Seems like a ton. How many guys ran faster than coe in the 800? Or Aouita in the 1500? Sure the 5k/10k was destroyed by EPO but most of those 80 WR are still solid times...
What does the men's 800m/1500m have in common with the women's marathon?
I counted performers within 6 minutes of Paula. If you want to compare with the men, how many men have run within 6 minutes of 2:01:39 (the record from 2018), or 2:07:39?
Before supershoes (before Jan 2018), I counted 201 men faster than Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones from 1985, who ran 2:07:12/13. After supershoes, assuming the same 40%, that is about 280. I didn't count down to 2:07:39, but I quickly estimate 260 and 360 respectively.
Compared to these figures for the men, 20, 30, and 60 don't seem "like a ton".
Seems like a ton. How many guys ran faster than coe in the 800? Or Aouita in the 1500? Sure the 5k/10k was destroyed by EPO but most of those 80 WR are still solid times...
What does the men's 800m/1500m have in common with the women's marathon?
I counted performers within 6 minutes of Paula. If you want to compare with the men, how many men have run within 6 minutes of 2:01:39 (the record from 2018), or 2:07:39?
Before supershoes (before Jan 2018), I counted 201 men faster than Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones from 1985, who ran 2:07:12/13. After supershoes, assuming the same 40%, that is about 280. I didn't count down to 2:07:39, but I quickly estimate 260 and 360 respectively.
Compared to these figures for the men, 20, 30, and 60 don't seem "like a ton".
They are world records. Why have so few mean come close?
And yes nobody is going to argue that EPO and super shoes haven't rewritten the record books...
What does the men's 800m/1500m have in common with the women's marathon?
I counted performers within 6 minutes of Paula. If you want to compare with the men, how many men have run within 6 minutes of 2:01:39 (the record from 2018), or 2:07:39?
Before supershoes (before Jan 2018), I counted 201 men faster than Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones from 1985, who ran 2:07:12/13. After supershoes, assuming the same 40%, that is about 280. I didn't count down to 2:07:39, but I quickly estimate 260 and 360 respectively.
Compared to these figures for the men, 20, 30, and 60 don't seem "like a ton".
They are world records. Why have so few mean come close?
And yes nobody is going to argue that EPO and super shoes haven't rewritten the record books...
Why so few "mean"? Not sure what you are asking.
If you want to suggest that drugs from the last three decades didn't help the men's 800m/1500m runners run faster than Coe in the 800m or Aouita in the 1500m, be my guest. (Not sure if we should presume Coe's and/or Aouita's are doped performances).
Here, we are supposed to believe that doping (some sleuths are convinced she low-tech blood doped with transfusions before two races) unquestionably helped Paula run 2:15:25, while for 33 years, from 1986-2018, no one else taking EPO and/or other drugs or methods, could get within 2m55s. Comparing to the men, many were within 2m55s of the men's world record, at all times.
It seems unlikely that, if we assume high benefit and high prevalence, that it would help one athlete so much, yet no one else over 30 years could leverage their own combination of talent/training/doping to come anywhere near close.
This assumes Paula's records were doped in the first place, and assumes that both doping benefit and prevalence are high in the women's marathon.
What seems more logical is one or more of: 1) Paula had superior talent/training/execution than everyone else, regardless of doping, and/or 2) doping prevalence in the marathon is not significant, and/or 3) doping benefit in the marathon is not significant.
If you want to suggest that drugs from the last three decades didn't help the men's 800m/1500m runners run faster than Coe in the 800m or Aouita in the 1500m, be my guest. (Not sure if we should presume Coe's and/or Aouita's are doped performances).
Here, we are supposed to believe that doping (some sleuths are convinced she low-tech blood doped with transfusions before two races) unquestionably helped Paula run 2:15:25, while for 33 years, from 1986-2018, no one else taking EPO and/or other drugs or methods, could get within 2m55s. Comparing to the men, many were within 2m55s of the men's world record, at all times.
It seems unlikely that, if we assume high benefit and high prevalence, that it would help one athlete so much, yet no one else over 30 years could leverage their own combination of talent/training/doping to come anywhere near close.
