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

And keep in mind, athletes like Stellah Barsosio and Gloria Kite Chebiwott, who go to the hospital for bona-fide illness or injury treatment, something you just agreed isn't doping, will be counted as sanctioned ADRVs in WADA's report, rather than "medical reasons", despite the tribunal accepting that it was not intentional doping, as they both received a 2-year ban.

OK, now you made some real progress: after maybe two months in this thread (and decades of watching athletics) you now realised the point here.

But don't you think "13 minutes and 16 secs" is a little bit bulky? How often have you seen Kipchoges's WR mentioned as 2 hours 1 minute and 9 seconds? There is some convention which shortens this by some margin. I give you another two months and you might have explored it. Give it a try, Army - it's never too late to learn something, not even at 75+!

Hey, this could be your day, Army! After your big breakthrough in the other important subject ("minutes.seconds") you are still far from child-level, but you are heading in right direction.
But here it's little bit more complicated, so it might be tough for you to get it within 100 more posts.
Since you are so proud to be able to compare numbers (times): Clarke's 5000m PB is 7.6 (try to figure out the mysterie of the "." here) seconds faster than Keino's PB (both PB's former WRs).
From this you detect "Clarke beeing faster than Keino". Complete nonsensical conclusion, obviously. But if we agree to this stupid phrasing, it's a necessary conlusion that also Keino beeing faster than Clarke. It was explained to you at least 10 times. (9.5 seconds faster 1500m PB by Keino, faster over 3000m/2 Miles, regularly beating Clarke at the BIG champs...).
Maybe you start (just starting, no one expects you to get it within the next few months) rethinking your concept of " athlete A faster than athlete B"?

You have claimed "no one was faster than Keino in his era". Clarke's record of 13.16 over Keino's best of 13.24 showed how wrong you were. You have spent 40 pages proving you don't know what the word "faster" means. Your further pretences to a mastery of philosophical logic are Falstaffian. Pure wind and nonsense. The only consolation you may have is that the truly stupid - like yourself - are unaware of that condition.

In your case, I will add pedant to dunce.

BS. Kenya only escaped a ban because Coe said they were trying to do something about their doping - unlike Russia. Kenyan Athletics had expected a ban.

Doping and running are the only sports Kenya are good at. Their football team sucks.

If one compares Keino's 3000m world record of 7:39.6 to Clarke's achievements, it is almost certainly relatively better than Clarke's 5000m or 10000m famous world records.

Not an open-and-shut case, but this holds true both when the metric is the IAAF score or how much the world record has progressed since the mid-1960s, ie. the current WR for 3000m is only 4.1 % faster whereas the current 5000m and 10000m world records are some 5.3-5.4 % faster.

I didn't use the phrase "beeing faster". (What is that? Is it to do with an apiary? Bees? Or is your solecism simply an indication that English is not your native tongue? I think you mean "being" - even though I don't use the word in this context.) However, your inability to understand basic English and the word "faster" is apparent. 13.16 is "faster" than 13.24. That is fact - notwithstanding your strange intellectual contortions to try to say otherwise.

I am not trying to argue who was ultimately the better runner - which is what your observation alludes to. My point was that it is factually incorrect to say no one was "faster" in Keino's era. Clarke's 5k record demonstrates that. It does not mean Clarke was always faster - clearly he wasn't - but that he achieved a faster time over that distance than Keino ever did. But there have been some here whose English is such they don't understand that "faster" is not necessarily a synonym for "better".

In your case, I will add willfully ignorant narcissist to dunce.

You have stated several runners in his era were faster than Keino. For sure in an attempt to downgrade Keino's achievements. I just responded to this totally nonsense claim: no, no one was "faster" than Keino.

Since than you again and again state that "13.16" > "13.24" (are you really too stupid to understand the format of times - even when it was explained to you 10 times?).

Because of Clarke's 7.6 seconds faster 5000m PB, to you Clarke is "faster" than Keino. Completely ignoring all the arguments which demonstrates how deluded such a phrasing is.

Now you have started to give statements of mine which I never did, not once. Stop it, imbecile.

How precious that you are making fun of someone who's first language is not English for a small mistake.
Typical narcissist, needing to humiliate others to feel superior to them when you have no real arguments to refute what they say.
How many languages do you speak fluently?

You should stick your insults up your butt. You might feel literally "anused" then.

Image:i.ibb.co/W39P15T/Whats-App-Image-2023-...

Yes, he is too stupid.

Then it will be a simple matter for you to provide a direct quote -- originating from Coe or World Athletics -- that such a ban was ever on the table before the Rome meeting. Otherwise it never happened.

I think it was just sensational rumors designed to create headlines and gossip and scare Kenyan officials.

I think it makes no sense to believe that World Athletics would have banned the AK or AKAD, precisely because they were testing and banning athletes. It would only make sense if AK was not testing and/or not banning athletes.

Pretty much.

