Yep. The "East African genetic superiority" or "culture of running" myths are some of the most pathetic, laughable doping dodges I have ever seen. Not a shred of evidence for them, and there is an overwhelmingly obvious alternative explanation that easily accounts for the disparity, EPO/PEDs. Coupled with official corruption and the absence of meaningful testing and it easily accounts for everything we see in the sport.
Loook I don't doubt doping is a big issue. But if the East African success was simply the result of poor people doping, can you explain to me a) why almost all of the Kenyan runners are from a single tribe and b) why aren't poor people in India or South America doping and winning big?
Yep. The "East African genetic superiority" or "culture of running" myths are some of the most pathetic, laughable doping dodges I have ever seen. Not a shred of evidence for them, and there is an overwhelmingly obvious alternative explanation that easily accounts for the disparity, EPO/PEDs. Coupled with official corruption and the absence of meaningful testing and it easily accounts for everything we see in the sport.
Loook I don't doubt doping is a big issue. But if the East African success was simply the result of poor people doping, can you explain to me a) why almost all of the Kenyan runners are from a single tribe and b) why aren't poor people in India or South America doping and winning big?
I don't think it is being claimed that poverty alone is the driver of doping. The desire for success is. Hence doping can be found in any country. But there appear to be cultural factors that influence its incidence, and also institutional factors, such as a relative indifference by national sporting bodies to controlling it. The easier it is to get away with doping - coupled with the perceived rewards - the more it will occur. For that reason we have seen higher incidences of doping in some countries than in others. But the unfortunate reality is that it can be found in all countries to a greater or lesser extent at pro levels. But in running we have seen that Kenya has been a major offender. They are good at running and have been relatively indifferent until recently at seeking to control their doping. People tend to dope to their strengths, whether it be running or some other sport.
Is distance running a big sport in India and South America?
Even assuming it is, there are cultural factors. In certain countries where certain sports are popular we have seen doping cultures. Blood doping among the Finish runners in the 1970s/80. EPO doping among Spanish cyclists in the 1990s/2000s. Doping in cross-country skiing despite it being centered mainly in Scandinavian countries. People dope to their strengths, and if they are strong in certain sports due to culture or physiology, that is where they will dope the most. Maybe there is something to the idea that certain tribes in East Africa are physical well suited to distance running based in things like BMI. Maybe there is also a culture of running. But there is with that a very well-documented doping culture. Add to that official corruption or the absence of any meaningful doping controls. and you get the type of supercharged doping even other dirty athletes are going to get blitzed by.
If you are going to argue that it isn't a culture of doping like we have seen before, then you have to come up with a credible physiological explanation as to how East African runners can naturally match and exceed known doping times. It does not exist. That is why the Ma's army example is so telling. The East Africans did not just get beat by the Chinese who had no running pedigree at all, they got utterly destroyed. Many of the Ma's army runners were teenagers. Chemistry made a complete mockery of natural talent. And yet we are supposed to believe that they can now outmatch those supercharged doping performances naturally?
Your argument is contradictory. First of all, the Chinese 1500 and 3000 records are still on the books. Second of all, if East African women were so good at doping and committed to it, it would stand to reason they would have more than two athletes even close to those records 30 years later in Kipyegon and Tsegay. They have no shortage of poor people who need money. You said it yourself chemistry trumps all. Or are you saying that Ethiopians and Kenyans are some of the least talented runners on earth so they can only run 3:57-4:02 for the 1500 with Ma’s Army level doping and faster spikes and tracks. I suggest you rethink your argument.
Jakob won that at a canter. Despite the heat, despite the fact he had ran 3 rounds of the 1500m, including a sub 3:30 just 5 days ago, despite needing to grab a water, despite hardly ever running the 5000m - he absolutely destroyed the best East African distance runners in the world over 5000m.
One Norwegian family decides to switch from the familiar route of xcountry skiing, and go into distance running, and all become elite, with the youngest (so far) dominating.
Jakob is a rare and phenomenal talent, but I doubt if there are not quite a few more Jakobs out there in Europe if they had somebody like Gjert as a father pushing them into distance running at an early age. In fact, there are several 'next Jakobs' in Scandinavia alone emerging, both male and female.
When I started posting here 5 years ago, there had only ever been one non-East African who had ever won a DL 1500m, let alone a 5000m. Few believed there would ever be a European men's 1500m champ again, let alone in a distance event. Of course, it's a large part due to better testing finally being introduced to East Africa, which has not only degraded the performances of East Africans, but it's spurred on the rest of the world, who now can believe they are competing on a more level playing field.
The myth is over.
And Max would have won the 800m, and Keely was impeded by Mu.
And let's give Jake Wightman the 100% credit he deserves for beating Jakob, who unlike as some were saying the other day, is clearly at his very best here.
Lol. Did you feel a tingle down your leg when Jakob won?
Your argument is contradictory. First of all, the Chinese 1500 and 3000 records are still on the books. Second of all, if East African women were so good at doping and committed to it, it would stand to reason they would have more than two athletes even close to those records 30 years later in Kipyegon and Tsegay. They have no shortage of poor people who need money. You said it yourself chemistry trumps all. Or are you saying that Ethiopians and Kenyans are some of the least talented runners on earth so they can only run 3:57-4:02 for the 1500 with Ma’s Army level doping and faster spikes and tracks. I suggest you rethink your argument.
Your response about Chinese runners actually reinforces his point. Their records are being removed by what you have acknowledged are likely doped performances (Dibaba's 1500m). That suggests that only a doped performance will beat a doped record. (That the 3k record still stands is only because the event isn't raced as much). So race, ethnicity or culture are not crucial to determining achievement. Doping can enable any to reach the top, regardless of their background.
