"No, it doesn't"?? It's not even clear to what that's a reply.
You don't want to answer some questions, because the answer would show how one-sided your doping position actually is.
You really are slow, aren't you - like your user name suggests. You said: "A question which .. would challenge your position to doping in Kenya."
I replied - "no, it doesn't", in obvious reference to your "question".
Nothing you have said suggests I should be persuaded to your views on doping in Kenya. As I have said previously, Kenyan doping is a dumpster fire, as the increasing number of violations shows. But that is not to say that it was so in the 1960's, when doping in distance running was still a rarity and in its infancy. Doping is undoubtedly a serious problem in Kenya today but I don't see its beginning with a runner like Wilson Kiprugut in '64.
OK, your mother tongue is still causing you problems too? But that's not important.
So you agree that doping is not the main reason for Kenyan success!
You really are slow, aren't you - like your user name suggests. You said: "A question which .. would challenge your position to doping in Kenya."
I replied - "no, it doesn't", in obvious reference to your "question".
Nothing you have said suggests I should be persuaded to your views on doping in Kenya. As I have said previously, Kenyan doping is a dumpster fire, as the increasing number of violations shows. But that is not to say that it was so in the 1960's, when doping in distance running was still a rarity and in its infancy. Doping is undoubtedly a serious problem in Kenya today but I don't see its beginning with a runner like Wilson Kiprugut in '64.
OK, your mother tongue is still causing you problems too? But that's not important.
So you agree that doping is not the main reason for Kenyan success!
I did not say that. I have said the opposite. But you have shown you don't understand that.
I did not say that. I have said the opposite. But you have shown you don't understand that.
If a clean Kenyan can run 1:44.57 in 1968, do you think 1:43.0 clean 54 years later is superhuman?
He thinks it must be a doped time. According to him there's no such thing as modern training methods that may have improved times since the days of the Lydiard athletes. He is stuck in the past. And a very white past at that.
I did not say that. I have said the opposite. But you have shown you don't understand that.
If a clean Kenyan can run 1:44.57 in 1968, do you think 1:43.0 clean 54 years later is superhuman?
I didn't say it was. It depends who it is run by and their progress to that point. That doesn't only apply to Kenyans. But 1.41.7 at age "18" by a Botswanan was doped. Quite apart from that point, most Kenyan performances today cannot be trusted because doping has become the norm at the top in their sport. We see that with the appalling stream of doping busts in Kenya. It is likely hundreds are doping today. It wasn't so in 1968.
If a clean Kenyan can run 1:44.57 in 1968, do you think 1:43.0 clean 54 years later is superhuman?
He thinks it must be a doped time. According to him there's no such thing as modern training methods that may have improved times since the days of the Lydiard athletes. He is stuck in the past. And a very white past at that.
I didn't think Jesse Owens was doped - nor Bob Hayes. As far as I can tell, they weren't white.
Athletes will have improved since the '60's but the degree of improvement cannot now be separated from the presence of drugs in the sport. It underpins everything in professional sport today.
People that are disliking an informal post have some brain disease.
Ummm... that's a far stretch. Also it wasn't just informative, as you claimed 3rd place without evidence. In fact, the data you showed, had you on 4th after one Kenyan, one Ethiopian, and one Dutch.
Your top ranked guy, El Aaraby, is currently ranked as no. 51 by WA, behind 2 Japanese, 1 Belgian, 1 Brazilian, 1 Tanzanian, and 1 Canadian.
