Kip Keino and six other senior Kenyan officials charged with corruption

He may be reading this thread right now and bursting from being banned. The poor guy all he had in life was his Calculo posts. He'd get up each morning in some drab part of London, in pouring rain, catch the train to the other side of the city, spend all day looking at obese patients just waiting till Friday when he could go on Letsrun and hit the boards posting about his heroes from yesteryear.

Watching us wrote:

He may be reading this thread right now and bursting from being banned. The poor guy all he had in life was his Calculo posts. He'd get up each morning in some drab part of London, in pouring rain, catch the train to the other side of the city, spend all day looking at obese patients just waiting till Friday when he could go on Letsrun and hit the boards posting about his heroes from yesteryear.

Brilliant!

Subway Surfers wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

There was a series of publications from 1959 on from Smith and Beecher, comparing (among other things) amphetamine vs. placebo pills for runners, swimmers, and weight lifters.

First one was JAMA 170, 542, 1959:

With amphetamines instead of placebo, the track runners were better by 2 - 3%, measured over 600 yd, 1000 yd, and 1 mile.

The marathon group improved by 1%, measured over 4.5 - 12.7 miles.

Interesting, maybe what Wigins has been arguing for all these years is true after all. But I would say amphetamines appear from this data too work in the opposite way to epo, the longer the event the greater the gains from epo. Definitely a good advantage to be obtained for the middle-distances.

This "logically capable"- thing is not necessarily true at all, because it might be that Keino's physiology compensates quite well the shortage of oxygen molecules at México Olympics (small impairment in Vo2MAX) and whereas at altitude he gets the benefit of lower air resistance (slightly smaller energy cost), the net effect is close to zero if not zero vs. sea level. If my recollection is sound, there is even research data showing that blood reinfusion/rHuEPO actually improve performance at México City-type altitude (2000m-3000m) more than it increases sea level performance, so his (presumably) high Hct could've given him more relative benefit at altitude vs. sea level when compared to his sea level competitors such as Ryun.

5000m is a different event and speeds tend to be over 10 % slower vs. 1500m, so the benefit from lower air resistance can't any more compensate the impairment in Vo2Max.

Have you considered how many track & field venues there are at altitude and how many endurance runners want to go there to give a shot at the record assuming that their performance is most likely (and for most events) worse and with a good luck the same or slightly better? About the shortage of high altitude venues, it is telling that it pretty much took until the period preceding the 1968 México Olympics before the scientific community became interested in performance at altitude at all. And if it is certainly beneficial to attempt 200m, 400m and 800 m performances at altitude, why only 5/100 (200m), 3/100 (400m) and 1/100 (800m) of the all-time fastests times are altitude times? I think the most likely explanation is that there are practically no competitions at altitude at all.

Jipcho's day has been addressed already, I can copy-paste it for you if you want, but I don't see the point if you maintain that he should've ran a 3:32 time after the rabbit lap because six years later he was faster than Keino or whatever your logic is.

Here is a source for the claim that elevated Hct could give more boost at altitude than at sea level, which might explain why Keino could've been a worse mile runner at sea level than Ryun but better at altitude (from the Sgrò et al quoted here frequently):

Robach et al. assessed the effect of 4 weeks of rHuEpo treatment at different altitudes (0m, 1500m, 2500m, 3500m, 4500m) and, in spite of the increase of CaO2 in each condition, rHuEpo failed to increase VO2max at 4500m. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to observe that the larger increase in VO2max (15%) was performed in moderate hypoxia (2500-3500m) and perfectly matched the increase in O2 delivery (15%), whereas in normoxia the improvement in VO2max (6%) was smaller than the concomitant rise in O2 delivery.

In 1999, I spoke with Kip Keino about his career, and his training. We were together in a training camp of IOC (in Kip's farm), of which I was the technical responsible, for young African athletes and their coaches.

The opportunity to stay with Kip for 3 weeks was very stimulating for me : I could hear, from his mouth, many anecdots about his career and the situation of Kenya at that time, that teached me many things, different from what I supposed before.

The responsible for the organization of the training camp (including 72 participants, athletes and coaches of 17 African Countries) was John Velzian, who is the old guy speaking in the documentary about Keino and Jim Ryun.

