Are Kenyan runners doped?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 15, 2009
84
0
0
Angliru said:
I can't believe you actually dignified that idiotic statement with a response.
Does he think the continent is one gigantic safari?
I dunno why I did. Its hard to argue with such idiotic opinions. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to believe this theory or he's just a wind up artist. I hope its the latter.
 
Mar 19, 2010
218
0
0
Willy_Voet said:
Graphically I think it is quite compelling:



Blue is pre-EPO, Red is EPO years, 1998-2000 had a number of scandals that probably had people more cautious, or maybe it was courses, temperature...who knows. Blue and red difference is striking.
It's weird that whites/westerns abruptly stop making the list in 1990... Epo can't be the whole story. Or even a fraction of it...

Also wouldn't athlete's from altitude like the Kenyans and Ethiopians have a higher red cell mass naturally and thus take less advantage from Epo that a european?
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
ChrisE said:
Cool, ok now we are getting somewhere. It seems my theory may have traction in here.

I am surprised CN forum contributors are not lightning quick given all the running from trolls they have to do... :rolleyes:
 
Willy_Voet said:
Graphically I think it is quite compelling:



Blue is pre-EPO, Red is EPO years, 1998-2000 had a number of scandals that probably had people more cautious, or maybe it was courses, temperature...who knows. Blue and red difference is striking.
Brilliant graph. Thanks for that.

Fester said:
It's weird that whites/westerns abruptly stop making the list in 1990... Epo can't be the whole story. Or even a fraction of it...

Also wouldn't athlete's from altitude like the Kenyans and Ethiopians have a higher red cell mass naturally and thus take less advantage from Epo that a european?
I always wondered about this. Why do people from the poorest countries win, if doping is such a factor. i suppose it could be that both East Africans and Europeans/ Americans dope but the natural advantages of the East Africans remain.

i think people like Haile might train from a younger age, and motivation might be a factor. Haile run to school and back every day 10km from a very young age (they say his crooked left arm is because he is used to running with books under that arm). He said himself that he had a 5km competition at school at a young age. Myself at school i was always good at the long distance, but as 11 became 12 and 13, the 1500 m became a middle distance event, yet it was stilll the longest distance available in UK schools. a far cry from the 5000, young haile, and presumably kenenisa were doing at that age.

Also considering their poverty, running might be an escape, and might motivate them to train harder.

Doping may increase the world records, but the motivation of the East Africans, puts them above the europeans. or so goes my hypothesis.

Also, perhaps, a lot of , if not most of the the best european and north american endurance athletes do triathlon, speed skating, cross countyr skiing and our thing, not to mention the good athletes who choose from the list of more technical and rewarding sports like tennis, association football, american football, baseball, hockey etc. Perhaps the nadals, rooneys, mannings, a rods, shani davises, Alberto Contadors of this world would be breaking the 10 000 m world record if they had focused on that.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
petethedrummer said:
I dunno why I did. Its hard to argue with such idiotic opinions. I'm not sure if he's stupid enough to believe this theory or he's just a wind up artist. I hope its the latter.
If you have a problem with Darwinism take it out on him, not me. :mad:

With the advent of guns equalizing things a bit, my argument was present day Kenyans are in fact the descendents of the fastest lion outrunners and the fastest food gatherers, pre-gun. And this is at altitude!

If you are saying that the slow early Kenyans who couldn't outrun the predators or weren't fast enough to catch prime food like gazelles are still diluting the gene pool, then I believe your reasoning is flawed. YMMV.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Merckx index said:
Except that the test was introduced in 2001. Those two years when no one broke 27 minutes were mostly test-free, and soon after the test was begun to be applied, the times fell again.
Incorrect.

In contrast to reinfusion of red blood cells are also a direct method to reveal the increase of [Hb] with EPO. With an elegant electrophoretic method with antibodies has Professor Leif Wide and colleagues demonstrated that exogenous EPO was more negatively charged than endogenous [10]. Because endogenous EPO production in the liver and kidneys decreases during the injection period of exogenous EPO was possible with electrophoretic obtain either one side or the firing of two different peaks of EPO and thus distinguish endogenous from exogenous EPO. The method were subsequently processed by French researchers [11]. The is now also an indirect method, developed by the Australian researchers, to uncover injections of exogenous EPO [12, 13]. It is based on an overall assessment of five different measurements: Hct, reticulocytes percent respectively makrocytvolym, [EPO] and the concentration of transferrinreceptorer in plasma. Values of these measurements was tested after höghöjdsvistelse, in different population groups, and stay on after training or just stay in höghöjdshus etc. Even under these conditions has been possible to discriminate the hematological effects of exogenous EPO injected from the normal hematologic variations. One of the authors of this article (BE) attended a meeting in IOCs headquarters in Lausanne in the summer of 2000 in which this indirect method were analyzed very carefully and found to be that the sustainable approach with wides direct method could be used already in the Sydney Olympics months thereafter.

