Kip Keino and six other senior Kenyan officials charged with corruption

You make an interesting point about the effect of altitude in aerobic events, and at what distance it kicks in to reduce performance. As we saw at Mexico, altitude led to faster times in every event up to and including the 800m. Ralph Doubell (1.44.3) and Wilson Kiprugut (1.44.5) never ran faster. All their previous rounds were run in fast times. But this wasn't so in the 1500, where altitude clearly affected most competitors' performance. This isn't surprising, as the event is more aerobic, being almost twice the distance of the 800. Oxygen-depletion was more extreme in the 1500 at altitude.

The early rounds in the 1500 were run in the 3.50's. A 3.34 final was absolutely unforeseeable - by anyone (Ryun included). Ryun was a 3.33 man at his peak. (Yes - he wasn't at that peak at Mexico). To me, Keino's performance is if a peak-fitness and altitude-trained Ryun had run 3.31 to 3.32 at Mexico. I wouldn't believe that any athlete could so improve on his best sea-level performance in a distance event at altitude, when all the indications were that in every event from the 1500 upwards the effects of altitude limited performance. Do we know of any top 1500m runner, other than Keino, who set their best mark for the event at altitude - and by a country-mile?

BTW, Zatopek running the 5k and 10k is not particularly comparable as those events are similarly aerobic and affected much the same way by altitude. The 800 and the 1500 were not at all the same in that regard, as I argue above.

In 3rd world countries, corruption charges are usually laid because of internal struggles for power. Some other rival wants to take them down. Corruption charges are just random excuses for someone with a grudge to take somebody else down.

In their cultures, pretty much everyone is corrupt due to nepotism and clan loyalty rather than organizational loyalty. It's like how Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign in China is basically a political purge to consolidate power.

I still don't see any solid link between alleged corruption, and an increased willingness to dope. But since these topics are linked for you, now that the charges have been dropped, and there is no demonstrated "willingness to gain dishonest financial advantage", don't you think we should drop the "doping question" too? I mean, since the charges were dropped, it must follow that the likelihood that his performance was clean increases. To answer your main point question, I guess it would first take a showing that 1) doping of the '60s, CAN produce the kind of outlier performances you think is only explainable with doping, and then 2) that ONLY doping can produce these outliers. If he was as sick as you say, and his performance in Mexico was as great as it was, the essential difference between our positions is that you think doping is a good explanation, and I think this concept is based on a series of underdeveloped theories.

To respond to your latter point first, I don't know the exact extent to which doping in the 60's could enhance performance in distance events, because we have few known instances in that era when athletes were caught or admitted to doping. But there were drugs such as amphetamines and benzendrine available then that could have a powerful and immediate stimulatory effect. I recall the English runner who had finished 4th in the 1500 at Tokyo greatly improving his performance in chasing Keino home in the mile at the Kingston Commonwealth Games in '66. He was a demonstrably better runner than he had been at Tokyo - and I saw that at the time. He later admitted to doping at Kingston. So doping, even in the 60's, could significantly improve performance in distance events.

However, I would put the question the other way from how you have phrased it, of what difference could doping make, to one of asking how could the athlete concerned have accomplished what they did naturally, if they what they have done greatly exceeds any of their previous or subsequent performances? In such a situation I take the view that doping offers the most likely explanation, because the "natural" one is implausible.

In response to your first point, about corruption, I have tried to say that corruption, I.e. the question mark it raises over character, is not a necessary precondition for arguing a case of doping. It is at its best only coincidental, not proof. But nor is it necessary as proof. Nice guys can and do dope. However, the dishonesty and willingness to cheat others inherent in corruption is also a feature of doping. By corruption in this instance I mean the practice of someone who takes money that isn't rightfully his in the role of a sports administrator (and in a sport that has a major question over it in relation to doping - another form of cheating in sports). But if the charges against Keino are dropped then that specific indictment of his character can be - and should be - withdrawn. It still leaves the separate question of doping unresolved, however. And there we will probably have to simply agree to differ.