Velzian arrived in Kenya in 1957, sent by the Britich Government in order to develop the organization of the sport in Kenya.

He was the one making the first track in the Country, in the Post Training Camp (were the future workers in the Post Offices had their training), at about 20 km from Nairobi.

Kenya became independent in 1963, and before that period there were no Kenyan coaches. John Velzian was the first coach of Keino, and started to teach to some Kenyan the basic knowledge of a preparation.

Keino talked about his WR of 3000m in 7'39"65, when somebody wanted to give him the splits at every lap, thinking this could help his performance. He destroyed the WR of almost 6 seconds (was from Siegfrid Herrmann in 7'45"), and when a journalist asked him if he had the plan to run at even pace, listening to the splits (who somebody gave him staying inside the spectators, because were not allowed), he answered "I tried only to run fastest possible".

He explained that at that time there was not money in the competitions, and the training of all African was only directed to Commonwealth and Olympic Games. Only in 1965 he had the opportunity to run in some European competition, but the other Kenyan couldn't do this. Some year later, some of the best athletes went to study in US Universities, and the situation changed.

What he told me, is that for Mexico 68 he had his best preparation, and he was of sure about 3 seconds faster than ever for 1500m. He thought to have a very fast final sprint, and in 5000m didn't push the pace thinking to win easy in the last lap. After being defeated by Gammoudi, in 1500m decided to change tactic, going for a fast race from the beginning, with the help of Ben Jipcho who was not yet strong like him.

So, every speculation about the difference between the PB of Kip at sea level and his performance in altitude doesn't consider one very important factor : the shape of Keino in Mexico was the best of his life, and when he competed at sea level he was really well prepared only during Olympics (and in 1972 won steeple and was 2nd by Vasala in 1500) and Commonwealth.

People here has to quit to look at times for deciding the "shape" of the athletes, thinking that the reasons because they run fast or slow is, in any case, their doping. This is really something ridiculous, also because the quote "if doping doesn't work, why do so many athletes use it" has a clear answer : BECAUSE THEY THINK CAN WORK.

Of course, when we speak about steroids, we well know they work. But how many other situations there are, where doping is completely useless or also damageous for the performance, but athletes use because, MINDWEAK, try to have every kind of external support to their performances ?

I give a clear example : some athlete was recently banned for FUROSEMIDE. This medicine doesn't have any effect for enhancing the performances, but CAN be used os masking agent. Do you know the collateral effects of Furosemide ?

" This drug has a black box warning. This is the most serious warning from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A black box warning alerts doctors and patients to drug effects that may be dangerous.

Furosemide is a strong diuretic (water pill) that helps your body get rid of excess water. It does this by increasing the amount of urine your body makes. If you take too much of this drug, it can lead to very low amounts of water and electrolytes in your body. This can cause dehydration. Your doctor will monitor your fluid levels and may change your dosage based on those levels.

Low blood pressure warning: This drug can cause low blood pressure. Symptoms include feeling dizzy and faint after standing up. If this occurs, move slowly when changing positions after sitting or lying down. If this problem continues, call your doctor.

Low potassium levels warning: This drug can cause low potassium levels. (Potassium is a mineral that helps your nerves, muscles, and organs work normally.)

Symptoms include tiredness, muscle weakness, and nausea or vomiting. Call your doctor if you have these symptoms.

Low thyroid levels warning: High doses (over 80 mg) of furosemide can cause low levels of thyroid hormones. If you’re taking high doses of this drug and have symptoms of thyroid problems, call your doctor. These symptoms can include:

tiredness

weakness

weight gain

dry hair and skin

increased feelings of being cold ".

At the end of everything, do you think that some athlete using furosemide as masking agent can have advantage by the doping that can take ? In spite of this, there are athletes BELIEVING in doping, who HAVE TO USE Furosemide in order to cover what they take. These athletes REDUCE their ability to run, but are so idiot that don't consider the bad effects of the useless medicine, only looking at the advantages of the real doping.

Is the mentality of many athletes that we have to change. But we can't change, till when the mentality of normal people brings everybody to think that we need to use a lot of substances in order to improve our normal life (and don't forget that the pharma business is the 3rd richest in the world).

