There is no “genetic superiority” when it comes to distance running. Literally everyone sub 2:09 is just doping.

Hey Army!
2 world records from Kenyans before 1980! (after it was told you ten times that 10 is correct) - wonderful contribution to the forum. As so often. Good that you added the 880y in your wonderful statistics. Also the 3 Miles was a popular distance in the 1970s. But that you missed the 3/4 Mile really is disappointing and makes your list almost meaningless.

Some calculation for you (don't ask how this is done, I know, 4th grade is long ago for you):
Kenya has won 55% of the Gold medals at the Commonwealth Games (66, 70, 74, 78) and 41.7% of all the medals (just an info for you: your beloved New Zealand and also Australia, England, Scotland, Tanzania are part of the Commonwealth).

Another info you will like Army: at the 1982 and 1990 Commonwealth Games, Kenya's medals in the track distance events: 3 - 6 - 2 (1986 Kenya boycotted the games).

You also will like: Behind Great Britain, Kenya was the 2nd most successful nation at the 84 Olympics and in Seoul 88 they have won 4 - 1 - 1 medals just in the track distances. But - hey - New Zealand has had a 12th place in the marathon. And if Peter Snell would not have prefered to stop with athletics in 1965 he definitely would have won the 8 and 15.

And, no, a 16 year period which includes obviously 4 Olympic Games (obviously for anybody apart from you) for sure is not meaningless. But we can change the period to 1964 - 1984 or 1964 - 1989, or 1964 - 1991 (7 Olympic Games, 2 Kenyan boycotts). Or we can start in 1968, or in 1972 if you prefer.
I know, you think the only fair period would start in 1896 when the Olympics and international athletics in general were a really big thing in Kenya.

The amount of nonsense which you have produced in this single thread tops anything and makes even Coevett looking not that stupid anymore (Clarke IS faster than Keino (and not seeing that then Keino also is faster than Clarke) because of "13.16" > "13.24" ignoring that Keino has beaten Clarke in 64, 66, 68, 70 at the BIG Championship over 5000m, ignoring that Keino's 1500m+5000m time is faster than Clarke's, ignoring that both of them have not run the 110m hurdles and so on...).

In this thread you presented yourself as the ultimate idiot. I knew before that your stupidity and your ignorance are limitless (almost everybody is doping, non Kenyans are mostly trying to succeed legitimately and so on...), but to get it presented like this in almost any post of yours is satisfying in some way. But it's also hurting in some way.

Was this success as well as the enormous success in Cross Country in the 1980s (for most observers, the men's Cross Country world championships was always one of the most prestigious races of the season in long distance running) only the result of doping? If you say yes, then please explain this.

Don't you just see how unbelievable laughable such a statement is?

You havn't named a more successful country than Kenya for one simple reason: such a country doesn't exist. And you don't like this simple fact. But if you or me or someone else likes it or not is unimportant - it is like it is.

Was this only the result of doping? Yes? Which sort of doping? Any Kenyan was doping back then?

Mike Boit? Samson Kimobwa? Henry Rono? Wilson Kiprugut? James Maina? Kip Keino? Naftali Temu? Ben Jipcho? John Kipkurgat? John Ngeno? Kiprotich Rono? Benjamin Kogo? Naftali Bon? Robert Ouko? Thomas Saisi? Naftali Bon? Cosmas Silei? Peter Lemashon? Daniel Omwanza? Nyandika Maiyoro? Richard Juma? Josh Kimeto? Mike Musyoki?

Do you consider Moroccans to have special adapatations?

Funny how this thread started as a claim that anybody who ran under 2:09 was doped, then became a debate on whether Kenyans had a genetic advantage, then Rekrunner and Slowwer backtracked and claimed the question is one of - 'can Kenya's success before 1980 be explained by doping', apparently carrying some kind of implication that Kenyans do have some genetic advantage if the answer is no.

Yes, Kenyans were doping back then, but who knows if it was as bad as it is today. It may even have been worse and more 'state sponsored'. The most suspicious Kenyan athlete of that period was Keino, and his major success (and Kenya's major success) was at altitude.

Kenyans were full time professional (effectively) athletes in an amateur era in which greats like Bannister, Elliott, Snell, and Ryun all pretty much were forced by circumstances to retire by their mid-twenties. If Keino had had to retire in his mid twenties, he would have won nothing and would not even be remembered by hardcore Kenyaphiles. There is nothing surprising that Kenya produced one or two great runners (neither of whom were arguably the best in the world), and handful of world class runners in 20 years. Despite all their advantages, they were not the most successful distance running nation, and certainly nowhere near it when you include the marathon, as any fair person would in debating the question of best distance running nation.

If Jakob were to win the 5000, 10000, and steeplechase in 2028 (and not beyond impossible for him), would that mean Norway was the dominant distance running nation on Earth?

Can you answer the following question Slowwer?

