"Race" and nationality as I see it are different. Alabama is a bullshit xc program because it just imports Kenyans.
An American kid with black blood is an American recruit with American upbringing. I see it in ncaa swimming. NC State has become a national power but most of their team is European.
ayyyyyyy wrote:
What is the point on always writing that black Americans were not born here? What value does that bring? Why is it needed?
Do you not read what people have written. See the post below as the poster nailed it.
osm wrote:
Your argument about the word stable is completely ridiculous, and has already been discredited by everyone else on this thread, so no need to engage further there.
As for the Kenyan-born distinction, I think it's completely relevant in this context. Think about it this way: Kenya and Ethiopia are utterly dominant in distance running (what you attribute that to is another debate, but this fact is undeniable). If I were a casual fan who didn't know anything about this training group, I might be curious about their success, and what kind of secret knowledge this coach must have compared to others. Pointing out the simple fact that all of these athletes were born in Kenya gives important context to the situation. Furthermore, I have no problem with immigration, nor do I think that these athletes are any less American than others, and I don't think anyone working for this website has expressed those sentiments either.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bingo. That guy nailed it.
Titan wrote:
"Race" and nationality as I see it are different. Alabama is a bullshit xc program because it just imports Kenyans.
An American kid with black blood is an American recruit with American upbringing. I see it in ncaa swimming. NC State has become a national power but most of their team is European.
I don't get why when an American born runner does well the coach is credited with developing them.
When a non-American born runner does well, the coach is viewed as having nothing to do with it - they just imported the talent.
If it was simply about developing talent, Oregon wouldn't be allowed to take transfers and wouldn't recruit so many FL finallists every year.
Why are you looking for a reason to be offended?
Waaaaay back in the day. wrote:
ayyyyyyy wrote:
I think the main difference is that I am not sure LRC has a history of using stable to refer to runners.
You're right, you're not.
Waaaaay back in the day, 2001 actually, they were using it and even included Bob Kennedy in the "Kenyan stable":
"A couple of scenarios could unfold in the race. The first scenario is if Kennedy goes out at 13:30 pace. If he does, do not expect many people outside of his Kenyan stable mates to be with him."
(by the way Weldon Johnson was in the LetsRun.com stable: "LetsRun.com's own Weldon Johnson to form their own back behind the guys up front.")
http://www.letsrun.com/stanford10k050401prev.html
I completely forgot I was in Meb's record race. I wonder how far I made it.
ok glad we cleared that 'stable' thing all up.
one last thing....Can we start constantly referring to Grant Fisher as "Canadian-Born"?
It's confusing because 99% of the time he's just labeled an "American" runner, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cheer for him or not.
Great North wrote:
ok glad we cleared that 'stable' thing all up.
one last thing....Can we start constantly referring to Grant Fisher as "Canadian-Born"?
It's confusing because 99% of the time he's just labeled an "American" runner, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cheer for him or not.
You're a coward ayyyyyyyyy. Can't admit you're wrong, trying to change your handle and deflect.
just something to keep in mind before using this cliche wrote:
Great North wrote:
ok glad we cleared that 'stable' thing all up.
one last thing....Can we start constantly referring to Grant Fisher as "Canadian-Born"?
It's confusing because 99% of the time he's just labeled an "American" runner, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cheer for him or not.
You're a coward ayyyyyyyyy. Can't admit you're wrong, trying to change your handle and deflect.
not ayyyyyyyy
Great North wrote:
ok glad we cleared that 'stable' thing all up.
one last thing....Can we start constantly referring to Grant Fisher as "Canadian-Born"?
It's confusing because 99% of the time he's just labeled an "American" runner, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cheer for him or not.
We already do, go read some of the Grant Fisher threads on here.
We use "stables" to refer to Japanese sumos all the time. That's not racist against Asians.
Obama is in a pretty "stable" situation now, and he has Kenyan heritage. Probably not racist?
Many white men have "stable" jobs. I hope I won't get fired from my job for making that racist comment.
we already do wrote:
Great North wrote:
ok glad we cleared that 'stable' thing all up.
one last thing....Can we start constantly referring to Grant Fisher as "Canadian-Born"?
It's confusing because 99% of the time he's just labeled an "American" runner, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cheer for him or not.
We already do, go read some of the Grant Fisher threads on here.
I'm talking about in the LRC articles.
rojo wrote:
I don't get why when an American born runner does well the coach is credited with developing them.
When a non-American born runner does well, the coach is viewed as having nothing to do with it - they just imported the talent.
If it was simply about developing talent, Oregon wouldn't be allowed to take transfers and wouldn't recruit so many FL finallists every year.
Can someone please explain what this means.
Translation please ~ wrote:
rojo wrote:
I don't get why when an American born runner does well the coach is credited with developing them.
When a non-American born runner does well, the coach is viewed as having nothing to do with it - they just imported the talent.
If it was simply about developing talent, Oregon wouldn't be allowed to take transfers and wouldn't recruit so many FL finallists every year.
Can someone please explain what this means.
Translation:
When a coach has success with a white runner, the coach gets credit. When a coach has success with a east African, the coach doesn't get credit. Why is this?
Is it racist to mention when a Bahraini/Qatari/Turkish/Asian athlete is ex-Kenyan?
Maybe we should just let the Kenyans themselves point it out, as they often do.
If the point of all this is context why isn’t this website consistent? Why don’t you label where other athletes were born? Like white athletes who run for different countries. It seems like you only make that distinction for the ADP guys and it’s not a stretch to say you think there’s something wrong with them competing for the US the way you feel you need to bring it up every time they race.
NewtotheSouthSide wrote:
If the point of all this is context why isn’t this website consistent? Why don’t you label where other athletes were born? Like white athletes who run for different countries. It seems like you only make that distinction for the ADP guys and it’s not a stretch to say you think there’s something wrong with them competing for the US the way you feel you need to bring it up every time they race.
I think I know why it drives people nuts when we point out where people are born. I think it's because most runners like to think they are good at running as they are hard workers. The beauty of the sport is the harder you work, the better you get (normally). But statements like Kenyan born remind people there is a HUGE GENETIC and ENVIRONMENTAL aspect to it that has nothing to do with hard work.
People don't want to admit that so they attack the messenger.
we're talking 'bout thread??s...threads?? not an article.....t wrote:
we already do wrote:
We already do, go read some of the Grant Fisher threads on here.
I'm talking about in the LRC articles.
There is nothing meaningfully different between the two, that's why.
I'll spell it out wrote:
Translation please ~ wrote:
Can someone please explain what this means.
Translation:
When a coach has success with a white runner, the coach gets credit. When a coach has success with a east African, the coach doesn't get credit. Why is this?
Because the white athlete generally starts out at a much lower level and the African comes over ready to roll.
The genetic differences betweens Kenyans / Ethiopia and the rest of the world is significant. In fact, it’s significant enough that it should be brought up in these articles. We distinguish between men and women, don’t we? There is generally a pretty significant difference in results there.
If you are going to have a REALLY HONEST discussion about race, then look in the mirror and realize that this is not apples-to-apples. When a white guy from the US beats top-level Kenyans (or Kenyan-born Americans), it is a significant enough event that it should be pointed out, like Letsrun tends to do.
Race -baiters like you make the world a worse place. I wish you and your ilk would cease and desist for the good of humanity.
No joke.