What a lot of "might be's" - beginning with the notion that Keino's physiology is such that he is different from every other runner who has ever competed in the sport with regard to his ability to process oxygen in rarefied air. It is wrong, of course - because, as his performance in the longer distance events at Mexico showed, he was as much affected by altitude as any other altitude-trained runner. He couldn't beat Gammoudi in a relatively slow time in the 5k, and in the 10k he didn't even finish the event, which was won by his fellow altitude-trained countryman, Temu. Both were apparently better at coping with altitude than he was.

And according to yet another contorted argument, you say it might be that, for Keino, the effect of oxygen depletion is somehow countered by the advantage of reduced air resistance, but, again, no other runner has ever shown that distance running at altitude works like that. Reduced air resistance doesn't make up for less oxygen in any event from the 1500 up. Everybody (well, almost everybody) runs slower in the longer events at altitude.

Then, when you talk about the possibly heightened oxygenating capacity that he "might" possess, you are also suggesting something that is more likely to have been the result of blood doping - if in fact he did possess this capacity. Because that's what blood doping does. And blood doping was already being practised by distance runners in the late-60's.

Lastly, you attribute the dearth of fast distance times at altitude by other runners to the lack of competitive venues at altitude but that is easily refuted: most of the best altitude runners in the last half century are also Kenyan - they have lived and trained at altitude and also competed in their native Kenya: but did they ever run their fastest times at altitude in Kenya? (It is, of course, a rhetorical question. And if it isn't Mexico-level altitude it doesn't really count for the purpose of this discussion, does it?)

In the end, the only way you are able to maintain Keino's feat in the Mexico 1500m was "natural" is, paradoxically, to attribute to him physiological qualities that are unnatural, because no other runner from altitude has possessed this same capacity, and - unhelpfully to this particular argument - Keino himself has shown he is not any different from his altitude-trained peers by how relatively poorly he coped with the longer events at Mexico.

BTW, there is no question that the thin air at Mexico's altitude assisted the shorter track events (up to the 800m - and including the jumps); it is also without question after Mexico that in the longer aerobic events (1500 incl) performances suffer, whether an athlete is altitude-trained or not. But then we have the anomaly of Keino ...

Let's not forget that he had already run 5 races before the 1500 final and was running against his doctor's orders with an inflamed gall bladder. Clearly, without those factors he would have run even faster than his 3.34.9, possibly beating Ryun's world record of 3.33. At altitude. By a runner who never clocked faster than 3.36 in his career, at any altitude, over that distance. The equivalent today would be a 3.29 man taking El G's record at Mexico's altitude.

The 5000m was necessarily not "a relatively slow race" when taken into account the impairment of performance at altitude and silver isn't that bad, but 10000m was too long distance for Keino in any circumstances. Do you know what distances were the speciality of Temu and Gammoudi? 5000 and 10000m, and they perhaps they coped better at altitude than Keino.

This contorted argument is standard science, because the oxygen depletion is countered by the advantage of reduced air resistance, that is precisely why 200-800m runners still outperform despite lower Vo2MAX. Either the bodies of altitude residents deal better with the shortage of oxygen so their "sweet spot" is more than 800ish meters or their physiology is similar to that of sea level residents which wasn't nor has been the way how practically all commentators have looked at the issue (except perhaps you). The advantage of lower air resistance is similar to all, but the physiological disadvantage can be different.

The default position is that high altitude residents have higher Hct and a higher total hemoglobin relative to body size. Because almost all distance medals were won by native altitude residents, it highlights that they gain relatively larger advantage due to their physiology by definition, otherwise they would've overperformed also at sea level.

How many international caliber events there are at (I presume you mean Nairobi) and how much financial or other incentives there are to run records times there? As far I can see, the top lists of almost all the track events even at sea level are from a relatively few locations, mostly from Europe, and as I've stated, 200 to 800m runners have barely seen it worthwhile to attempt systematically to run fast times at altitude despite gaining a proven advantage.