Another factor you are overlooking is that doping control is better today than it was up to the late '90's and early 2000's. That will have changed the way that athletes dope. Doping today has to be able to escape detection through testing and the biopassport. Doping has therefore become a more subtle practice, so as to not trigger a positive test or raise markers in the biopassport. That has meant that it has been more difficult for athletes to replicate some of the leading performances of the past. But as David Howman has pointed out - doping remains ahead of anti-doping. The recent world championships have made that obvious.
This is a rare time where I don't take issue with anything Coevett is saying. What are people butthurt about? He is simply saying that it's a debunkable hypothesis that there's something inherent about east africans that gives them an advantage. You could have looked at nordic runners back in the last century and convinced yourself they were naturally gifted.
I believe that the reality is, if you have more people participating in a sport in your country, you're more likely to stumble upon those who have a genetic gift for it. It's not that your population is generally better, it's that you're finding the gifted people.
You always need a baseline of talent to make doping truly hit home in international competition. I think the Dibabas, or Wang or Gidey or Hassan or Koch etc are/were very naturally talented. Add doping to the equation and you get WRs and gold medals. Fignon once said that EPO turned mules into race horses, and he had the perspective of watching his teammate Riis, a journeyman rider for ten years, commit to doping in his 30s and win the 1996 Tour de France. I don't think it is that extreme. But it does turn good race horses into champion race horses to use that analogy. What the Ma's Army example shows is that when put to test natural talent cannot compete with doping. They proved that decisive. The whole "natural born runners" argument is that a certain segment of the global population is so naturally gifted that they do not need to dope to win and that their best runners can beat athletes that are doping. Well hell and no. Doping tends to gravitate towards sports where either culturally or physically a population is well suited for. Take a large pool of talented runners, add an aggressive doping regime and pitiful oversight, and you get we have seen. Take a sports culture, add a doping culture and governmental indifference or encouragement, and you can get regional dominance like we saw with the parade of Spanish cyclists in the 90s/2000s.
The 1500 wr is interesting. It was held by the Soviets since 1972 until finally broken by the Chinese. Then a decade later one of the Dibaba sisters broke that. Put aside all we heard about Dibaba and Jama Aden. What is the probability that a record held by hardcore dopers for 50 years was broken by a clean athlete? Sure. Just unlike Abeylegesse she wasn't caught.
Your argument is contradictory. First of all, the Chinese 1500 and 3000 records are still on the books. Second of all, if East African women were so good at doping and committed to it, it would stand to reason they would have more than two athletes even close to those records 30 years later in Kipyegon and Tsegay. They have no shortage of poor people who need money. You said it yourself chemistry trumps all. Or are you saying that Ethiopians and Kenyans are some of the least talented runners on earth so they can only run 3:57-4:02 for the 1500 with Ma’s Army level doping and faster spikes and tracks. I suggest you rethink your argument.
The argument is a good one, imo, but not to be viewed in absolute term. First of all, the Chinese 1500 WR got broken by an East African without super shoes. The 3000 are barely held.
Second, the Chinese 5000 WR got broken by an East African by heritage seven years later in 2004, who got then caught doping.
Third, you can't dope that all out anymore, not even in Ethiopia or Kenya.
So now, we have the best doped talented Africans - watching the ABP limits and OOC tests - about as fast or faster as the hard core doped Chinese. Makes sense.
Then look at the runners of European heritage. The top two over 5000 both ran 14:23, 1 second faster than the above mentioned 2004 WR, 17 seconds slower than the current one, and both got later caught doping.
You note a combination of different doping and different talent resulting in different times. Makes all sense to me.
Well Coe's and Cruz's times from the 80s are still very high on the all time best list, so there is that. Only 3 Africans have ever run faster than those two in over 37 years, and the last one to do so did that in 2012 and is now banned for doping.
This is a rare time where I don't take issue with anything Coevett is saying. What are people butthurt about? He is simply saying that it's a debunkable hypothesis that there's something inherent about east africans that gives them an advantage. You could have looked at nordic runners back in the last century and convinced yourself they were naturally gifted.
I believe that the reality is, if you have more people participating in a sport in your country, you're more likely to stumble upon those who have a genetic gift for it. It's not that your population is generally better, it's that you're finding the gifted people.
ballpark there are 35ish kalenjin runners under 2:05. similar number of ethiopians. handful of somali-born athletes. probably a couple non-kalenjin kenyans. I believe 1 each from tanzania, eritrea, japan, and brazil.
assume 100% participation of the 7 million kalenjin in the world. call it 4 million who are old/young enough to compete, and 2 million men. are there not that many runners outside of kenya? if even 0.025% of non east africans run, that’s 2 million, so why then do we not see more 2:05s?
are the kenyans and ethiopians the only people who dope? more specifically, are the kalenjin the only kenyans and ugandans that dope? do they have better drugs?
# of people that run under 2:05:
Kenyan kalenjin: ~1 in 115,000
Ethiopian: ~1 in 3.4 million
Rest of kenya: ~1 in 25 million
Rest of East Africa: ~1 in 60 million
Rest of world: ~1 in 3.9 billion
divide by 2 for men.
Are Ethiopians 1000x more likely to run than anyone else? Are Kalenjin 33000x more likely to run than everyone else and 217 times more likely to run than their countrymen?
Obviously participation is a factor, and genetics isn’t the only one, but participation alone can not explain this