This assumes Paula's records were doped in the first place, and assumes that both doping benefit and prevalence are high in the women's marathon.
What seems more logical is one or more of: 1) Paula had superior talent/training/execution than everyone else, regardless of doping, and/or 2) doping prevalence in the marathon is not significant, and/or 3) doping benefit in the marathon is not significant.
Here you are again assuming on the basis of a PC value judgement that doping isn't to a large part region specific. What Paula proved was that, regardless of doping, the natural born East African runner is a myth.
BTW, quite a few runners have ran faster than Aouita over 1500m in the last 3 decades.
What we can draw from Paula's career is the following depending on whether she did or did not dope.
1 - Paula doped - that indicates (in line with the geographic spread of busts) that doping is rare in GB/Europe and Paula is an example of the times Europeans would run if they had the same doping culture as East Africa.
2 - Paula did not dope - Given the rampant doping in East African distance running and the fact that so few can get close to her times in 20 years, East Africans are in fact less talented than Europeans.
Either way, Paula proved that the genetic advantage of East Africans is a myth.
1 : hundreds of examples of east african dominating distance running and often middle distance : that proves they are all dopers without natural superiority.
2 : one or two cases where europeans dominated (coe, radcliffe) : that proves they are superior to doped east africans
They're genetically superior to everyone else which isn't unfair. They're doping to out run their East African competition to be set up for life. They're not doping to beat Jared Ward. They can do that in their sleep.
1 : hundreds of examples of east african dominating distance running and often middle distance : that proves they are all dopers without natural superiority.
2 : one or two cases where europeans dominated (coe, radcliffe) : that proves they are superior to doped east africans
I gave my reasons.
250+ doping busts in Kenya compared to a handful in the West, and the frequency continues to climb as they are forced to raise their anti-doping standards to a minimal level. Anybody who still believes that East Africans dominate because of genes is either mentally ill or yes, does have some kind of weird fetish going on there.
They're genetically superior to everyone else which isn't unfair. They're doping to out run their East African competition to be set up for life. They're not doping to beat Jared Ward. They can do that in their sleep.
Yeah, that's why there are lots of 2:20 Kenyan marathoners getting busted for EPO and rat poison and nandrolene...
1 : hundreds of examples of east african dominating distance running and often middle distance : that proves they are all dopers without natural superiority.
2 : one or two cases where europeans dominated (coe, radcliffe) : that proves they are superior to doped east africans
I gave my reasons.
250+ doping busts in Kenya compared to a handful in the West, and the frequency continues to climb as they are forced to raise their anti-doping standards to a minimal level. Anybody who still believes that East Africans dominate because of genes is either mentally ill or yes, does have some kind of weird fetish going on there.
Kenyans dominate distance running since decades for a variety of reasons which were explained to you many times.
Nobody says that East Africans dominate "because of genes". Genes is one of many reasons.
If you want to suggest that drugs from the last three decades didn't help the men's 800m/1500m runners run faster than Coe in the 800m or Aouita in the 1500m, be my guest. (Not sure if we should presume Coe's and/or Aouita's are doped performances).
Here, we are supposed to believe that doping (some sleuths are convinced she low-tech blood doped with transfusions before two races) unquestionably helped Paula run 2:15:25, while for 33 years, from 1986-2018, no one else taking EPO and/or other drugs or methods, could get within 2m55s. Comparing to the men, many were within 2m55s of the men's world record, at all times.
It seems unlikely that, if we assume high benefit and high prevalence, that it would help one athlete so much, yet no one else over 30 years could leverage their own combination of talent/training/doping to come anywhere near close.
This assumes Paula's records were doped in the first place, and assumes that both doping benefit and prevalence are high in the women's marathon.
What seems more logical is one or more of: 1) Paula had superior talent/training/execution than everyone else, regardless of doping, and/or 2) doping prevalence in the marathon is not significant, and/or 3) doping benefit in the marathon is not significant.
Here you are again assuming on the basis of a PC value judgement that doping isn't to a large part region specific. What Paula proved was that, regardless of doping, the natural born East African runner is a myth.
BTW, quite a few runners have ran faster than Aouita over 1500m in the last 3 decades.