If the heats reflect anything, it is that it is hubris to try to run fast when half of the guys have very serious difficulties at altitude (one heat was barely sub 4 minute). Keino won his own heat by almost a 5 second-margin and obviously had no serious competitors nor zero incentives to exhaust himself with his 3.46.96 time that was still one of the fastest 1500m performances of the heats.

The advantage of native altitude residents was that their body could deal with the oxygen depletion and the success of Kenyans and others could be foreseen before the games and was a predictable outcome of the circumstances, be it unfair or not. This is true always by definition, because otherwise all the athletes from all over the world would perform equally worse at any given event and the medal table should've been more reminiscent of the 1964 results. Because the air density affects all the competitors roughly similarly, the difference must be mainly physiological (even when Keino with BMI of 18-19 would have less air resistance) .

Except some prestigious events such the 1968 olympics, it is difficult to find that many competitions at altitude at all so there are hardly personal records particularly when a huge majority of athletes perform worse at altitude in a 1500m race. Perhaps Keino's performance was impaired, perhaps it wasn't, but even if he performed slightly worse vs. sea level, his 3.35ish time is not totally outlier when compared to his 3000m and mile PBs. And it is still possible that even he had more performance issues when the distance became longer and when the benefit of less air resistance became smaller.

The Zatopek - reference was only that the guy won olympic gold on July 30th 1948 with a 48 second margin, but a few days later didn't win the 5000m gold. Even those who won literally a day or two ago can have bad days, misfortune and tactical errors.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Are you 5 or something? wrote:

I'm not the moron coming back and asking the same questions over and over again even after the answers have been given more than once.

Debate is not something you are apparently familiar with. Sign of a true moron.

Can't have an adult debate with a 5 year old so I don't debate with you, moron.

Are you 5 or something? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Debate is not something you are apparently familiar with. Sign of a true moron.

Can't have an adult debate with a 5 year old so I don't debate with you, moron.

For which I will always be grateful.

You said before that 1500m was not his favorite event. Doesn't it seem plausible that he never bettered the time, either before or after, because he didn't specifically train for 1500m -- that he was naturally a faster 3:33 runner who never realized his potential because he was training for longer events, but could realize it in Mexico at altitude, as everyone else suffered more? The problem with your "doping is the most likely explanation", is that you've relieved yourself of the burden of showing that doping with the drugs of the '60s is even a likely scenario at all, to explain the transformation from sick-bed ridden athlete to personal best outlier at altitude. You've phrased doping as your default answer, which is as easily invoked as saying "I don't believe it" after a limited and unmotivated review of the "natural" circumstances.

Armstronglivs wrote:

However, I would put the question the other way from how you have phrased it, of what difference could doping make, to one of asking how could the athlete concerned have accomplished what they did naturally, if they what they have done greatly exceeds any of their previous or subsequent performances? In such a situation I take the view that doping offers the most likely explanation, because the "natural" one is implausible.

The question you essentially ask is why couldn't an altitude-trained athlete record a pb at altitude, especially if it's not their favoured event? Taking the first part of that question, what examples can we find of any championship level athlete (Keino is even an Olympic gold medallist as well as a former world record-holder) achieving that? Even altitude-trained athletes are affected by altitude from distances such as the 1500m up. I know of no other elite athlete who has achieved this feat - as well as simply carving up their pb as Keino did.

Secondly, you suggest that as the 1500 was not Keino's "favourite event" he might not have trained specifically for it, and thus had an untapped potential. In response to that I would point out that throughout his career Keino was a largely a miler/3miler. I saw him run the shorter event perhaps more than any other distance - from 1964-72. I can't see that he had unexplored potential at the distance (unlike a Snell perhaps, who only competed in the 1500 in the three rounds he ran at Tokyo '64). You suggest that he might have had a 3.33 in him. Well, Ryun was a 3.33 man and we saw that Keino couldn't get within four seconds of him in the same race when Ryun recorded that time in the '67 Colisseum Relays. Keino never bettered 3.36 for the 1500 at sea-level and rarely got below 3.55 in the mile - which is what you might expect.