If Keino had retired at age 24 or 25, and Peter Snell, Herb Elliott, and Jim Ryun all continued on until their mid thirties - do you think (even by your own biased stat selection) that Kenya would have been 'the most successful distance running nation between 1964 and 1979'?

I would say Maghrebians seem to have some special "adaptation" (be it genetics, environment, tradition) especially for the 1500m.

If I compare the enormous success which they have had in this distance (five Olympic champions, Morceli, El Guerroj, Makhloufi, Boulmerka, Merah-Benida and many more top runners) to the very limited success in most other sports for me it seems like there must be some other reason beside doping (which obviously also is some factor) and hard training.

That a muslim country like Algeria could produce two female Olympic champions in this event is astonishing for me. But, yes, doping really might play some important role here - to which extent? Did they dope so much better than for example Italians?
Even in the 1970s Morocco and Algeria have had some good success in the 1500m - definitely much more then in any other event.

Any comments on the latest Kenyan doping bust? It would appear any superiority is the superior ability to take a absolute truck load of drugs.

My statistics are not biased, not at all. I have never said that Kenya was 'the most successful distance running nation between 1964 and 1979'. But after maybe 50 posts you are getting really close now: most successful men's track distance running nation, OK? 800 to 10000 including the steeple for the men. Kenya almost has not contested the Marathon back then.

"Most successful nation" is just a simple statement about the facts of medals, records and so on. It says nothing about the reasons - this is another debate.

Kenya was the most successful, if you like it or not is unimportant.

What don't you understand in a simple fact like Kenyans have won 55% of the Gold medals and 41.7% of all medals at the Commonwealth Games in this period? There is nothing biased here, absolutely nothing. It's just some astonishing fact. Don't even try to argue (like your ill friend would) that nobody cares about the CG. It's just not true.

What don't you understand in a statement that no other country has had an athlete in any event in the top 2 in the all-time list in this period?

800m:

Boit 2nd (just 0.07s above the WR)

1000m:

Boit 2nd

1500m:

Keino 2nd

1 Mile:

Keino and Jipcho 2nd

3000m:

Keino and Rono world records

5000m:

Keino and Rono world records

10000m:

Kimobwa and Rono world records

steeple:

Jipcho and Rono world records

Great Britain is really close with world records in the 800, 1500, 1 Mile, 3000 and 10000, a 2nd in the 5000 and a 7th in the steeple. Absolutely nothing biased here, just some fact interesting for the subject.

What is so hard to understand that Kenyans have set 10 world records in the standard events? (and that the stupidnes of your friend has been exposed here again to an enormous extend)

GB: 5 (yes, GB will take the lead here if we take a longer period)

New Zealand: 3 (plus walker's great 2000 mark)
Australia: 7 (4 alone by Clarke in the 5000, plus 2 2 Miles records by Clarke and 1 practically equaling of the 800 record)
Finland: 3
USA: 4 (plus 1 practically equaling of the 800 record)

Nothing biased here, just numbers. What is it about a childish comment of yours that nobody cared about the long distances in the 70s?

What is so hard to understand that no other nation has won as many Olympic medals as Kenya? The altitude of Mexico might have favoured Kenya but this has no influence on the success, they have won those medals. (btw. the 800 was won by an Australian and the 5000 by an Tunisian, not quite high altitude locations). And I have stated now several times that both Temu and Keino have also beaten Clarke before and/or after at the CG.

Kenya's Olympic medals: 4 - 5 - 3 (GBs: 0 - 0 - 1 - no boycott)
Is it so hard to understand that 12 Olympic medals out of three games means more success than 2 bronze medals out of four games? Nothing biased here. The steeple is part of the distance running program and contested widely, but even without nothing would be changed dramatically.

if - if -if - yes, IF we add several medals and records to some nations and subtract some medals and records from Kenya, there will come the point where Kenya is not anymore the most successful.

What if Keino would not have been born in a country with absolutely no athletics background? What if Jipcho would not have turned professional at age 30? What if Rono would not have become an alcoholic?

What if Kenya would not have boycotted the 76 games - very likely Kenya would have another Olympic champion.

What if you wouldn't be that stupid that the most easy things have to be explained dozens of times until you START to get the point? What if all your reasoning wouldn't be controlled by your bias and by many doping bans from Kenyans? What if you could realise that 50 or even 100 doping bans from Kenyans can't change the reality of records and or medals from 50 or 60 years ago?

40% or something like that of the worlds fastest Marathon runners coming from a small part of some country can't be explained solely by doping. Just childish and biased thinking of yours.

Yes, super Kenyans couldn't even win the 800 or 5000 in Mexico at altitude. With Snell in the 800 and Elliott in the 5000, they wouldn't have medalled.

Kenyans were full time runners able to compete into their 30's when the rest of the world were part time and had to retire in their prime to pursue a career. That's not the same as - 'what if Rono didn't become an alcoholic?'.