18 people ran faster in the pre 2018 period. Is that shocking the same way only having 40 woman run faster than 2:21 was? Or do you think 40 is about what you would expect....
If the east African runner isn't a myth, where are the rest of the UK runners? Only Paula dopes? What Paula proves is that the difference between the top .0001% might not be noticeable. Doesn't change the reality that the average Kenyan is a lot better than the average UK runners....
If you want to suggest that drugs from the last three decades didn't help the men's 800m/1500m runners run faster than Coe in the 800m or Aouita in the 1500m, be my guest. (Not sure if we should presume Coe's and/or Aouita's are doped performances).
Here, we are supposed to believe that doping (some sleuths are convinced she low-tech blood doped with transfusions before two races) unquestionably helped Paula run 2:15:25, while for 33 years, from 1986-2018, no one else taking EPO and/or other drugs or methods, could get within 2m55s. Comparing to the men, many were within 2m55s of the men's world record, at all times.
It seems unlikely that, if we assume high benefit and high prevalence, that it would help one athlete so much, yet no one else over 30 years could leverage their own combination of talent/training/doping to come anywhere near close.
This assumes Paula's records were doped in the first place, and assumes that both doping benefit and prevalence are high in the women's marathon.
What seems more logical is one or more of: 1) Paula had superior talent/training/execution than everyone else, regardless of doping, and/or 2) doping prevalence in the marathon is not significant, and/or 3) doping benefit in the marathon is not significant.
Here you are again assuming on the basis of a PC value judgement that doping isn't to a large part region specific. What Paula proved was that, regardless of doping, the natural born East African runner is a myth.
BTW, quite a few runners have ran faster than Aouita over 1500m in the last 3 decades.
I don't doubt that doping varies from region to region, and over time. There are "regional" pockets of high prevalence in places like Russia, and "regional" pockets of low prevalence like Japan. Yet in the women's marathon, nation to nation, Japan, with an estimated near-0% doping prevalence, outperformed Russia, with an estimated near-100% doping prevalence.
1 : hundreds of examples of east african dominating distance running and often middle distance : that proves they are all dopers without natural superiority.
2 : one or two cases where europeans dominated (coe, radcliffe) : that proves they are superior to doped east africans
I gave my reasons.
250+ doping busts in Kenya compared to a handful in the West, and the frequency continues to climb as they are forced to raise their anti-doping standards to a minimal level. Anybody who still believes that East Africans dominate because of genes is either mentally ill or yes, does have some kind of weird fetish going on there.
He didn't question your reasons, but your logic.
Where are you getting 250+ ? You never gave that reason. First it looks like you inflated that value, and you neglect to say that it spans a nearly 20-year period from 2004 to the present, including both men and women.
To put that figure in proper perspective, we need to know what is the bust rate as a percentage of athletes competing and performing and being tested?
Why is it important to consider prevalence and bust rates as a percentage of athletes in a testing pool?
In 2018, when I counted top performers, I counted 226 Kenyans and 32 non-Africans from the rest of the world, over the 27 year period, outperforming my 1990 benchmark. (I also counted 30 North Africans). If we hypothetically say Kenyan doping, as a percentage, is the same as the global average, we should expect that 7x as many of these top Kenyan performers are doping, than the rest of the non-African world. If we say, for the sake of simple math, 30% is the global doping prevalence, this suggests that 70 Kenyans, compared to 10 non-Africans, are doping -- for the same global prevalence.
In a recent AIU report on road-running test , the AIU said it's RTP of athletes consists of 41% Kenyans, 39% Ethiopians, and 20% the rest of the world (includes North Africans). If we hypothetically assume that Kenyan busts in this road-running RTP group are the global average, and that North Africans are 10% (they are approximately equal to non-Africans above), we should expect testing to produce 4x as many Kenyans as the rest of the non-African world -- for the same global bust rate.
While you are impressed with your inflated 250+ as an absolute figure, it is not possible to properly put that in proper perspective while ignoring just how many East Africans are performing compared to the rest of the world, in these distance events.