That is actually even beside the point, because I've maintained that most native residents and also Keino could've been slightly worse at altitude when running 1500m and still there is nothing suspicious in Keino's 3:34.91 time when compared to his mile/3000m records and even only a small improvement from his 1967 mile shape would've produced 3:33-3:34-caliber times, because his 1967 mile PB (lower altitude) was 3:53.1 (1500m time of 3:35.20-3:35.83) when he won the second guy by 4.5 seconds having next-to-no incentives to exhaust himself totally. Not too much boost only in motivation (impossible, only Olympic gold at stake) could've produced far better time not to mention the extra year of training, and his 1500m progression from 1967 to 1968 was 0.1-0.4 % in absolute time depending on whether you use WR or conversion coefficient to convert his mile time.

You might have something here even when there is no evidence of anything. The Finnish athlete who received a transfusions was anemic, but I know that some scientists - such as Frank Consolazio and Henryk Kirscher - had researched the effect of blood reinfusion on hypoxia tolerance and wrote some papers on the problems of altitude adaptation before the 1968 games. Strange if the simplest way to circumvent the acclimatization process wasn't discussed in greater detail.

Aragon wrote:

[quote]Early Doping wrote:

I don't know what you mean by this. There is evidence of early use in sport (Galvin), there is evidence of endorsement by Nurmi. Both of these were published in major periodicals. The likely conclusion is that there was an absence of gossip because it was not considered untoward or barely so. So people didn't remark on it.

While today there is some fuss about these early "juicers", are you aware of any evidence that the alleged mechanism of these products was to elevate T level to supranormal levels and did the athletes (allegedly) taking these product have this in mind? Even when Nurmi vouched for one product, they can have been sold/developed as aphrodisiacs/for impotence or for some other purpose than as performance enhancer in sports sense (T was also heavily also marketed for these "other" purposes).

[quote]

Well, I still am not sure what you are aiming at with this. For sure Galvin or Nurmi or any other sportsman would not have had the intent to raise his testosterone, since that word did not exist until 1935. I also do not understand what you mean by "mechanism of these products was t elevate T to supranormal levels." I do not expect every athlete using enhancement products to have a nuanced level of understanding about the biochemical mechanism underlying their efficacy (we see this commonly in Kenyan athletes explanations of doping). They just know that a product may have a performance benefit. It is true that T/steroid type products were and are often marketed for a multitude of indications. We need only look at Frank Thomas commercials for GNC supplements as good for both the gym and the bedroom to see the same thing happening today (maybe you do not get this commercial and reference in Finland). But it is really clear that the Brown-Sequard Elixir was an enhancer of strength, even if the inventor did not understand exactly why. His main measurement that he touts in his experiments is an increase in forearm strength, which he said restored the equivalent strength from 27 years earlier (he was 71 at the time). He also measured and reported the strength of his urine stream and measured (but did not report) his ability to defecate. I believe when his colleague Dr. Variot expanded to a test group the only measure was the forearm strength.

According to the account of Galvin's use his purpose was to restore previous performance. Galvin had been pitching for a number of years with a very heavy workload (they had a two man rotation at the time) and was 32 years old. So he took the subcutaneous injections in an attempt to restore his effectiveness, and not for some other purpose. The Washington Post indicated that "if there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue of the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin's record in yesterday's Boston-Pittsburgh game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery." So contemporary accounts had not doubt about the purpose or the effect of the injections.

Similarly the rejuven ads indicate that there is a performance enhancement benefit and also propose that it allows more rapid recovery from hard training. The ad read: 'I have used Rejuven and I have been surprised over its extremely stimulating effect on the system,' Nurmi said in an advertisement dated March 12, 1931, in the Swedish sportspaper Idrottsbladet. 'I believe especially sportmen during a long and hard season will have great use for Rejuven, which strengthens and increases the vitality. From my own experiences I strongly recommend Rejuven,' said Nurmi, who at one time held 20 official middle and long-distance world records. Three Swedish athletes were in the same advertisement promoting the drug sold by the company 'The Elephant's Drugshop.' They claimed it improved their spirit and made them endure hard training without getting tired. So here is also clear evidence that it was marketed specifically to sportsmen and that there was a proposed mechanism of action benefiting athletes.

