DOHA, Qatar (AP) — Kenya faces the prospect of being banned from international athletics because of doping problems that have now reached “crisis” levels, according to authorities in the country. The threat of an imminent ban...
Which news are you presenting me next - that Ben Johnson has tested positive in 1988?
I know very well your reasoning, Coevett, that because of those many doping positives in Kenya it's totally natural to lie over and over again about pure facts (for example the success which Kenya has had already before 1980). And that anyone who despite those positives prefers to stay to facts which you don't like is a scientific racist.
"Running faster - that's the goal, I have little doubt about this."(quote)
Since no one dopes to run slower you have at least mastered that part of the equation. But since you say Kenyans dope to "run faster" that shows they have always doped since the late '60's and '70's, because their motivation will always have been to run faster. That's how you win. So they have doped for decades.
Yes, any 5 years old should arrive with this reasoning: runners (nothing special here on Kenyans) dope with the goal to run faster. But this reasoning obviously was not within your grasp.
New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians dope to "run faster" that shows they have always doped since the late '60's and '70's, because their motivation will always have been to run faster. That's how you win. So New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians have doped for decades.
At least you have some consistency in your level of reasoning (see above) and your level of sticking to facts (10 world records become 2 if Kenyans have set them, the on paper fastest runners are slow if they are Kenyans, the enormous amount of Kenyan wins and medal placings were all achieved by losers...) - both are practically zero.
The good thing in this terrible thread is that the level of your thinking is clearly exposed.
Unfortunately your other post was removed. Definitely some cheetah issue!
We were discussing Kenyans, not any other nationality, when you said they (meaning Kenyans - for the grammatically challenged) dope "to run faster". That argument does not apply to other nationalities because no other country has shown that it dopes in distance running to the same extent as the Kenyans. Doping is a proven fact in Kenyan running but is merely a speculative possibility with regard to most other countries. Hence you cannot apply the claim that runners from all or any other countries dope "to run faster" because they haven't shown they dope like the Kenyans do. Your argument fails - as it always does.
Which news are you presenting me next - that Ben Johnson has tested positive in 1988?
I know very well your reasoning, Coevett, that because of those many doping positives in Kenya it's totally natural to lie over and over again about pure facts (for example the success which Kenya has had already before 1980). And that anyone who despite those positives prefers to stay to facts which you don't like is a scientific racist.
Proof that you either haven't read the articles or that you failed to understand what they say.
By your own admission, that Kenyans dope "to run faster" means they have always doped because they will have always wanted to run faster - and we know they dope because one of their runners is busted every week. That has to be some kind of record of its own. No other country can compete with that.
Yes, any 5 years old should arrive with this reasoning: runners (nothing special here on Kenyans) dope with the goal to run faster. But this reasoning obviously was not within your grasp.
New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians dope to "run faster" that shows they have always doped since the late '60's and '70's, because their motivation will always have been to run faster. That's how you win. So New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians have doped for decades.
At least you have some consistency in your level of reasoning (see above) and your level of sticking to facts (10 world records become 2 if Kenyans have set them, the on paper fastest runners are slow if they are Kenyans, the enormous amount of Kenyan wins and medal placings were all achieved by losers...) - both are practically zero.
The good thing in this terrible thread is that the level of your thinking is clearly exposed.
Unfortunately your other post was removed. Definitely some cheetah issue!
We were discussing Kenyans, not any other nationality, when you said they (meaning Kenyans - for the grammatically challenged) dope "to run faster". That argument does not apply to other nationalities because no other country has shown that it dopes in distance running to the same extent as the Kenyans. Doping is a proven fact in Kenyan running but is merely a speculative possibility with regard to most other countries. Hence you cannot apply the claim that runners from all or any other countries dope "to run faster" because they haven't shown they dope like the Kenyans do. Your argument fails - as it always does.
Let's continue! Another round with the old non checker, who
- is not able to search the most easy results
- who doesn't know some of the biggest legends in distance running
- changes numbers dramatically for his liking
- who calls the fastest runners slow
- who calls winners and medalists losers
- who doesn't know the meaning of opinion
- who doesn't know the meaning of comparing something
- who doesn't know how to write times
- who compares the success of a single nation with the combined success of all other nations
- who almost always challenges something he doesn't like without a single argument
- who calls a runner categorically "faster" than another runner because of one PB and ignores all the other PBs and defeats
- who never ever would admit if he did a mistake - NEVER EVER
THEY (the Kenyans) don't dope, some Kenyans dope (as it seems a relatively high number in comparison to runners from other nations, but this is irrelevant for the argumentation).