BTW, maybe Kenyan alcoholism is just as likely to have a genetic basis?

Why have you spent hours of your life trying to prove that Kenya was the most successful if it has nothing to do with the genetics question? Good God.

Yes it can, just as the fact that the top 3000m times for women still come from one small region of China in the 90's can be explained by doping.

A simple correction of a wrong number gets some downvote by Coevett - childishness at his best.

Another correction:

New Zealand has had not 3 world records, but 4 (plus Walker's great 2000)

One of the Kenyans busted today had the following in her system : "Androsterone, Adiols, Pregnanediol11-ketoetiocholanolone, Etiocholanolone (Etio), testosterone, 5a-androstanediol, and 15 epitestosterone"

But according to Rekrunner and Slowwer, Kenyans can't dope with anything but EPO, and EPO was only invented in 1995, so all Kenyans before that were clean as a whistle.

Seems realistic.

Snell would have won two medals in the 800.

Elliott would have won two medals in the 5000.

Some quantum mechanics phenomenon?

A true Coevett.

I guess that explains why I think you are always wrong.

For example, I did not argue anything about Kenya before 1980. That is solely "slowwer"'s claim and argument. All I did was watch in silent amusement as both you and Coevett protested too much, while both simultaneously intellectually unable to nominate any alternative candidate country that was better -- by any definition of success. You both essentially argued "nuh-uh" (how stupid is that?), while selecting Olympic Gold medals (how stupid is that?), and marathons (how stupid is that?) as your personal cherry-picked gold standard metrics of "successful country on the track between 1964-1979".

If you want to debate with me, my argument starts in 1981, in Madrid, Spain, at the Hipódromo de la Zarzuela on March 28, 1981, and it is an argument, not just about Kenya, but also Ethiopia.

What is funny is watching you rewrite this thread, from the vantage point of Coevett.

This thread (see the subject) from the start was about denying genetics, and attributing "literally" all sub-2:09s to doping. (Didn't Derek Clayton run sub-2:09 in the 1960s?) My position on that subject is: "what about things like the environment?" Put enough non-Africans at altitude long term (e.g. like Ryan Hall and the Robertson twins), and then they will start closing the performance gap.

I did not backtrack anything, but consistently claim that "genetics vs. doping" is a false dichotomy. Few people argue genetics, but many seem to want to deny it, as if the only alternative explanation would be doping. It is a rhetorical tactic to avoid actually demonstrating that doping is a good, or even a possible, explanation.

With respect to "can Kenya's success before 1980 be explained by doping", this doesn't go far enough. My position is that doping is a bad explanation for Kenyan distance running success as a nation from 1964-2023. If it works for Kenyans, it should work for everyone. We know that non-Africans have been doping the whole time, and no one has doped more than the Russians. If doping hasn't ever helped any non-Africans bump elbows with East Africans at the finish line, over the last 40 years, then why should anyone believe that East Africans are exceptional responders, especially to any drug that is a synthetic substitute for altitude, that you believe can give athletes 10 minutes in the marathon?

You have a real problem with scale. Jakob is just one athlete -- he is not the nation of Norway. You'd have to multiply him by a few hundred, speed some of him/them up by up to another 1-2%, and spread all of him/them across 30 years, to be just about equal to Kenya.

While sometimes amusing, it does get old seeing "according to rekrunner", as retold by Coevett and Armstronglivs. Unable to argue against what I really say, they need to retell it.

Whatever and whenever Kenyans doped, non-Africans have also been doping this whole time. According to rekrunner, universal factors like doping should work universally, i.e. as well for non-Africans as it does for East Africans.

Not sure where 1995 comes from. It is according to Coevett, that it is widely accepted that EPO was widely used in track from 1992, and that EPO can give elite athletes a 10 minute boost in their marathon performance. Yet according to two Australian "scientists", reviewing IAAF blood data over 12 years, both Kenyan and Ethiopian blood doping was below the global average in the years 2001-2012. Similarly, blood doping for the marathon event was the least suspicious (with 8 out of 9 Olympic and World Championship medals -- the events that Armstronglivs cares about -- were won by athletes who were never suspected of blood doping). And no non-Africans have run 10 minutes faster than Derek Clayton in the '60s.

But here is an intellectual challenge for Coevett and Armstronglivs. I'm curious what tangible evidence exists for suggesting roughly when Kenya's doping problem began. While you suggest 1995 as coming from me (it does not), is there any evidence that the doping problem in Kenya was notably significant, say before 2012? We saw above that the IAAF blood database evidence for 5000 athletes for 2001-2012 was not very convincing, with respect to blood doping.

Note that China is not a small region. All of these times come from exactly one meet, hosted in China. It is possible to make a justified argument for steroids/male hormones for women in event requiring superior muscular strength. Such arguments cannot be applied to distance running men in the marathon.