To put it in perspective, because 3.34 may not seem that fast today, in 1968 it was only bettered by Ryun's wr sea-level time and was also faster than Elliot's previous wr. By today's standard, Keino's time at Mexico would be worth in the region of 3.27. At altitude. Who can do that? Has ever done that? And this from a man who would likely have struggled to get below 3.30 at sea level. Who was also coming off illness, as well as previous hard races. You see my scepticism.

Keino may still likely have won at Mexico, if he was fully recovered from his illness and fatigue from previous events, but I cannot see that he could have been better than 3.37-38 that day at altitude - not a full 3 seconds faster. Even 3.37-38 would have been worth 3.35 at sea level (for an altitude-trained athlete), which I believe is more in the region of Keino's likely best. Sorry, he was nowhere near being a 3.33 runner.

The question I essentially ask is why you think drugs plausibly explain your characterization of Keino's scenario. Not the mythical high-octane oxygen vector drugs and methods like EPO or blood transfusions, but the low-octane amphetimines and other stimulants made popular with the East Germans. Do you have a precedent? In all your arguments and examples, do you know of an elite athlete that (bound to their sickbed) achieved these kinds of outlier personal best performances at altitude with the drugs of the '60s? The East Germans, the Russians, or the one British runner never showed this kind of outlier at altitude. Do you see my scepticism? 3:34 is slightly faster than 3:34.91. 3:33 and 3:35 is not 3:27 -- this is a stretched and distorted perspective. From an all time perspective, 3:34.91 (2489th) and 3:33.1 (971st) are slow times, which might be some seconds faster on today's tracks with today's shoes, and faster again with a more specific training. Since it was the 1960s, before going metric, we should also take a look at Keino in the mile, where he has comparable times at lower altitudes, 3:53.1 in Kisumu in 1967, and 3:53.42 in London in 1966. Given that, a similar performance in 1968 at altitude is a smaller outlier, and within the bounds of a natural three year progression. Let's take a quick look at Ryun. Outside of his sole 3:33.1 performance, his next best 1500 is a 3:36, and he rarely got below 3:53 in the mile. He only has two comparable mile performances, in 1967 and 1966, and could never achieve these times again. Do you find that implausible naturally? So Keino produced three comparable performances, with a couple second gap to the rest, the same as Ryun. And competing often doesn't mean you've realized your potential. Look at the hit and miss career of Webb - a career 1500m/miler, trying to run fast every year since his high school record, he finally pulled it all together one year in 2007, achieving performances in the 1500m/mile two seconds faster than ever, never to achieve them again. Is that plausible naturally? The training of the 1960s wasn't all that advanced, particularly in Kenya, as we can see with Lydiard dominating the 1960s from nowhere with his "new" method of training, something that improved in later years with event specialization. Even competing often in the event, Keino may have not realized his potential. Your whole viewpoint depends on a set of beliefs: - You don't believe this is possible naturally - You believe he was too sick to run at his best - You believe that drugs of the 1960s are a likely explanation for personal best times at altitude Since you struggle to build an affirmative case for these beliefs, the rebuttal is the opposite beliefs formed with equal foundation: - Natural is plausible - His illness played no role, or perhaps even a positive role with a forced recovery - Drugs of the '60s is not a plausible explanation

rekrunner wrote:

Let's take a quick look at Ryun. Outside of his sole 3:33.1 performance, his next best 1500 is a 3:36, and he rarely got below 3:53 in the mile. He only has two comparable mile performances, in 1967 and 1966, and could never achieve these times again. Do you find that implausible naturally?

.

