Kip Keino and six other senior Kenyan officials charged with corruption

Armstronglivs wrote:

If the best middle-distance Kenyans of the last half century (and there have been quite a few) have not run their fastest at this distance at altitude in Kenya how much more unlikely must it be that any could achieve their fastest time at the much higher altitude of Mexico, of over 7000'?...

The problem with this argument is that almost exactly zero athletes has his 1500/mile or any other endurance track record outside the first world venues. The all-time lists are readily available and it is difficult to find anyone having heir PB run at Africa at all. There are some, such as Zakaria Maazouzi, who ran 3:31.94 in Marrakesh (104th), not altitude time at all.

The another finding is more interesting, because it is 3:32.97 by one Justus Soget (4/26/2017) which is an altitude time from Nairobi (1700-1800m) and the 144th in the all-time list. That is interesting enough, but not only being his personal best, it also happens to be the absolute age record of the category 17 years ang 8 months.

Regardless of how much emphasis one should put into the AAR's, that is still a 1500m world record (in some sense) at altitude.

I take what you are saying but the performance by the 17-year old at relative altitude may be the exception that proves the rule. You don't need "first world venues" to run fast times - only a good track. I would think there must be good enough tracks in a country like Kenya that is devoted to the sport. In 1962, Snell ran his world records on small local grass tracks in New Zealand. But if course none of that was at altitude. Unfortunately, because of the question-mark that has lately arisen over Kenyan running there may be other grounds for questioning the validity of the 17-year old's performance. But one pb of this order at altitude in fifty years that we know of doesn't really refute my point that fast times are extremely rare at altitude. Also, Nairobi is not the altitude of Mexico.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I take what you are saying but the performance by the 17-year old at relative altitude may be the exception that proves the rule..

Totally disagree, because it should tell something if there exists the world's fastest boy (in some sense), who is the 144th at the all-time list even ahead of sea level Jim Ruyn. By the way, do you maintain that the kid would've been c:a 3:29-3:31 - quality runner at sea level, because then he would've jumped to something like 20th or 40th on the list?

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't need "first world venues" to run fast times - only a good track. I would think there must be good enough tracks in a country like Kenya that is devoted to the sport....

I would like to agree, except that somehow nobody seems to be capable to run their PBs elsewhere than in the first world where there is elite level competition, media attention and most likely better financial incentives (not to mention some kind of rabbit-pacing culture). There must be like a half a million meters of track meeting your requirements, but it just doesn't seem almost ever to happen that elites run their PB's in the third world.

But it happens occasionally and it is interesting that in the 1500m all time list (949 in total, all sub 3:38) fully 18 have their PBs in Nairobi at altitude. And to be honest, there must be a some specialists (I can see Moses Kiptanui as one) of other distances for whom that was their like only 1500m at all, which explains why it is the fastest. But there is one guy having his 3000m PB 7:48.46 and running 3:37.9 at altitude and one guy having his 800m PB of 1:45.49 and performing Keino-quality performance of 3:35.02 at altitude.

There are some exceptions to prove the rule for you. And just to give credit where credit is due, before your last post I wasn't aware nor barely considered how good Keino was at 10000m.

You guys are referring to last year's Kenyan Nationals, where Kiprop (who already had a pass to the WCs as defending champion) did the pacing duties for a very fast race. Kwemoi won in 3:30, he was likely in his 3:28.8 "Monaco" shape. I recall Renato came on here and praised Kiprop for doing this. So it is plausible that an elite altitude native mile could get within 1 second of his likely sea level time in good race, but there simply isn't good races at altitude, though Nairobi is only a mile above sea level so that confuses things. On one of those Robertson twins documentaries I think Zane did 13:30 in a road race in Nairobi and seemed pretty fresh but that may have been gps. I think that 17 year old is a Rosa athlete probably trains with Kiprop (but don't quote me).

Armstronglivs wrote:

Unfortunately, because of the question-mark that has lately arisen over Kenyan running there may be other grounds for questioning the validity of the 17-year old's performance...

