Add javelin which definitely still would be Felke's 80.00 without the change of the event. Triple jump, pole vault, hammer throw were not part of the Olympics in the 80s, so the only none distance record which was bettered since is the 4x100 relay.
On the track alone the records that have been bettered since the Cold War era are the men's 100m, 200m, 400m, 4x100, 4x400, 800m, 1500m, 2k, 3k, 5k, 10k. On the women's side the 1500m, 3k, 5k and 10k have all been bettered. For men and women, all road distances have been progressively shattered. Doping works as well as it ever did.
On the women's side, from the 13 mostly power/strength based records (100, 200, 400, 800, 100H, 400H, 4x100, 4x400, HJ, LJ, JT, DT, SP), only three have been bettered since: the 4x100 and the two hurdles events (the 400 hurdles by big margin, but the event still was relatively new in the 80s and not maxed out - look at the terrible hurdle technique from former world champ and record holder Sabine Busch - the 100 hurdles was bettered by 1/100 until Amusan this year).
The other ten records (I include the javelin) on average were set over 35 years ago! That's an astonishing fact. How do you explain this?
On the track alone the records that have been bettered since the Cold War era are the men's 100m, 200m, 400m, 4x100, 4x400, 800m, 1500m, 2k, 3k, 5k, 10k. On the women's side the 1500m, 3k, 5k and 10k have all been bettered. For men and women, all road distances have been progressively shattered. Doping works as well as it ever did.
On the women's side, from the 13 mostly power/strength based records (100, 200, 400, 800, 100H, 400H, 4x100, 4x400, HJ, LJ, JT, DT, SP), only three have been bettered since: the 4x100 and the two hurdles events (the 400 hurdles by big margin, but the event still was relatively new in the 80s and not maxed out - look at the terrible hurdle technique from former world champ and record holder Sabine Busch - the 100 hurdles was bettered by 1/100 until Amusan this year).
The other ten records (I include the javelin) on average were set over 35 years ago! That's an astonishing fact. How do you explain this?
Steroid use was rampant during the Cold War. There was little testing for it. Women are greater responders to these drugs. That is why records still stand in strength-related events for women. Testing has meant these drugs now have to be used in smaller doses to avoid detection. But drugs that aid endurance are clearly being used, as records continue to be broken in those events. What you fail to understand is that doping methodology has changed but its incidence has if anything increased because it has become more sophisticated.
On the track alone the records that have been bettered since the Cold War era are the men's 100m, 200m, 400m, 4x100, 4x400, 800m, 1500m, 2k, 3k, 5k, 10k. On the women's side the 1500m, 3k, 5k and 10k have all been bettered. For men and women, all road distances have been progressively shattered. Doping works as well as it ever did.
Why haven't the dopers just figured out how to do as much as the Soviets, East Germans and Ma's Army did? Should be easy, right? These women have world record bonuses in their contracts and it's so easy to beat the doping police, right? Just take all juice they want and break a world record from the 80s. It's that easy, right?
To a simple and uninformed mind it may be. You are unaware of how doping has changed to stay ahead of antidoping.
im not sure about sub 2.09,but i believe the human body can only do so much,run so fast,throw so far or do so well in whatever sport theyre in.There is a cut off point,a ceiling.Some athletes are ridiculously talented,,but even among those,there has to be a cut off point.The human body has limits,even with hard training.Thats where drugs come in,and what we're seeing now is a sporting drug fest.Its about who is on the best cocktails,and also how well its hidden.Many countries are very good at hiding their athletes doping.
On the women's side, from the 13 mostly power/strength based records (100, 200, 400, 800, 100H, 400H, 4x100, 4x400, HJ, LJ, JT, DT, SP), only three have been bettered since: the 4x100 and the two hurdles events (the 400 hurdles by big margin, but the event still was relatively new in the 80s and not maxed out - look at the terrible hurdle technique from former world champ and record holder Sabine Busch - the 100 hurdles was bettered by 1/100 until Amusan this year).
The other ten records (I include the javelin) on average were set over 35 years ago! That's an astonishing fact. How do you explain this?