Worse performance in the Olympics in Sydney

Only the launch of [Hb]-control methods were as arguably a preventive effect. In some branches of endurance at the Olympic Games (Olympics) in Sydney in 2000 was also the victory of the results worse than expected.

Table I shows the victory of the results of running events 1500, 5000 and 10 000 meters for men and women and the 3000 meter steeplechase for men. At these distances do that performance is positively responsive at elevations of [Hb] and thus VO2max [5]. These results grenars victory has been compared with corresponding results from four previous Olympics (from Los Angeles in 1984 to Atlanta 1996) and Athletics World Championships in Athens 1997 and Seville in 1999 and then compared with the world record each year. As shown in Table I was victorious performance at the Olympics in Sydney on average 4.2 percent lower than current world record. The corresponding difference between victory and world record at the Olympics in Los Angeles (not 10 000 m Women) was 2.0 percent, Seoul 1.2 percent, 2.6 percent Barcelona, Atlanta, 2.4 percent and the European Athletics Championships in Athens, 2.4 percent and Seville 2.5 percent (average 2.2 per cent). There is nothing to suggest that standard in the world in these distances would have deteriorated to a great Olympic Games in Sydney because several world records proposed recently. It is therefore possible that the decline from an average of 2.2 percent at the six previous championships, to 4.2 percent in Sydney would be explained by the risk of being exposed to new doping tests.
http://translate.google.se/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/2001/temp/pda23835.pdf&sl=sv&tl=en

http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/2001/temp/pda23835.pdf
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
2009 26:46.31 Kenenisa Bekele (ETH)
2008 26:25.97 Kenenisa Bekele (ETH)
2007 26:46.19 Kenenisa Bekele (ETH)
etc.
At this point in the season, I'm pretty sure that the 2010 number has been decided

2010 26:59.60 Chris Solinsky (Wisconsin, USA)
 
Mar 19, 2010
218
0
0
stephens said:
At this point in the season, I'm pretty sure that the 2010 number has been decided

2010 26:59.60 Chris Solinsky (Wisconsin, USA)
That guys unreal... 185cm, 73kgs, that's a Merckx type right there!
 
Jul 15, 2009
84
0
0
ChrisE said:
If you have a problem with Darwinism take it out on him, not me. :mad:
I don't have a problem with Darwinism. I have a problem with you suggesting Kenyans are faster as a result of being chased by lions.

Most Kenya runners come from one tribe (Kalenjin) in one particular area. Why are neighbouring tribes not as fast? Surely they out run the same lions you speak of.

Lion attacks are never mentioned in any articles on Kenyan running. Lion attacks on humans would not be frequent enough to force genetic adaptation. Whereas some of the reasons in this article might, e.g. a culture of running, tradition of cattle herding/raiding, environmental.

ChrisE said:
With the advent of guns equalizing things a bit, my argument was present day Kenyans are in fact the descendents of the fastest lion outrunners and the fastest food gatherers, pre-gun. And this is at altitude!

If you are saying that the slow early Kenyans who couldn't outrun the predators or weren't fast enough to catch prime food like gazelles are still diluting the gene pool, then I believe your reasoning is flawed. YMMV.
If you want to believe Kenyans are fast from running away from lions and running after gazelles then go ahead and keep believing it. What about the fast Morrocans or Ethiopians, what animals do you reckon they were running away from? And the sprinters descended from West Africa, what animals do you suggest they were out running?
 
I thought they got fast from running after Gazelle. If you do so in an interval type of manner, with a few friends to take turns chasing the animal, it will eventually just drop to the ground. Instant diner. All the fresh proteins you can eat. All the blood you can drink. Hardest part is to bring diner home after hunting.
I got this notion from the book Born to Run, to be honest. Apparently, this CAN be done with a couple of 2:30 marathoners and some good eye to always chase the same, already more tired animal.
 
stephens said:
At this point in the season, I'm pretty sure that the 2010 number has been decided

2010 26:59.60 Chris Solinsky (Wisconsin, USA)
Yes, fastest by 8 seconds

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2010/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=10K/detail.html

One thing i notice about the times there is that none have been set in Europe where many of the top events occur. Havent followed athletics in years but i dont think the 10,000 metres is one of the diamond league events so this maybe means that not many athletes are focussing on it. Also, there isnt an olympic games or world championships this year to focus people's attention on the 10k.

