For sure you can make fun of some "cryptic clues". But you're just showing your own ignorance. Any point I made was clearly and understandably written.
When comparing some tracks (more accurately: some stadiums with maybe not the exact same track surface for the whole time) than it's obvious that a statistics which lists any time achieved in the TOWN is not helpful (for example London, with CP and the Olympic stadium). It's also not helpful when Zürich and others often have had two races in one meeting and the statistics lists all the achieved times.
I have made it clear that I have removed such times from the list to have a more meaningful list. This is not "massaging the stats" at all - it's the attempt to have a more meaningful statistics, nothing more. You could have got this without any additional explanation - if you were not fixed to your "opinion" before. You know your reasoning before any stats are presented: the times achieved at the Rieti track are not special (because they just CAN'T).
But you are wrong. Any argument which was presented strongly supports the idea that indeed those times are special. It IS just remarkable that William Tanui has raced 10 times in Rieti and has set 8 times a seasonal best (800m or 1500m) on this occasions. Something similar for many other athletes. This is obvious for anybody who is just open minded and not completely fixed because of some childish defense of specific runners.
The times achieved in Monaco especially in the middle distances strongly give the impression that the track must be special in some way. It's not possible for us to find out if that is indeed the case.
The absolute same is true for Rieti. There are so many (not just a few, as you constantly claim) examples which support this statement. I will not list all of them again, since it's clear that you are not able to accept them, regardless how clear they are.
Rieti usually has had not those mass finishes as Monaco - easily explainable by the fact it's a 2nd (at best) rate meeting.
We just can speculate about the reasons for the astonishing times we have seen from Monaco (especially in the last decade, but not only) and also for the astonishing times which were reported year after year for three decades from this small meeting close to Rome with always only a few hundred spectators.
For me, the most likely explanation is that any times from both Monaco and Rieti are just "regular" and might have been benefited from good conditions in combination with some "psychological" effect: athletes see the times from others and get a boost or something like that. Monaco on many occasions probably also has had the best pacemaking and the deepest fields of the year.
I've done now with this. All the points made here were clear understandable for anybody who wants to understand. You can now respond with your usual "lol" or trying to ridicule the points, the sentences or whatever. Or you can think about it. This was my last post, since I'm tired to argue with people who have no interest in the facts.