For sure your own (stupid) argumentation holds true (if true at all) for any nation:
New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians dope to "run faster" that shows they have always doped since the late '60's and '70's, because their motivation will always have been to run faster. That's how you win. So New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians have doped for decades.
Your (stupid) argumentation is not connected to the no. of dopers from the specific country.
Some of the Kenyan runners dope with the intention to run faster (it seems this was not obvious to you) so "they" have always done so. Kenya for sure can replaced by any other country here. A classic Armstronglivs mental outburst.
Which news are you presenting me next - that Ben Johnson has tested positive in 1988?
I know very well your reasoning, Coevett, that because of those many doping positives in Kenya it's totally natural to lie over and over again about pure facts (for example the success which Kenya has had already before 1980). And that anyone who despite those positives prefers to stay to facts which you don't like is a scientific racist.
Proof that you either haven't read the articles or that you failed to understand what they say.
I have read them and understood the extremely easy meaning.
By your own admission, that Kenyans dope "to run faster" means they have always doped because they will have always wanted to run faster - and we know they dope because one of their runners is busted every week. That has to be some kind of record of its own. No other country can compete with that.
That you use the word admission here is enough to understand your thinking.
I don't have to ADMIT to this simple fact: runners dope to run faster. But it really seems this was new for you, since you are pointing on this again and again.
Your attempts to do logical conclusions are just ridiculous.
"New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians dope to "run faster" that shows they have always doped since the late '60's and '70's, because their motivation will always have been to run faster. That's how you win. So New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians have doped for decades."(quote)
You always prove you have no idea what you are trying to argue. Unlike Kenya, in which doping has been revealed to be their true national sport, the argument that distance runners from the countries above dope to run faster misses one crucial point: none of those countries has an established record of doping in distance running. So their athletes' desire "to run faster" hasn't resulted in what we have seen in Kenya, which is a virtual disease of doping. Thus your argument above that New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians have always doped "to run faster" doesn't follow, or we would see those countries would have doped like Kenyans. They haven't. No one has.
It is always a pleasure joining the dots for one with learning difficulties.
Yes they have smaller bodies, and that's often cited as a natural advantage. However they posses another natural advantage that is so politically incorrect, it never gets mentioned. The human brain is responsible for 20% of energy expenditure, no matter what. If you were to have a smaller brain, you use less energy, plain and simple. If a european or east asian has say a 1300 cc brain, and these kenyan runners average out at 1000cc, why that tiny brain only requires 78% of the energy. So that would mean they would only expend 95% of the energy for whatever. That's a 5% advantage.
By your own admission, that Kenyans dope "to run faster" means they have always doped because they will have always wanted to run faster - and we know they dope because one of their runners is busted every week. That has to be some kind of record of its own. No other country can compete with that.
That you use the word admission here is enough to understand your thinking.
I don't have to ADMIT to this simple fact: runners dope to run faster. But it really seems this was new for you, since you are pointing on this again and again.
Your attempts to do logical conclusions are just ridiculous.
All runners want to run faster but how is it that no one dopes in the numbers that Kenyans do? It suggests most distance runners from other countries try to run faster legitimately. But Kenyans obviously don't. They clearly prefer doping.
"New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians dope to "run faster" that shows they have always doped since the late '60's and '70's, because their motivation will always have been to run faster. That's how you win. So New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians have doped for decades."(quote)
You always prove you have no idea what you are trying to argue. Unlike Kenya, in which doping has been revealed to be their true national sport, the argument that distance runners from the countries above dope to run faster misses one crucial point: none of those countries has an established record of doping in distance running. So their athletes' desire "to run faster" hasn't resulted in what we have seen in Kenya, which is a virtual disease of doping. Thus your argument above that New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians have always doped "to run faster" doesn't follow, or we would see those countries would have doped like Kenyans. They haven't. No one has.
It is always a pleasure joining the dots for one with learning difficulties.
Your argument was independent from the no. of dopers.
Some Kenyans dope to run faster. Conclusion: "they" have always doped since the late '60's and '70's (because in the 60s and 70s "they" also were interested to run faster).
Since "they" (New Zealanders, Brits and Norwegians) also dope to run faster (or is it their intention to improve their biological knowledge?) they have always doped since the late '60's and '70's.