Looking back at the best times in 2009, it seems that the world championship final saw the fastest times. As you dont have a pacemaker in world championship events then the athletes could have run faster. Looking back further it seems that Brussels was where the best times were set a few years ago. The memorial van damme is coming up on Friday(i think) but the 10000metres will not be there.

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2009/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=10K/detail.html

The list of best 10k times by year looks very revealing but maybe the big differences can be explained by the change in importance of the event?

I think the 5,000 metres has been raced pretty constantly at the top events. Is there a comparable series for that event?
 
The Hitch said:
David Lekuta Rudisha broke the world record of nelson kipter (also kenyan, but running for denmark) which stood since 97, by 0.02 seconds.
A little O/T but its surprising that the 800 metres has only seen two people run faster than Seb Coe did almost 30 years ago. Given training, nutrition advances you'd have thought that more people would have gone past his mark(yes, its another stats list;))

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=800/detail.html

Its probably due in large part to it lying in the gap between the sprint records being broken by people of west african origin and the east africans breaking the middle and long distance records. The 1500 has seen 16 people go past Cram's best time (Coe had a slightly slower PB).
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
petethedrummer said:
I don't have a problem with Darwinism. I have a problem with you suggesting Kenyans are faster as a result of being chased by lions.

Most Kenya runners come from one tribe (Kalenjin) in one particular area. Why are neighbouring tribes not as fast? Surely they out run the same lions you speak of.

Lion attacks are never mentioned in any articles on Kenyan running. Lion attacks on humans would not be frequent enough to force genetic adaptation. Whereas some of the reasons in this article might, e.g. a culture of running, tradition of cattle herding/raiding, environmental.



If you want to believe Kenyans are fast from running away from lions and running after gazelles then go ahead and keep believing it. What about the fast Morrocans or Ethiopians, what animals do you reckon they were running away from? And the sprinters descended from West Africa, what animals do you suggest they were out running?

Its kinda worth pointing out that pre the native Americans arrival in Americas from Eurasia that Americas had its fair share of Lions, Tigers, Elephants and other large predators to run away from...so the "running away" from such creatures to explain Kenyan runners is utter nonsence.
The same utter nonsence that native American culture was " at one" with nature. They made many of these animals extinct in the region.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
Its kinda worth pointing out that pre the native Americans arrival in Americas from Eurasia that Americas had its fair share of Lions, Tigers, Elephants and other large predators to run away from...so the "running away" from such creatures to explain Kenyan runners is utter nonsence.
The same utter nonsence that native American culture was " at one" with nature. They made many of these animals extinct in the region.


There's another reason it's utter nonsense - if you are being chased by lions the absolutely stupidest thing to do is to run.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
petethedrummer said:
I don't have a problem with Darwinism. I have a problem with you suggesting Kenyans are faster as a result of being chased by lions.

Most Kenya runners come from one tribe (Kalenjin) in one particular area. Why are neighbouring tribes not as fast? Surely they out run the same lions you speak of.

Lion attacks are never mentioned in any articles on Kenyan running. Lion attacks on humans would not be frequent enough to force genetic adaptation. Whereas some of the reasons in this article might, e.g. a culture of running, tradition of cattle herding/raiding, environmental.

If you want to believe Kenyans are fast from running away from lions and running after gazelles then go ahead and keep believing it. What about the fast Morrocans or Ethiopians, what animals do you reckon they were running away from? And the sprinters descended from West Africa, what animals do you suggest they were out running?
Hey, my theory has traction and it appears you are just mad that you didn't think of it. Now you whip out some stuff to create a diversion. :mad:

I have a redneck buddy that won the lottery. He goes on these hunting trips over there and shoots animals out of a helicopter. I called him and discussed this issue. He is convinced that if you dropped a slow fat person into the middle of one of these safari areas they wouldn't stand a chance. He stated that if you have stamina or can run fast you have a better chance of surviving, unless there is some helicopter hunting around that keeps the animals at bay and scared. Of course this was not an issue back in the early times.

So, I have expert confirmation of my theory. Somebody that has been there, knows the issue, etc. This stuff you posted can't stand up to real world experience.
 