Steroid use was rampant during the Cold War. There was little testing for it. Women are greater responders to these drugs. That is why records still stand in strength-related events for women. Testing has meant these drugs now have to be used in smaller doses to avoid detection. But drugs that aid endurance are clearly being used, as records continue to be broken in those events. What you fail to understand is that doping methodology has changed but its incidence has if anything increased because it has become more sophisticated.
You can't know what I understand or don't understand.
I ask you some questions to subjects which are not that clear as some want to made them look like. Usually I don't get an answer at all from you.
Coevett can go to hell. Kenyans are clearly different to the rest of us. You can see by the way they look. I read that when Daniel Komen came out of the jungle, he didn't even understand the concept of time. When the coaches tried to get him to run some 400m intervals at 65 seconds, he didn't know what they were talking about. So he just ran flat out 50s each. They tried to show him their stopwatches, but he fought they were voodoo magic. They had to get him to train with horses, who have a better grasp of time, and similar calf to ankle/hoof ratios. I don't care if Kenya gets banned today. I'll just lie back and put Komen's WR on autoplay again. See the 2.6K views on this video? 2.5K of them are me!
This is possibly one of the greatest races / times ever run in the history of the sport of running. Daniel Komen comes through the first mile at sub-4 pace a...
On the women's side, from the 13 mostly power/strength based records (100, 200, 400, 800, 100H, 400H, 4x100, 4x400, HJ, LJ, JT, DT, SP), only three have been bettered since: the 4x100 and the two hurdles events (the 400 hurdles by big margin, but the event still was relatively new in the 80s and not maxed out - look at the terrible hurdle technique from former world champ and record holder Sabine Busch - the 100 hurdles was bettered by 1/100 until Amusan this year).
The other ten records (I include the javelin) on average were set over 35 years ago! That's an astonishing fact. How do you explain this?
Steroid use was rampant during the Cold War. There was little testing for it. Women are greater responders to these drugs. That is why records still stand in strength-related events for women. Testing has meant these drugs now have to be used in smaller doses to avoid detection. But drugs that aid endurance are clearly being used, as records continue to be broken in those events. What you fail to understand is that doping methodology has changed but its incidence has if anything increased because it has become more sophisticated.
Is this based upon your personal experience? Because it contrasts starkly with mine.
Steroid use was rampant during the Cold War. There was little testing for it. Women are greater responders to these drugs. That is why records still stand in strength-related events for women. Testing has meant these drugs now have to be used in smaller doses to avoid detection. But drugs that aid endurance are clearly being used, as records continue to be broken in those events. What you fail to understand is that doping methodology has changed but its incidence has if anything increased because it has become more sophisticated.
Is this based upon your personal experience? Because it contrasts starkly with mine.
I don't generalise about a sport - or about anything - from simply my own experience. But I know professional athletes and top antidoping officials and I have observed the presence of doping in sports over the decades. I have also followed the debates on the subject and read what I can about it. That's pretty much all that anyone can do - who isn't either an antidoping official or an athlete who is doping and their enablers.
How does Coevett explain somebody like Hassan Mead? Born in Somalia, moves to the USA and ends up running 13:08. Superior Somali genetics is the only explanation!
Then why were your fellow countrymen using blood transfusions for sea level races? (e.g. , Maaninka, Vainio and more than likely Viren). I think the way these guys dominated major events and the multiple Olympic gold medals by Viren is sufficient evidence for me.
Viren was offered like a million dollars by a German newspaper for a tell all interview. He declined it. One of the Brits who came behind Viren at the Olympics become close friends and said he thought he was clean. If I had to bet on it, I would bet on Viren being clean. Just because some of the top Kenyans are doping, I don't think all top Kenyans are doping. I have always got the vibe that people who accuse Viren and Waldemar Cierpinski are just jealous. Listen and read what Frank Shorter has said about Waldemar Cierpinski. I just get a emotional feeling from Frank, not one based on objective facts.