[/quote]

I think was in 1967, Ryun did two stints at altitude where he did sharpening work and immediately travelled straight to sea level and broke world records, one included a victory over Keino, who had travelled from the other side of the world. Afterwards in testing, both times Ryun increased his Vo2Max by just under 1%. Ryun was likely in the same shape in 1968 as 1967 but he couldn't suddenly return to sea level and gain an advantage. Really he probably wasn't more talented than Elliot or Snell. The same fate hit Ron Clarke, who spent a year in Font Romeu, he briefly returned to Crystal Palace in a storm and nearly broke the world record for 10,000m, he went to Mexico and nearly died.

Lydiard was virtually identical to modern methods, though he did adapt it to Vo2Max and threshold work in the 1970s. There were more roids in the late 1960s than what we have been taught, it's just a matter of how far into the distance events they stretched.

Your comments are interesting, but you haven't quite understood a point I was trying to make about times in the 60s and times in the present day. I wasn't trying to suggest that either Keino or Ryun were capable of running 3.27 or thereabouts (with a tweak to their training methods, perhaps, and the advantage of modern tracks). Because the best middle distance runners today (or twenty years ago ... hmm) may run 3.26-3.30, it's easy to underestimate what 3.35 represented in the mid to late '60s. Ryun and Keino were the very best of their era. Their performances and their times were equivalent to those of EL G, Ngeny et al in the modern era. So I am effectively arguing that I can no more believe a 3.27 at altitude today (and coming from a 3.30 runner) than I can believe Keino running sub-3.35 at altitude in '68 - because, to me, that is what his '68 performance is equivalent to. What would you make of a 3.29-30 runner pb-ing 3.27 at altitude today?

You offer the example of other runners achieving outlier performances. Without debating those individual feats, stand-out performances by one particular athlete don't prove that another athlete should be capable of the same. The examples given may themselves have doped. Although we have confined the discussion to Keino, I suspect that drugs have played a much greater part in athletic achievement over the last half century than we might acknowledge.

Superhuman performances can be achieved by elite athletes who dope; mediocre athletes who dope may simply get better - but we are less likely to notice, unless they medal. Their own best performances may be outliers relative to their undoped form. We know that doping became systemic in the Eastern bloc; most of their athletes in the 60s were doping. When I see the name of an East European on the podium, from at least the early 60's till the collapse of their state system in '89, I doubt that the performance was clean. They have passed under the radar but they were almost all doping - even if today they deny it. If Keino doped at Mexico, he certainly had company in competitors from many other nations.

I think the core of this debate is that you can find reason to believe that Keino's performance at Mexico was natural; I don't. It was simply too good - for him (or anyone in that era at altitude). I won't convince you of that. But then I have come to believe that doping has become so pervasive in international sport we can no longer confidently believe in the authenticity of any sporting achievement in recent years. Yes, that is sad.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Lydiard was virtually identical to modern methods, though he did adapt it to Vo2Max and threshold work in the 1970s. There were more roids in the late 1960s than what we have been taught, it's just a matter of how far into the distance events they stretched.

That is the question. We are trying to estimate the submerged part of the ice-berg.

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Let's take a quick look at Ryun. Outside of his sole 3:33.1 performance, his next best 1500 is a 3:36, and he rarely got below 3:53 in the mile. He only has two comparable mile performances, in 1967 and 1966, and could never achieve these times again. Do you find that implausible naturally?

.

I think was in 1967, Ryun did two stints at altitude where he did sharpening work and immediately travelled straight to sea level and broke world records, one included a victory over Keino, who had travelled from the other side of the world. Afterwards in testing, both times Ryun increased his Vo2Max by just under 1%. Ryun was likely in the same shape in 1968 as 1967 but he couldn't suddenly return to sea level and gain an advantage. Really he probably wasn't more talented than Elliot or Snell. The same fate hit Ron Clarke, who spent a year in Font Romeu, he briefly returned to Crystal Palace in a storm and nearly broke the world record for 10,000m, he went to Mexico and nearly died.[/quote]

I tend to think that, following his mono, Ryun in '68 wasn't in his '67 form, and indeed he never later regained the form of those extraordinary two years in '66/67. He peaked young. If the '68 Olympics had been held at sea-level I would doubt that Ryun was better than 3.35. Probably no better than Keino, whom he had once owned. Ryun's 3.33 days would never be reclaimed after '67.