May 12, 2009
207
0
0
The 800 is a really hard event. It's right on the border between aerobic and anaerobic. The sprinters don't do it cause its too long and the distance guys don't do it cause it's too short.

As for why the Africans are better in distance, I think there are a number of reasons. Genetics, early training, barefoot running? Read Born to Run, not specifically about African runners but it does touch on human ancestors running down prey (not running from lions).

African successes in distance running go way back, not just the EPO era. Not to say that they haven't doped, but I don't think they have done it any more than anyone else.
As for record progressions in recent years, all sports have seen record progressions. Technology and better training have had a fair amount to do with that.
 
Jul 15, 2009
84
0
0
ChrisE said:
Hey, my theory has traction
No it doesn't. You seem to want scientific research from me to disporve your theory. I'd like scientific research from you to prove it.

ChrisE said:
and it appears you are just mad that you didn't think of it. Now you whip out some stuff to create a diversion. :mad:
Why would I be mad about not coming up with a piece of reasoning I think is idiotic?

ChrisE said:
I have a redneck buddy that won the lottery............[snip]........So, I have expert confirmation of my theory.
A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

ChrisE said:
He stated that if you have stamina or can run fast you have a better chance of surviving, unless there is some helicopter hunting around that keeps the animals at bay and scared. Of course this was not an issue back in the early times.
Animal attacks on humans are not frequent enough to cause genetic adaptation. Lions do not hunt humans. Apparently only polar bears do and hyenas(which were part of your hypothesis) have been known to kill babies. There are Hyena's in Pak!stan and India, surely they should be quick runners too? Or are you suggesting that they beat them with large bats and thats how those countries became good at cricket?

ChrisE said:
This stuff you posted can't stand up to real world experience.
The articles from reasonably informed people with reasonably thoughtout ideas doesnt stand up to your reasoning? And your redneck buddy who shoots animals from a helicopter should be heeded?

I have to post this again.
ChrisE said:
I have a redneck buddy that won the lottery............[snip]........So, I have expert confirmation of my theory.
Amazing.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
OK Pete, I'm losing my patience here with you trying to shoot down my theory by discounting my redneck buddy's observation during helicopter hunting. I will let you prove my theory with an example.

Let's say you drop a couple of dudes into one of these safari areas. Give each a bag of rudimentary weapons like bows with arrows whose tips are made out of carved rock, some clubs, boomerangs and whatnot that they can use to survive.

One of these guys is one of these Kenyan marathoners. The other is one of those dudes from that show "Biggest Loser", or Yao Ming.

Now, you tell me who you think will survive longer. That's right, the Kenyan marathoner. This is the basis of my theory, and now you have no choice but to admit it has validity.

Scoreboard.

Word.

Out. :cool:
 
Jul 15, 2009
84
0
0
ChrisE said:
OK Pete, I'm losing my patience here with you trying to shoot down my theory by discounting my redneck buddy's observation during helicopter hunting. I will let you prove my theory with an example.

Let's say you drop a couple of dudes into one of these safari areas. Give each a bag of rudimentary weapons like bows with arrows whose tips are made out of carved rock, some clubs, boomerangs and whatnot that they can use to survive.

One of these guys is one of these Kenyan marathoners. The other is one of those dudes from that show "Biggest Loser", or Yao Ming.

Now, you tell me who you think will survive longer. That's right, the Kenyan marathoner. This is the basis of my theory, and now you have no choice but to admit it has validity.

Scoreboard.

Word.

Out. :cool:
I understand your thinking, its a simple idea. But can you do a bit more thinking. Ready to take your wonderful hypothesis and subject it to some self-criticism?

1. Do you think that lion attacks on humans happen (or happened) often enough to force a genetic adaptation?

2. If yes, then why has this lion outrunning adaptation only affected one tribe in Africa so predominantly. Why not neighbouring tribes and other Kenyans who live near lions? Why not eskimos who live near polar bears? Why not Indians and Pak!stanis who live near hyenas?

As for experts. I know a guy who used to drive the train around the the African Plains section of Dublin Zoo. He was probably getting attacked every other day by these maurauding lions. Do you want me to ask his opinion?

Anyway thats the last I'll say (hopefully) on this subject. I still can't decide if you're actually an idiot or good at playing one.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
petethedrummer said:
I understand your thinking, its a simple idea. But can you do a bit more thinking. Ready to take your wonderful hypothesis and subject it to some self-criticism?

