kenya," Coe told a news conference after the World Athletics Council meeting in Rome."
This is what Coe said : "Over the course of one year 40% of all the positives recorded in global athletics are in Kenya," Coe told a news conference after the World Athletics Council meeting in Rome."
I thought we were all on the same page now: Coe's statement and the BBC statement are not the same. The conclusion was that the BBC quote was wrong on two counts: 1) that is not what Coe said, and 2) according to the AIU, they give the wrong percentage "serving bans".
This is what Coe said : "Over the course of one year 40% of all the positives recorded in global athletics are in Kenya," Coe told a news conference after the World Athletics Council meeting in Rome."
I thought we were all on the same page now: Coe's statement and the BBC statement are not the same. The conclusion was that the BBC quote was wrong on two counts: 1) that is not what Coe said, and 2) according to the AIU, they give the wrong percentage "serving bans".
So you spend page after page on the BBC's journalistic error - because that enables you to "reduce" Kenyan doping - and not what Coe actually said - which stops you. You are a total w*nker.
This post was edited 27 seconds after it was posted.
I thought we were all on the same page now: Coe's statement and the BBC statement are not the same. The conclusion was that the BBC quote was wrong on two counts: 1) that is not what Coe said, and 2) according to the AIU, they give the wrong percentage "serving bans".
So you spend page after page on the BBC's journalistic error - because that enables you to "reduce" Kenyan doping - and not what Coe actually said - which stops you. You are a total w*nker.
I spent exactly one post on it. The rest of the "pages" was addressing your confusion, among others, for something that had nothing to do with Coe's statement.
It's unsurprising that you were confused, and that now you blame me for it.
So you spend page after page on the BBC's journalistic error - because that enables you to "reduce" Kenyan doping - and not what Coe actually said - which stops you. You are a total w*nker.
I spent exactly one post on it. The rest of the "pages" was addressing your confusion, among others, for something that had nothing to do with Coe's statement.
It's unsurprising that you were confused, and that now you blame me for it.
There was no confusion until you decided to sow it. Your psychosis.
I spent exactly one post on it. The rest of the "pages" was addressing your confusion, among others, for something that had nothing to do with Coe's statement.
It's unsurprising that you were confused, and that now you blame me for it.
There was no confusion until you decided to sow it. Your psychosis.
More self projection after being shown wrong.
Apparently at least two of you were confused when I said that the BBC Africa's 12% "serving bans" was not Coe's 40% "doping postives", after "consistency" linked to the BBC Africa article.
There was no confusion until you decided to sow it. Your psychosis.
More self projection after being shown wrong.
Apparently at least two of you were confused when I said that the BBC Africa's 12% "serving bans" was not Coe's 40% "doping postives", after "consistency" linked to the BBC Africa article.
I didn't quote the BBC and had previously referred to "doping positives" - Coe's words. It was a pointless pedantic diversion on your part. Like you always do. You didn't stick to what Coe actually said.
Right, "lots". If it's already so bad, why the insecure need to exaggerate the problem?
It's not being exaggerated. It is appalling. You, on the other hand, seek to minimize it, suggesting it's no worse than a bunch of other countries that no one is seeking to ban. You're wrong but that's what the liar does.
I thought we were all on the same page now: Coe's statement and the BBC statement are not the same. The conclusion was that the BBC quote was wrong on two counts: 1) that is not what Coe said, and 2) according to the AIU, they give the wrong percentage "serving bans".
So you spend page after page on the BBC's journalistic error - because that enables you to "reduce" Kenyan doping - and not what Coe actually said - which stops you. You are a total w*nker.
Foul mouthed chief troll heading for an other ban.
Right, "lots". If it's already so bad, why the insecure need to exaggerate the problem?
It's not being exaggerated. It is appalling. You, on the other hand, seek to minimize it, suggesting it's no worse than a bunch of other countries that no one is seeking to ban. You're wrong but that's what the liar does.