Frank's (and the rest of the world's opinions on Cierpinski) are based on FACTS. We have the STASI files after the wall, so we have all the medical records and we know that Cierpinski was doped by the East German medical authorities. Whether he knew or not is debatable, but in every interview since (that I've seen), he takes no responsibility or even acknowledges the vast mountain of hard evidence that exists against him, so I think that we can say that, til the day he dies, he's continue to deny everything. But the rest of the world knows the truth.
Why was the greatest marathoner of all time, Paula Radcliffe, so absolutely dominant if genetics are not the greatest factor in running?
You have it round the wrong way. "Why was the greatest marathoner of all time, Paula Radcliffe, so absolutely dominant if doping is not the greatest factor in running?" The reason is simple and obvious: amongst highly talented athletes, as she was, doping will give an edge over opponents who are either not doped or not as good. It is like a car that was 1800cc is converted to a 2000cc car and the other cars haven't managed to exceed 1800cc.
Why was the greatest marathoner of all time, Paula Radcliffe, so absolutely dominant if genetics are not the greatest factor in running?
You have it round the wrong way. "Why was the greatest marathoner of all time, Paula Radcliffe, so absolutely dominant if doping is not the greatest factor in running?" The reason is simple and obvious: amongst highly talented athletes, as she was, doping will give an edge over opponents who are either not doped or not as good. It is like a car that was 1800cc is converted to a 2000cc car and the other cars haven't managed to exceed 1800cc.
IMO you are both misguided, for trying to reduce marathon performances to one single dominating factor, like genetics or doping (while ignoring factors like training, race tactics, and new shoes).
There are two major problems with your continuously restated yet baseless belief in the significant power of doping for marathons:
1) Paula's world record performances might be clean.
Sure, there was lengthy discussion about "suspicious" values in British tabloids and from "fans" and outside "experts", with fantastic allegations of pre-EPO technology blood transfusions, but these were universally ignored and/or dismissed by all of the relevant anti-doping organizations and their experts, both at the time, and in retrospective hindsight. This includes UKAD, the IAAF, WADA, and an independent WADA IC, and their experts. Either the samples were collected under conditions known to be prone to false positives, or they were credibly due to a recent stay at altitude.
2) What about the rest of the women in marathon history, since Joan Benoit and Ingrid Kristiansen?
Didn't any other women in history dope in the marathon, say in the 15 years since Paula (dopers are ahead of testers and all that), or the 15 years before Paula, when no test for EPO or blood transfusions existed? Are most of the dopers just the slower ones, or low-responders? If we assume doping can bring the 3 extra minutes to Paula (and let's recall fantastic claims of 9 minute gains for Sumgong), this seems to create an anomaly out of historical observations that very few women have even run sub-2:20 (within 4 1/2 minutes), or sub- Ingrid Kristiansen's 2:21:06 or Joan Benoit's 2:21:21, from 1985. In 2001, the Japanese woman Naoko Takahashi was the first sub-2:20 woman. In the era before supershoes, between 1985-2018, only 23 women had run sub-2:20, and only 42 women had run faster than Ingrid Kristiansen and 46 faster than Joan Benoit. That doesn't seem like a lot of women, over 32 years, out of a pool of thousands of sub-2:30 runners, if we want to strongly assume/believe that doping is both powerful (3-9 minutes) and highly prevalent (44%-80%). Adding 2-years worth of performance in new shoes, these numbers increase significantly to 34, and 59 and 63, respectively (an increase of 48% and 40% and 37%, respectively, in the 2-year period compared to the previous 32 years).
You have it round the wrong way. "Why was the greatest marathoner of all time, Paula Radcliffe, so absolutely dominant if doping is not the greatest factor in running?" The reason is simple and obvious: amongst highly talented athletes, as she was, doping will give an edge over opponents who are either not doped or not as good. It is like a car that was 1800cc is converted to a 2000cc car and the other cars haven't managed to exceed 1800cc.
IMO you are both misguided, for trying to reduce marathon performances to one single dominating factor, like genetics or doping (while ignoring factors like training, race tactics, and new shoes).