1. Do you think that lion attacks on humans happen (or happened) often enough to force a genetic adaptation?
Why are you hung up on lions? There are other predators such as hyenas, those wild dogs, cheetahs, leopards, etc. You are trying to discount my theory by pigeonholing it to pick apart human/lion interaction. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe lions don't provide the most danger. I bet if one of these guys and their buddies were out in one of those plains trying to trap gazelles or something and they rolled up on a pack of lions, they would need to be good runners. Nuff said.

2. If yes, then why has this lion outrunning adaptation only affected one tribe in Africa so predominantly. Why not neighbouring tribes and other Kenyans who live near lions? Why not eskimos who live near polar bears? Why not Indians and Pak!stanis who live near hyenas?
Again, let's get off the lions and talk about predators in general. Also, if you wish to discuss my theory on nationalities other than Kenyans then start a new thread. I got a point for going OT the other day and I will not be tricked into doing that again. The title of this thread is "Are Kenyan Runners Doped?". I say no for the reasons I have explained to you.

As for experts. I know a guy who used to drive the train around the the African Plains section of Dublin Zoo. He was probably getting attacked every other day by these maurauding lions. Do you want me to ask his opinion?
You comparing docile domesticated animals in a Euro zoo to the wild stuff on the plains of Africa, pre-gun? LOL. My helicopter redneck hunter blows that away. Come back woth something more than this, please. :rolleyes:

Anyway thats the last I'll say (hopefully) on this subject. I still can't decide if you're actually an idiot or good at playing one.
OK, that is your choice. Please refrain from ad hominems. Debate the subject, don't insult the debater. Or something like that. Peace. :cool:
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
petethedrummer said:
Animal attacks on humans are not frequent enough to cause genetic adaptation.
I think you are misunderstanding evolution. The animal attacks do not cause genetic adaptation. But those individuals who happened to have been fast enough to escape animal attacks stayed alive and reproduced, whereas the poor runners died. Eventually, generations later, the population consists of more and more good runners and fewer and fewer bad runners because the good runners have been more likely to survive and reproduce and pass along their good runner genes.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
stephens said:
I think you are misunderstanding evolution. The animal attacks do not cause genetic adaptation. But those individuals who happened to have been fast enough to escape animal attacks stayed alive and reproduced, whereas the poor runners died. Eventually, generations later, the population consists of more and more good runners and fewer and fewer bad runners because the good runners have been more likely to survive and reproduce and pass along their good runner genes.
Me finks you`l find Animal atacks are not/ were not frequant enought to cause the adaptations you sugest.
Climatic reasons and diet are the main catylists for adaptation.
Ie..Northern Europeans were shorter and more robust to cope with the cold climate.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
Me finks you`l find Animal atacks are not/ were not frequant enought to cause the adaptations you sugest.
Climatic reasons and diet are the main catylists for adaptation.
Ie..Northern Eurpoeans were shorter and more robust to cope with the cold climate.
I guess I just have a problem with the way you are phrasing things because it sounds like you are saying that the environment caused changes in the humans, whereas I believe it is more accurate to explain it that genetic variances occur naturally and those that happened to have received certain genes found themselves more successful than those who didn't have those genes and therefore went on to reproduce and further pass along those unique genes and change the composition of the overall population.

For example, I'd write your last sentence, "Northern European individuals who happened to have been shorter proved to be better at coping with the cold and had higher survival and reproduction rates and therefore the population as a whole became shorter". It's not that they became shorter to cope with the climate: it's that those who happened to have become shorter by chance survived and reproduced.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
stephens said:
I guess I just have a problem with the way you are phrasing things because it sounds like you are saying that the environment caused changes in the humans, whereas I believe it is more accurate to explain it that genetic variances occur naturally and those that happened to have received certain genes found themselves more successful than those who didn't have those genes and therefore went on to reproduce and further pass along those unique genes and change the composition of the overall population.

For example, I'd write your last sentence, "Northern European individuals who happened to have been shorter proved to be better at coping with the cold and had higher survival and reproduction rates and therefore the population as a whole became shorter". It's not that they became shorter to cope with the climate: it's that those who happened to have become shorter by chance survived and reproduced.
Its not quite that straightforward..keeping warm and the energy used means growth rate is slower and within the one generation people are likly to be shorter.
An example of how fast this occurs is to found in the Japaneese..were western diet has caused average height to be taller than just 40 years ago.
By far the bigest influances on growth are diet and climatic conditions.
Evolution of a race occurs on a far , far slower time scale.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY