agip wrote:
russian men don't like to run, and drugs work better on women.
russian men choose other sports - for example, the endurance athletes go to xc xcsking. 3 of the top 10 ranked male xc skiers are russians. And 5 of the top 20.
In biathlon 3 of the top 20 men are russian.
I think that in order to illuminate this question, we should follow money and doping.
The decrease of performance in white runners was a common phenomenon on both sides of the Iron Curtain in late 80's. People still think that when Africans started to win medals in track in late 80's, it was due to their growing numbers and superior "natural talent". This is a fallacy. In reality, Africans were not running much faster times than before. Only their competition started to disappear very rapidly on all distances from the 100 m to the longest distances.
Now, was it due to the out-of-competition testing introduced in 1988? But why did the performance of white runners decrease not only in sprints, but even in long distances? What a sort of blood doping was so well detectable in late 80's? And why do black runners in Western countries happily dope until now?
You should notice that even in mid-90's, when EPO emerged in athletics, there were virtually no good white runners on track. Otherwise we would see a flood of sub-3:30 Europeans. Why didn't they use EPO on a mass scale then? Well, we should probably find some other, majority-white sport, where EPO was abused on a mass scale. It would be logical to assume that the endurance talent headed in that direction. What about cycling? Or cross country running? And what about money? Where can you find the largest amount of money in an international sport? Football?