Because one of the theses proposed here is that Kenyans have been doping (and possibly transfusing) since the late-1960's, the validity of every example anyone ever brings up about Kenyans at high altitude could be rendered meaningless by that same criterion.

If one explains Keino's 1968 1500 performance with doping, another point to consider would be then:

Why did he dope only once if it worked so spectacularly?

Or alternatively, why did his dope only work once so spectacularly?

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Unfortunately, because of the question-mark that has lately arisen over Kenyan running there may be other grounds for questioning the validity of the 17-year old's performance...

Because one of the theses proposed here is that Kenyans have been doping (and possibly transfusing) since the late-1960's, the validity of every example anyone ever brings up about Kenyans at high altitude could be rendered meaningless by that same criterion.

I am not advancing anyone else's "thesis", so to speak, but when we are considering recent Kenyan performances there is, unfortunately, a question-mark over their validity, as a result of increased incidents of doping (not to mention some doubt about the given ages of some athletes). It does not render the discussion "meaningless", other than acknowledge that no performance can be simply accepted at face value now. (Although I don't confine the problem to Kenya.) I am not maintaining that it was a problem in Keino's era.

casual obsever wrote:

If one explains Keino's 1968 1500 performance with doping, another point to consider would be then:

Why did he dope only once if it worked so spectacularly?

Or alternatively, why did his dope only work once so spectacularly?

I can't answer those questions, other than to say that athletes have doped who aren't what you call career dopers. Perhaps they can justify to themselves their choice to dope as an exception, if the outcome is important enough to them. Keino had high hopes (if you'll excuse the pun) at Mexico, but until the 1500 had performed beneath his likely expectations - possibly because of his health issues. He entered 3 events because he expected to do well. In the previous two years he had been dominated by Ryun at the shorter distance; with a sub-par Ryun in '68 and the advantage of altitude he may have understood Mexico was his best opportunity to reverse that; he may have wanted to make sure of that win - to achieve it at least once in his career and on the biggest stage (he had yet to win a gold medal). He achieved that. Goal satisfied. But this is all speculation - as most of this discussion is.

Yeah, could be. He could also have gotten nice treatment in that hospital to recover faster.

1. I have to say that I am very sceptical now of any 17-year-old running 3.32 or better, because I saw how hard at was for elite runners in the 60's and 70's to even better 3.40. It would have been unthinkable in 1974 for a schoolboy to set an open mark that matched Bayi's record that year. I don't think human physiology has changed, and training today is still based on what runners were doing in the 60's and 70's. When the experts acknowledge we have a "pandemic" of doping, modern records are benchmarks that simply cannot be trusted. That's the world we now live in.

2. When you say top performances require a whole host of favourable conditions other than a good track, which you say are generally only available in the first world, the example I gave of Snell's half and mile world marks in '62 suggests otherwise. He ran on local grass tracks in New Zealand and in each race he was more than half the straight ahead of the next runner. These were effectively solo performances, performed before local spectators. It didn't need to be in grand stadia, on super-duper tracks, with an elite field, and at major international venues.

3. Re my point about altitude, I reiterate, whether a few runners have performed well at altitude not a single distance world mark (over 800m) has been set at altitude. Altitude never favours distance running performance, even though some athletes deal better with it than others.

4. That brings me to a key point I have made about Keino, which no one has satisfactorily responded to: Keino was undoubtedly affected by altitude at Mexico; indeed we saw he was poorer aerobically at altitude than his countryman, Temu, who won the 10k. Yet Keino was a 28.06 runner - one of the fastest of his era (Clarke's '66 record of 27.39 was out there on its own). But somehow we are supposed to believe that a runner whose aerobic performance was clearly affected over the longer distances had no such problems in the shorter distance., notwithstanding that the 1500 is undoubtedly an aerobic race. To me, that is the essential problem I have with his performance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Because one of the theses proposed here is that Kenyans have been doping (and possibly transfusing) since the late-1960's, the validity of every example anyone ever brings up about Kenyans at high altitude could be rendered meaningless by that same criterion.