Can you imagine a country like Scotland or New Zealand :

1 / Distance running is the only viable option for a professional sporting career. For example, both Kerr brothers commit to middle-distance running. EVERY elite soccer player, rugby player, boxer, tennis player etc etc devoted themselves to distance running from their teens instead. There is also a huge financial motive as Scotland has a standard of living 1/20th of the European average.

2/ There is a rampant doping culture with no testing and EPO available over the counter in every high street pharmacy.

3/ Scottish athletes routinely lie about their ages to compete in and win international junior competitions.

4 / The best coaches in the world flock to Scotland to train 'the best natural running talent in the world'.

5/ Everybody believes that generations of haggis eating and living in the Highlands has produced 'special adaptations' in Scottish people for distance running. Books are written about it - 'Running with the Scots'. Young runners from other countries feel intimidated when competing against Scots athletes, believing they just don't have the right genes.

Now none of the above 5 things are remotely close to being the case, and yet look at how well Scotland - a country with less than 2/3 of the population of the Kalenjin and less than 1/10th that of Kenya as a whole, is doing. Scotland currently has three male sub 3:33 runners, as opposed to Kenya's 2 (last 12 months). Then the women...

Imagine if the above 5 things were the case. Would it surprise anyone if Scotland completely dominated middle amd long distance running? Probably 10 x as much as Kenya currently does.

The point wasn't who was a better athlete overall, and I could've used the word "faster" when comparing the 5000m and 3000m times which would've only confused because 3000m tends to be generally faster both in speed and time spent on the track.

To clarify further -- if you try to homogenise the PBs of both Clarke & Keino in different (but relatively close) distances to a single metric, Keino was a faster runner when he was the fastest version of himself.

Another metric. In the 2022 world list, Keino would've been 18-19th (3000m), but Clarke ~70th (10000m) or ~40th (5000m) with their PBs.

Can you imagine ...? Interesting how predominant the imagination is in these discussions.

Imagine if Scots lived and train in higher lands, and grew up at high altitude to be a heathly mature adult at 90-110 pounds (6 stones 7 pounds to 8 stones)?

And I thought you had moved on from talking about "genes" to include enviromnental influences like altitude.

Why can't you understand that the middle distances (800m and 1500m) are not Kenya's best events? These are events where non-Africans have always had a chance to be competitive. A top Coe and Cram and Ovett would have been competitive throughout the EPO-era.

How does your analysis look, for the very same small populations, for steeple, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m, 5K roads, 10K roads, 15K roads, half-marathon, marathon and cross-country, if we count performances comparable to your third place Gourley? Is it still 3-2 in Scotland's favor? How does it look for the last four decades, when East Africans started dominating the world in cross-country with the depth of top talent, long before EPO was widely used (according to you in 1992)?

What is different in 2022, than say 2021, or 2018? In other threads, Armstronglivs tries to say that, while official WADA test reports show in 2021 that ~11% of positives tests are Kenyan, for 2022, according to Coe, that fraction is now 40%, a nearly 4x increase in Kenyan doping. How does this alleged rapid increase in Kenyan doping sit with your observation of Kenyan decline in performance in the 1500m in 2022? The increased doping made the Kenyans slower?

While Kerr and Wightman have produced great (top-100) 1500m performances (Australia and Spain have also done well with two athletes each in 2022), you have to dig pretty far down the list to find your third Scot, Gourley, coming in just about the top-1000th best performance. Does that mean the whole country of Scotland now has better depth than the whole region of Kalenjins? I think you have to consider other more basic reasons why Kenyan depth is drying up on the tracks, and has been since 2010 (when the IAAF switched from Golden League to Diamond League) -- money is drying up on the track and Kenyans have followed the money to the roads. A third best Kenyan generally cannot afford to go to international meets, like the Scots can, and their domestic meets are at altitude, on inferior tracks.

To the extent that doping culture is rampant, the whole world has a rampant doping culture. If Cathal Lombard and Martin Fagan can get EPO in Ireland, and Christian Hesch can get EPO from Mexico, and virtually anyone can get it shipped from China, then the Scots can also get EPO in Scotland. Indeed, if you were consistent, you would have to suspect these Scots of doping with EPO.

And what about the women? Isn't Laura Muir a veterinarian, with access to all kinds of drugs? Vets can prescribe EPO. Why get EPO from high street pharmacies, when you can be a high street pharmacist? She can supply the whole country, men and women. Is that why the Scots have become so good? Where does your sense of conspiracy go when it comes to pasty-white non-Africans?

You have joined with others into a strangely contorted use of the word "faster" in this discussion, in which it is closer in meaning to the term "better". I have used the word "faster" in its simplest and unequivocal sense - time, as measured by a stopwatch, over the same distance: a 13.16 performance in the 5k is absolutely faster than 13.24. That is all I am saying. It isn't a claim about who might be the better runner when other factors relating to performance can be taken into account.