What about genes? Most of the time I see "genes" popping up on these boards is you trying to argue against it. Most people attribute Kenyan dominance to a combination of many factors, such as diet, mentality, altitude, lack of distractions, etc. -- genes play only a partial role.
What we can draw from Paula's career is the following depending on whether she did or did not dope.
1 - Paula doped - that indicates (in line with the geographic spread of busts) that doping is rare in GB/Europe and Paula is an example of the times Europeans would run if they had the same doping culture as East Africa.
2 - Paula did not dope - Given the rampant doping in East African distance running and the fact that so few can get close to her times in 20 years, East Africans are in fact less talented than Europeans.
Either way, Paula proved that the genetic advantage of East Africans is a myth.
It's curious you want to project the performance of the singular Paula onto the plural of all Europeans. Note other Europeans are less talented just like the Africans, not coming close to Paula's times in 20 years. The next best European today, if I'm not mistaken, is Irina Mikitenko (2:19:19). The European descended Americans are doing better with Emily Sisson and Keira D'Amato surpassing the old mark of Deana Kastor.
While it is tempting to reach to your favorite non-racist conclusions that fast Europeans can only be talented while fast Africans can only be doping, this fails to consider other factors connected to the history of the women's marathon, and the history of East African society.
East African women are only emerging recently, in part due to East African suppression of women competing in sport, for a number of societal reasons.
One of the bigger advantages of East African men over non-African men is average weight -- this difference is not as great among the women.
Another factor producing fast times is having a race organized with a critical mass of pace-makers able to take the women to halfway, or 30km, at the desired pace. Paula ran her fastest time, going out with male pacemakers running 2:16, with one pacemaker dropping off at 30K (35K?) and the other going all the way to the finish line.
After the introduction of new shoes, East African women are now dominating the marathon tody in a way Europeans cannot match, currently relegating Paula's performance to third all time. Then there are a couple dozen Kenyans and Ethiopians before Emily Sisson's 34th place performance, and the next best European, Mikitenko, at 67th, and the next best Britain, the household name of Jess Piasecki, coming in at 333rd.
These are just a few factors suggesting it would be premature to conclude that East African superior talent over European talent is not real, while concluding the initial assumption that the single factor is doping.
But sure -- one possibility is that fast Europeans are talented, and none of the good ones are doping, or have ever doped, while fast Africans are less talented, and all the best ones are doping, or have doped.
Anybody who still believes that East Africans dominate because of genes is either mentally ill or yes, does have some kind of weird fetish going on there.
The only difference that play hare "morphology of the body", "innate adaptation to certain physical activities".
Here I copied this from a document:
A human race is defined as a group of people with certain common inherited features that distinguish them from other groups of people. All men of whatever race are currently classified by the anthropologist or biologist as belonging to the one species, Homo Sapiens. This is another way of saying that the differences between human races are not great, even though they may appear so, i.e. black vs white skin. All races of mankind in the world can interbreed because they have so much in common. All races share 99.99+% of the same genetic materials which means that division of race is largely subjective, and that the original 3-5 races were also probably just subjective descriptions as well.
Genetics are a huge factor. Talent is based in your genes. There over over 120 ethnic groups in Kenya and Ethiopia and 90% of their top runners come from just a handful of them.
Can Coevett explain why only the Kalenjin cheat but the Luo and Luhya don’t?
Genetics are a huge factor. Talent is based in your genes. There over over 120 ethnic groups in Kenya and Ethiopia and 90% of their top runners come from just a handful of them.
Can Coevett explain why only the Kalenjin cheat but the Luo and Luhya don’t?
The Nigerian national records include 9.85, 19.73, 44.17, and a 12.12.
The Nigerian 10000m records? 29:04.5 and 33:43.0.
There will not be a serious reply from Coevett to these fair points.
Genetics are a huge factor. Talent is based in your genes. There over over 120 ethnic groups in Kenya and Ethiopia and 90% of their top runners come from just a handful of them.
Can Coevett explain why only the Kalenjin cheat but the Luo and Luhya don’t?
Sure, genes are a contributing factor, but not the only one.
I'm convinced that Americans/Europeans, and their descendants, if they followed the path of Ryan Hall a bit further, could do much better in distance events, than they have.