There are two major problems with your continuously restated yet baseless belief in the significant power of doping for marathons:
1) Paula's world record performances might be clean.
Sure, there was lengthy discussion about "suspicious" values in British tabloids and from "fans" and outside "experts", with fantastic allegations of pre-EPO technology blood transfusions, but these were universally ignored and/or dismissed by all of the relevant anti-doping organizations and their experts, both at the time, and in retrospective hindsight. This includes UKAD, the IAAF, WADA, and an independent WADA IC, and their experts. Either the samples were collected under conditions known to be prone to false positives, or they were credibly due to a recent stay at altitude.
2) What about the rest of the women in marathon history, since Joan Benoit and Ingrid Kristiansen?
Didn't any other women in history dope in the marathon, say in the 15 years since Paula (dopers are ahead of testers and all that), or the 15 years before Paula, when no test for EPO or blood transfusions existed? Are most of the dopers just the slower ones, or low-responders? If we assume doping can bring the 3 extra minutes to Paula (and let's recall fantastic claims of 9 minute gains for Sumgong), this seems to create an anomaly out of historical observations that very few women have even run sub-2:20 (within 4 1/2 minutes), or sub- Ingrid Kristiansen's 2:21:06 or Joan Benoit's 2:21:21, from 1985. In 2001, the Japanese woman Naoko Takahashi was the first sub-2:20 woman. In the era before supershoes, between 1985-2018, only 23 women had run sub-2:20, and only 42 women had run faster than Ingrid Kristiansen and 46 faster than Joan Benoit. That doesn't seem like a lot of women, over 32 years, out of a pool of thousands of sub-2:30 runners, if we want to strongly assume/believe that doping is both powerful (3-9 minutes) and highly prevalent (44%-80%). Adding 2-years worth of performance in new shoes, these numbers increase significantly to 34, and 59 and 63, respectively (an increase of 48% and 40% and 37%, respectively, in the 2-year period compared to the previous 32 years).
What you don't get - because you aren't the sharpest tool in the kit - is that it is a given for all top athletes that performance will be built on talent, training and to some extent equipment. But the one factor that raises performance levels beyond that is doping. That is why they dope.
Didn't any other women in history dope in the marathon, say in the 15 years since Paula (dopers are ahead of testers and all that), or the 15 years before Paula, when no test for EPO or blood transfusions existed? Are most of the dopers just the slower ones, or low-responders? If we assume doping can bring the 3 extra minutes to Paula (and let's recall fantastic claims of 9 minute gains for Sumgong), this seems to create an anomaly out of historical observations that very few women have even run sub-2:20 (within 4 1/2 minutes), or sub- Ingrid Kristiansen's 2:21:06 or Joan Benoit's 2:21:21, from 1985. In 2001, the Japanese woman Naoko Takahashi was the first sub-2:20 woman. In the era before supershoes, between 1985-2018, only 23 women had run sub-2:20, and only 42 women had run faster than Ingrid Kristiansen and 46 faster than Joan Benoit. That doesn't seem like a lot of women, over 32 years, out of a pool of thousands of sub-2:30 runners, if we want to strongly assume/believe that doping is both powerful (3-9 minutes) and highly prevalent (44%-80%). Adding 2-years worth of performance in new shoes, these numbers increase significantly to 34, and 59 and 63, respectively (an increase of 48% and 40% and 37%, respectively, in the 2-year period compared to the previous 32 years).
Seems like a ton. How many guys ran faster than coe in the 800? Or Aouita in the 1500? Sure the 5k/10k was destroyed by EPO but most of those 80 WR are still solid times...
What you don't get - because you aren't the sharpest tool in the kit - is that it is a given for all top athletes that performance will be built on talent, training and to some extent equipment. But the one factor that raises performance levels beyond that is doping. That is why they dope.
I "get" what you want me to believe. It's just unpersuasive in light of historical performances.
While you are right to confirm that talent, training, and to some equipment are "given", what is not given are your assumptions/conclusions that "doping" "can raise performance levels beyond that", and "they dope".