I am not advancing anyone else's "thesis", so to speak, but when we are considering recent Kenyan performances there is, unfortunately, a question-mark over their validity, as a result of increased incidents of doping (not to mention some doubt about the given ages of some athletes). It does not render the discussion "meaningless", other than acknowledge that no performance can be simply accepted at face value now. (Although I don't confine the problem to Kenya.) I am not maintaining that it was a problem in Keino's era.

That's an understatement - anyone can take a look at AIU doping cases and see the number of Kenyans, both at home and the transplants to Bahrain, testing positive over the last couple of years. And big names here and some altitude trained as well. There's even a steroid positive case for you with Hilary Kepkosgei Yego (Norandrosterone). A respectable 8:03.57 in the SC...going with the roids

I question all the their good performances now. There's no way that these are the only Kenyans caught for doping - that would be a magical "100%" detection rate. And if anyone believes in a 100% detection rate then I'll sell you some prime land on the dark side of the moon. It's fair game on them for questioning any of their performances now, IMO. We do it all the time with the Russians & Morrocans - so the Kenyans are supposed to get special treatment? Yeah...right. Their doping bubble has bursted! ?.

And bring on the Kenyan doping apologists and excuse makers (you know who you are). It's all a big joke and I ain't falling for it no more.

Deanouk wrote:

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!?

Stimulants (not specified as amphetamine as that word did not yet exist) were banned by IAAF in 1928. That ban was never rescinded but there was no testing. There was limited drug testing (and inspection for needle marks or paraphernalia) in the bicycle races in Tokyo '64. IAAF started testing athletes in 1967. There were drug tests for several substances including amphetamines in Mexico City but there were limited athletes tested. The only person sanctioned was a modern pentathlete who tested positive for alcohol. Steroids were not banned or tested for until '76.

I think you are moving the goalposts, because the issue wasn't even doping-related but whether it is possible to make a fast 1500m run at altitude vs. sea level and his case gives some evidence for this claim. If you are consistent and maintain that he was like 1-2 % slower at Nairobi altitude, you maintain that he was "really" capable to run sub 3:30 time at sea level, which sounds far-fetched. My reading is that his performance is more in line with the claim that the difference at that distance is close to zero for some high altitude residents.

If flat track is all you need, it is nearly impossible for you to answer why everybody seems to have so much trouble in clocking their PBs outside these fast first world venues. And what was even the alternative for Snell? To get plane tickets from his manager and visit Zürich to compete against guys faster than him and get paid $20,000 and nice bonuses if he is triumphant? The fast runners of the present era have faced completely different amateur rules and incentive structures than their predecessors.

Explained already pretty extensively, and there are also relatively few 200-800m top 100 times also at altitude even when it is known that the conditions are more favourable vs. sea level. Clearly there are next-to-no competitions there and because almost all athletes and possibly most Kenyans (and possibly also Keino) are excepted to perform worse even at the 1500m distance at altitude, why even to intentionally compete there or try to break a record? If you maintain about altitude that "even though some athletes deal better with it than others", I just can't see why you see it totally impossible that the sweet post is significantly more than the ~800ish m for someone like Keino as I have postulated?

It is still interesting that out of the 178 fastests Kenyans (all sub 3:38) on the 1500m all-time list, 18 have their PB at altitude (Nairobi), that is almost exactly one out of ten.

"Undoubtedly affected by altitude", but compared to whom, and on what distance this had a negative effect? We don't know how well Temu or Gammoudi tolerated altitude and it is equally as likely as not that they tolerated it better than Keino did. And people can and do underperform for various of reasons, and every scientist agrees that the longer the distance, the more detrimental the effect of altitude on performanc, so there is no clear mystery for Keino running slowly at 5000m or 10000m.

Sorry, but you didn't take the point.

I understand that many athletes of different sports, in front of the question : "If you have advantages to dope today, but this can affect your health and short your life tomorrow, what do you chose ?" can chose to dope at the moment (something I don't approve, but is possible with the today mentality).