Don't try to argue "they" don't dope. "They" do.
Your argumentation is on the true Armstronglivs level.
That you use the word admission here is enough to understand your thinking.
I don't have to ADMIT to this simple fact: runners dope to run faster. But it really seems this was new for you, since you are pointing on this again and again.
Your attempts to do logical conclusions are just ridiculous.
It suggests most distance runners from other countries try to run faster legitimately.
Whaaat? Any top athlete dopes - that's your one and only contribution to this forum SINCE YEARS.
8 of the fastest 13 East African descent 800m runners in 2017 and 2018 have been suspended, and at least two of the remaining five are training parters of the busted athletes.
1. Korir (training partner Saruni) 2. Amos (busted SARMS) 3. Wyclife Kinyamal 4. Saruni (evading testing) 5. Jonathan Kitilit 6. Rotich (training partner of Bett) 7. Cornelius Tuwei 8. Kipyegon Bett (busted EPO) 9. Elijah Manangoi (missed tests) 10. Joseph Deng (training partner of Bol) 11. Alfred Kipketer (missed tests) 12. Asbel Kiprop (busted EPO) 13. Peter Bol (busted EPO)
Yes they have smaller bodies, and that's often cited as a natural advantage. However they posses another natural advantage that is so politically incorrect, it never gets mentioned. The human brain is responsible for 20% of energy expenditure, no matter what. If you were to have a smaller brain, you use less energy, plain and simple. If a european or east asian has say a 1300 cc brain, and these kenyan runners average out at 1000cc, why that tiny brain only requires 78% of the energy. So that would mean they would only expend 95% of the energy for whatever. That's a 5% advantage.
Why are you posting this under another name Slowerr?
Harry Edwards, the sociology professor who organised the Black Power demonstrations at the 1968 Olympics, believes that there is in fact a consensus of indifference on the matter that amounts to tacit racism. 'Whites,' he says, 'have always been comfortable with blacks working in the fields, whether they're cotton fields or football fields.' He argues that the reasons for black advancement in sport are not to be found in the biological sciences but in the 'social environment and racism' that creates the conditions for that success. It's certainly true that the history of research inspired by black achievements in sport is not one of which scientists can be proud. All manner of bizarre theories and contrived studies have in the past been presented as established fact, only subsequently to be utterly discredited by experience. In the 19th century the widespread belief that blacks were physically inferior was underpinned by warped interpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution. Indeed, the many theorists claimed that sub-Saharan Africans composed a different, less evolved, inferior species. The concept of a hierarchy of races saw its practical application in an effective separation of blacks from whites. Blacks were seldom allowed to compete against whites in sport and thus the untruth was able to flourish that whites were by nature superior athletes. When eventually sportsmen like the heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson left that myth lying knocked out on the canvas, it was soon replaced by another. Eugenic science of the early 20th century divided races into stratified categories in which physical strength and intelligence were inversely present.
Also a good quote from Linford Christie :
When Sir Roger Bannister , the first man to run a mile in less than four minutes, spoke in 1995 as a neurologist at a British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting of 'certain natural anatomical advantages' possessed by 'black sprinters and black athletes in general', he provoked a mixture of fear, anxiety and silence. Garth Crooks, the (black) former Spurs striker who is now BBC football reporter, said at the time: 'I don't think it matters what the biological conclusions are. It forges a distinction between black and white athletes which is unhealthy, unhelpful, and untrue.' Linford Christie, the only Briton ever to run under 10 seconds, and a man who has been made acutely aware of his skin colour, was less condemnatory. But he refused to accept Bannister's argument: 'What Sir Roger said is a cop out, in a way. As long as white people believe that black people can run faster, they always will. It makes my job a lot easier. I'll accept that. But Allan Wells was an Olympic champion. Valeri Borzov was an Olympic champion. So it can be done.'
I think he nails it really. LetsRun is full of failed white runners. That is the average LetsRunner. Somebody who was quite talented in college, but never got anywhere near national or world class. The idea of East African genetic supremacy is comforting to them, because they can reassure themselves that it was impossible for them to have the genes to be a world beater anyway.
I remember Linford Christie on a TV discussion show in the 90's (Central Weekend). They were discussing this very subject of genes and athletic talent. He stated that he regarded the idea that blacks were inherently faster runners to be akin to likening blacks as animals, and he compared it to the media's obsession with his 'lunch box', which he again stated was an attempt to liken black people to animals.