Subway surfers, I think I have accidentally appropriated part of your post.

Coevett wrote:

The fact that Kenio gave money to charity doesn't exactly mean much. I don't know if it's the case in Kenya, but in a lot of countries you get tax breaks if you donate to charities. If he's guilty of corruption as charged, the fact he gave to charities means sod all to be honest. He's a extremely dubious, immoral character who will cheat his fellow athletes.

And the people (RekRunner et al) who are claiming Coe's adultery has as much relevance to whether he doped as Keino cheating his own fellow Kenyan athletes for financial gain has to do with whether he doped, truly are retarded.

Your post above must be one of the worst ever. SO a Kenyan is a doper because he may have embezzled some Olympic funds (or may have just sent his son to the Olympics) but a Brit who is an adulterer could never dope? The logic of trying to make leaps like that is bizarre.

And giving to charity because you get a tax break isn't good? Do you understand that when you give to charity it still costs you money? Let's say the tax rate is 30%. If I make a million dollars, I would owe $300k in taxes butif instead I give $300k to charity, guess what? My tax bill doesn't go to zero. I now owe $210,000 in taxes (30%). So giving away $300,000 made me 90k.

When it's all over, instead of having $700,000, I now have $490,000.

Armstronglivs wrote:

To put it in perspective, because 3.34 may not seem that fast today, in 1968 it was only bettered by Ryun's wr sea-level time and was also faster than Elliot's previous wr. By today's standard, Keino's time at Mexico would be worth in the region of 3.27. At altitude. Who can do that? Has ever done that? And this from a man who would likely have struggled to get below 3.30 at sea level. Who was also coming off illness, as well as previous hard races. You see my scepticism.

I don't see your skepticism becuase I don't know of what drug could make a dude run SO SO much better back in 1968. If some amazing PED existed why in the hell didn't it dominate the sport for the next 30 years before testing began in earnest?

I understood the translation of '60s times to modern day, but find it offers an exaggerated perspective, because the 2-3 second jump from 3:29-30 to 3:27 cannot be equated to the smaller jump of 1.8 seconds from the slower times of 3:36.7 to 3:34.91. The second reason it doesn't apply to Keino is that his '66 and '67 MILE performances are roughly equivalent (using Purdy) to the 1500m performance in Mexico in 1968, so we have a case of a proven for 2 years equivalent 3:35.09 and 3:35.39 runner at sea-level running a marginally faster 3:34.91 the following year at altitude -- not quite as exaggerated of a jump as you portrayed. It's not a 2-3 second jump from sea-level to altitude, but a 0.2 to 0.5 second jump. I offered the example of the others, because they showed a similar performance profile as Keino, with a few 2-second outlier performances never achieved before or since, and this outlier performance profile was the primary reason you gave for finding Keino's performance implausible. Finally you keep dancing around the most important question -- what dope from the 1960s can do what you think doping did for Keino at altitude? Where are your 1960s examples, or later examples with 1960s drugs, of doping resulting in a Keino-esque leap of performance for middle distance at altitude? No doubt that doping was and is pervasive, and the Eastern block doping was systemic. Is there a East European MALE name on the podium between 1960 and 1989 you have in mind? (I don't doubt the Eastern women responded well to MALE hormones). But you are talking about one 1500m performance at altitude being most likely the result of doping -- something which appears to have no precedent before, and never duplicated since. Subway added we don't know the full extent of "roids from the 60s", but then we see that it was the 70s and 80s where 1500m times really dropped, thanks to the British trio of Coe, Ovett, and Cram, and probably due to factors like track surface changes.