But in this case all the "collateral damages" of Furosemide come TOGETHER the hypothetical advantages of some doping.

So, do you think that athletes suffering of :

" Tiredness, muscle weakness, and nausea or vomiting.

Low thyroid levels warning: High doses (over 80 mg) of furosemide can cause low levels of thyroid hormones.

These symptoms can include:

tiredness

weakness

weight gain

dry hair and skin

increased feelings of being cold ".

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

Low blood pressure warning: This drug can cause low blood pressure. Symptoms include feeling dizzy and faint after standing up. "

.... can have some advantage in his performance from his doping ?

For you, some substance provoking tiredness, weakness, weight gain, increased feeling of being cold, feeling dizzy and faint after standing up, and lowering the level of potassium, can have LESS NEGATIVE INFLUENCE on a performance than the POSITIVE INFLUENCE of some doping ?

So, clearly, only some idiot can think better to run with some doping, but TIRED, WEAK, HEAVY, DIZZY, WITH VERY TIGHT MUSCLES, WITH CRAMPS, etc....

In spite of this situation, somebody was caught for this illegal substance.... and this shows that doping, in many cases, is not something scientific coming from specific studies and administrated by specific experts, but is something absolutely individual, based on some article of newspapers, the most part of times full of mistakes, because there is FAITH in the external aid produced by EVERY KIND OF MEDICINE.

The mentality is : if the medicine works with somebody having problems, with me, who don't have any problem, can add something that naturally I can't have.

But if a glass is already full of water, adding other water the only effect is that it goes out of the glass.

And to think that you insulted people so often, calling them cowards for using different handles.

I wonder what that makes of you, according to your superior (lol) logic, Coevett.

"We don't know how well Temu or Gammoudi tolerated altitude and it is equally as likely as not that they tolerated it better than Keino did."

The quote above perfectly demonstrates the anomaly in Keino's 1500m performance. It isn't necessarily the fact that that he was beaten by other runners but the comparison with his own prior performances that is the anomaly. If the runners that beat him in the 5k and the 10k "tolerated altitude better than (he) did" then it is a necessary inference that altitude affected his performance negatively. Why then did it not affect him in the 1500, his last event? The response that it was a shorter event begs the question as to why that wouldn't have affected him, as it was no less an aerobic event than the longer races - and he had already demonstrated in those races the negative affect of altitude on his own performance. The most plausible answer is that he found a way to improve his capacity from what it had been in the earlier events to cope with the affect of oxygen depletion. The change is so dramatic it could not have occurred naturally.

The rest of the debate has become a little like how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, and does not change the point that to a greater or lesser extent altitude affects performance negatively in distance events.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If the runners that beat him in the 5k and the 10k "tolerated altitude better than (he) did" then it is a necessary inference that altitude affected his performance negatively. Why then did it not affect him in the 1500, his last event? The response that it was a shorter event begs the question as to why that wouldn't have affected him, as it was no less an aerobic event than the longer races - and he had already demonstrated in those races the negative affect of altitude on his own performance.

Someone might object to your claim that 1500m is "no less aerobic event than the longer races", but let's make the story short. Altitude affected Keino's aerobic capacity negatively at every race from 1500m to 10000m, but at 1500m the lower air density compensated his performance via significantly smaller energy cost lessening the negative effect of oxygen shortage.

The three distances are not similar events, and when you like to emphasize so much the "aerobic" similarity between 1500m to 5000m (and 10000m), it is still interesting that there are roughly egual amount (if not more) of mile specialist focusing on 800m than on 5000m. The similarity to the 800m (with a possible speed gain) is emphasized even more by the fact that whereas 800m pre-México WR was 9.0 % faster than the 1500m world record (7.67 vs.7.04 m/s), the diffence in speed difference was larger in 1500m vs. 5000m, 12.1 % (7.04 vs. 6.28 m/s). The only upside of altitude has everything to do with speed and in this regard 1500m is closer to the distance were a possible gain was seen.

