Der Sportwissenschaflter Ross Tuck­er über die Erfolge ostafrikanis­ch­er Läufer und ihre Gründe — und über das grundle­gende Prob­lem des Ver­trauens in die Leis­tung von Sportlern, wenn (auch) gedopt wird.

I think THERE IS a phys­i­o­log­i­cal basis for the con­cen­tra­tion of east African/Kenyan/Kalenjin/Nandi run­ners. I believe that THERE ARE legit­i­mate bio­me­chan­i­cal advan­tages that are more like­ly to be found in these pop­u­la­tions than else­where, and which explain their over-rep­re­sen­ta­tion. In turn, I believe that there are prin­ci­ples and con­cepts that study­ing east African run­ners can teach the world about being bet­ter run­ners.
But there’s a con­founder that you sim­ply can­not ignore unless you’re in total denial – dop­ing.

Ross Tuck­er,

Er emp­fiehlt vor allem Mus­ter­erken­nung zur Ein­schätzung von sportlichen Leis­tun­gen einzuset­zen (und betont, dass das natür­lich kein Nach­weis von Dop­ing ist). Solche Muster kön­nten z.B. sein:

Any­one who runs a time in the top 50 in his­to­ry, or who comes top 5 in a big city marathon, is auto­mat­i­cal­ly high risk

Any major improve­ment in per­for­mance, with a huge increase in sus­pi­cion if that improve­ment hap­pens more than about three years into the athlete’s career, must be viewed as high­ly sus­pi­cious.

Errat­ic per­for­mance.

Ross Tuck­er,

und, natür­lich nicht zu vergessen, das son­stige Ver­hal­ten der Ath­leten.
Das gibt eine inter­es­sante, bedenkenswerte Lek­türe.

Tuck­er, R. (2019, April 25). We need to talk about East African run­ners and gen­er­al trust vs skep­ti­cism in per­for­mances. Retrieved May 9, 2019, from