I think it is misleading even to phrase these questions the way you have, as it implies that they were not trying to enhance performance unless they had explicit understanding of the mechanisms involved. Some people have proposed to disregard these attempts on the grounds the the inventors were snake oil salesmen but Dr. Brown-Sequard was well regarded and had endorsements from Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin. Other commentators have noted that the effect was likely just a placebo. It may be a placebo, but it is notable that Dr. Brown-Sequard considered and dismissed that hypothesis as he and his collaborator included two individuals receiving placebo and noted no effect. It was only single-blinded and not double blinded and not much of a sample size, but such was the state of the science at the time. I can find much less on the development and marketing of rejuven, maybe because it was not marketed in English, but I don't know. Also important to note that while these two have received some attention, there were also a few other formulations around during this period as well.

Perhaps you are defensive because you think that this is some sort of attempt to smear your countryman Nurmi. I do not believe that it is at all. This was clearly legal at the time and retroactive morality makes no more sense than retroactive understandings of medical standards or biochemistry.

Mea culpa for writing my point badly and misleadingly (and like a dick),,but to make a long story short, the following is what I meant:

I don't dispute that in the sports world of the 1920's and 1930's there obviously existed a culture of taking many types of products to boost performance/ motivation/ virility etc and it is far from clear how much the users or the producers knew of the mechanism of the pills, drinks and needles if they in most cases even proposed any. In one of his writings, Paavo Nurmi himself told having "tasted" morphine and opium.

But the more exact point we were talking about was when T found its way into the sports world, and my problem with the 1930's timeline is this. When testosterone was developed in the mid-1930's and was advertised in the late 1930's and the early 1940's for male menopause/as aphrodisiac etc, it isn't that clear that without knowing the mechanism of T, these goat testicle consumers would've automatically realized that boosting T above normal was beneficial nor could they have had much knowledge that lower T was a symptom of overtraining that could be dealt with the hormone. Correspondingly their initial reaction wasn't automatic "Gee, the real stuff itself!"

And yes, perhaps T was just another product to give a try, but the jump from the goat testicles to the hormone itself might not've been that smooth even when we today easily establish the connection.

Coe wasn’t President of the IAAF when the decision was made to award the World Champs to Oregon; Diack was in charge and it was his decision alone to drop a bidding process.

Coe’s Ambassadorial role for Nike was always declared and known about. He did nothing wrong by being a Nike Ambassador, as everything was in the public domain for scrutiny. Please note that the official team kit contract for the London Olympics was given to Adidas not Nike, so there is no evidence of Coe abusing his alleged ‘conflict of interest ‘.

Well put. I agree 100%

El Keniano wrote:

^ So no answer, then? Pretty much as I expected. Your argument is a former athlete facing corruption charges 2018 is proof of lack of integrity suggesting he was on some mysterious PEDs in 1968. Conversely, that a different former athlete happens to be a confirmed serial adulterer is bizarrely irrelevant to similar questions about his personal character or whether he could have been doped in the early '80s when he won two Olympic gold medals and run a jaw-dropping 1:41 ... in 1981!

And don't tell me the U.S. doesn't have a doping problem. Kenya will never catch up even with recent busts.

‘A Confirmed Serial Adulterer’

Can you be anymore hyperbolic?

You make it sound like he’s committed a grave crime on an equal footing with murder! You do know it is not illegal to have an affair with someone?

Why I don’t applaud such behaviour, let’s remain in the real world. ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ comes to mind. If everyone on these boards who had ever cheated on a partner was no longer allowed to post, then about 90% of posters would disappear, including myself. Does that make them bad people capable of breaking the law, never mind serious corruption charges? Of course not.

I do agree with you that just because Keino has been accused of corruption in 2018, it does not make him guilty of doping during his career, although it does make it more plausible. However, regardless of the recent corruption charges, I was never convinced about the mythology surrounding Keino’s performance in Mexico 68! To have run easily his most impressive career performance in an Olympic final, breaking the Olympic record, running a time which allegedly is equivalent to something stupid like 3:27 at sea level (which I don’t buy at all; conversion doesn’t work for those born and raised at altitude), to have already run the 10k and 5k, then been ill in hospital the day before with gallstones, only to jump out of bed and run to the stadium for the 1500 final, is all just too much to believe in. Either there is a lot of exaggeration and embellishment in how ill Keino was (in other words there was nothing wrong with him) or he received/ used something to aid his recovery and enhance performance. Remember, steroids were not illegal in 68, and although there was trial tests be at these games, it was for research purposes only, and no one was prosecuted as a result of findings.

El Keniano wrote:

Like I said, Keino was a fantastic athlete but staggeringly incompetent as an administrator. He may have been unaware of the mess he was presiding over but that could also just as well be Kenyans being in denial that their greatest sporting icon, with the saintly image, could be involved in such sordidness.

Anyway, it just hit me that Armstronglivs is really Coevett and this thread was a waste of my time. And no Kenyans had even heard of PEDs in 1968 when they were first discovering they could run better than the rest of the world, even with minimal facilities.

Really!?

There is absolutely nothing in common between the writing styles of Coevett and Armstronlivs. Surely everyone can see this is obvious.

The only thing they have in common is disagreeing with you on part of the theme of this thread. To believe everyone who dare to raise similar questions or have similar concerns, must be the same person, is quite worrying and simply ridiculous.

Good post. A plausible explanation for Keino’s run. I still think there must have been some considerable exaggeration as to the extent of how ill he was prior to the race and the idea he had to run the last mile from a bus caught in a jam to reach the stadium in time to line up for the 1500 final!

Has anybody actually read this book or is everyone just referring to it because they know that some information is there because someone told them that it is there? I am asking, because at least I couldn't locate anything of the sort from the Scribd-version linked below, a version which could've been edited or truncated or the information missing or mistyped not to be located using the "search"-function.

What I did find after some searching for the actual source for the claim by Charlie Francis was this old article by him published over a decade ago which has nothing about IAAF report or about retesting of samples, but instead states the following:

If the information is accurate, someone should locate the original WHO report and quote from it, because it creates at least some kind of link of wild steroid use in those countries and 1968, but at least I couldn't find a trace of it after a some searching. But had Francis written in 1991 about some retesting of samples I fail to see why a decade later he forgot that interesting piece of information from his article.

NSAIDs have been black boxed not once but twice! Do you know the collateral damage of this class of drugs? That doesn't stop athletes from using them like candy. In fact, I would argue that NSAIDs are probably the most widely abused drugs in all of sport. Most athletes could care less about the side-effects of drugs - if they think it's going to help them in anyway then the benefits outweighs the risks is generally their way of thinking.

rekrunner wrote:

You should stop saying 3:34 when it was 3:34.91.

You should stop saying 3:36 when the mile conversion is low 3:35s.

With respect to "Who has done it, or even come close?" the answer is -- no one -- clean or dirty -- not even Keino.

3:53.1 in the mile is worth 3:35.8 for 1500 using the more widely accepted 1.08 conversion.

I seem to recall that some conversion table gave Keino’s 3:34.9 at altitude as worth something ridiculous like 3:27 for sea level!

Even if it was just 0.9 sec faster than a mile equivalent time, Keino’s Mexico City run was way above anything else he ran.

I can only see 3 possibilities for such a run:

1) The effect of altitude over 1500m is widely exaggerated. If it slows down a performance by 2 secs, I can believe Keino could manage that, as I think Ryun was capable of 3:31 in peak 67 form.

2) Altitude affects athletes differently over 1500m, ranging from quite a number of seconds (8 +) for the majority of men from a sea level background, to almost nothing for those special athletes born and raised at altitude. Of course even amongst altitude raised Kenyans, the effects would differ within reason.

Again, as with 1) above, I could reasonably believe this as the case for Keino.

3) That Keino took something which enabled him to run way above his natural limit and which cancelled out any of the negative effects of altitude.

The unquantifiable factors are the gallstone illness, the many rounds of the 5 and 10k in his legs, and the last minute run to get to the stadium on time. Without these, I’d probably opt for scenario 2). But with these additional circumstances, option 2 seems less plausible. But then of course one has to raise the question as to which drug/s could actually enable this?

Were amphetamines definitely tested for and banned in 68?

I’m pretty sure steroids were still legal but am not aware if they could have such an immediate effect on performance!?