We don't know whether Temu or Gammoudi tolerated altitude better than Keino, but Keino could've lost his gold chances by misfortune, tacticals errors or for whatever reason.

Armstronglivs, maybe you didn't read what I wrote about my personal talk with Keino. The explanation because altitude affected his 5000m more than 1500m is very simple :

1) The real value in 5000m was very much better, but Keino didn't push the race, thinking to have a better final sprint than Gammoudi. This was not true : Gammoudi was one of the fastest finisseur in the long distances, in the period 1964-1972, winning Olympic medals in every edition of the Games : silver (behind Billy Mills) in 1964 in 10000m, gold in 5000m and bronze in 10000m in 1968, and again silver in 5000m in 1972 behind Viren but ahead Ian Stewart and Steve Prefontaine.

Durimng our talk, Kip explained was a tactical mistake, because he had the possibility to run faster from the beginning but supposed Gammoudi slower than him. In 1500m, he using that lesson for changing strategy, with the help of Ben Jipcho, in order not to repeat the same mistake with Jim Ryun.

2) His preparation was directed to increase his speed, thinking his endurance was already enough. For that reason, during the last two months before Olympics he didn't do any workout for specific endurance of 10000m and 5000m, and his 10000m was a sin of presumption, because really he was not prepared. So, don't compare his personal optimal level of 5000m with the level he had in Mexico : this was a problem of training.

About the fact that 1500 is an aerobic event, of course the percentage of intervention of the Aerobic Power is fundamental, but, increasing the distance, this percentage continues to grow, while the percentage of anaerobic utilization decreases.

This means that the best shape of an athlete in 1500m can't mean anything about his shape in 5000m. The shape is NOT something general (an athlete in shape for every event), but something specific, built with specific training, and also two events with similar characteristics can't be at the personal best at the same time. That's the reason because Bekele, who REALLY NEVER PREPARED 10000m (he always won with the preparation for 5000m), in 10000m, in spite of what people think, was very far from his theorical value, compared with his WR of 5000m. All the athletes really preparing 10000m in specific way can perform with a difference of 35" - 45" compared with the double of their PB in 5000m (for example, 13' and 26'40"-26'45"). Kenenisa had a difference of 1'03", really to high, and is not something strange to suppose his WR of 10000m (that is the weaker of the WR on track in middle distances) could be very close to 26' if his preparation was in that direction.

What you say is partly true, which is why this is a debate rather than case closed. Of course there are differences of degree in aerobic events, but I would suggest that the aerobic nature of the 1500 is more similar to the longer events than to the shorter event of the 800. Just as very few 400m specialists run the 800, because the one-lap race is largely anaerobic whereas the two lap race has a considerably greater aerobic component - even though it is "only" 400m longer - so there are relatively few two-lap specialists who compete in the 1500, because the aerobic requirements of the longer race are exponentially greater. Doubell, Kiprugut, Juantorena, Cruz, Kipketer, Rudisha - the list goes on - the 800m specialist rarely runs the longer race. A Snell or a Coe, who are equally good at both events, are a relative rarity - and chiefly because their aerobic capacity is unusually high. Keino, for his part, was a classic 1500/5000 runner, which is quite a typical combination in those events.

But another argument for demonstrating the quite dramatic aerobic difference between the 800 and the 1500 at Mexico's altitude is in Ryun's performance. The American was the world record-holder over the half mile. The world record in the 800 was equalled by Doubell, who wasn't inherently faster than Ryun over the distance. Ryun was the world record-holder over 1500 but his time at Mexico was almost 5 seconds slower than his best. Sure, he probably wasn't in exactly that form but you get my point. In the 1500, the aerobic demands of the event exceeded the compensatory effect of the thin air - unlike the 800. And so it was for every runner in the 1500. I just don't buy it, that for Keino it was the simply like an extension of the 800 for him. To argue that is to claim he had an aerobic capacity not shown by any other runner - ever, as far as we know at that altitude - or even by himself in the longer events.