Yet you exclude doping as a factor, when we know it is present throughout the sport and has long been so and continues to develop. Why? Too disillusioning?
Ma’s women were on every chemical advantage available at the time.
There is no comparison to the scrutiny under which the modern athlete, in the RTP, lives with. If there were some advancement in doping that were responsible for this new era in middle distance performances, I would have heard of it at this point. That’s not to say there won’t be people in Paris who are frauds. I’ve seen a few confirmed, sadly.
I am very sorry you haven’t been afforded an opportunity to get to know any of these athletes we’re discussing here. The very solid majority of them want to stay within the rules and it’s a minority that choose to dance close to the line and a smaller number still that willfully choose to cross it. As I have stated earlier, this excludes those that come from programs that never shed their cheating ways. Aside from doping controls and whereabouts requirements, nothing has cleaned up our sport as much as the wholesale banishment of Russia and Belarus.
My kids' squad has 4-5 going to the OG. Without any question none of them are doping, just no doubt at all. I don't get the assumption that if someone does something good they are doping. For example one person said you have to dope to run under 10 for the 100, but I know a white 100 runner well who is close tot hat, and without any doubt he does NOT dope.
I think there is an element of people assuming others are doping, because they are just so much better, and it makes them feel better.
Ma’s women were on every chemical advantage available at the time.
There is no comparison to the scrutiny under which the modern athlete, in the RTP, lives with. If there were some advancement in doping that were responsible for this new era in middle distance performances, I would have heard of it at this point. That’s not to say there won’t be people in Paris who are frauds. I’ve seen a few confirmed, sadly.
I am very sorry you haven’t been afforded an opportunity to get to know any of these athletes we’re discussing here. The very solid majority of them want to stay within the rules and it’s a minority that choose to dance close to the line and a smaller number still that willfully choose to cross it. As I have stated earlier, this excludes those that come from programs that never shed their cheating ways. Aside from doping controls and whereabouts requirements, nothing has cleaned up our sport as much as the wholesale banishment of Russia and Belarus.
My kids' squad has 4-5 going to the OG. Without any question none of them are doping, just no doubt at all. I don't get the assumption that if someone does something good they are doping. For example one person said you have to dope to run under 10 for the 100, but I know a white 100 runner well who is close tot hat, and without any doubt he does NOT dope.
I think there is an element of people assuming others are doping, because they are just so much better, and it makes them feel better.
You don’t know these things for a fact. Some athletes’ coaches, teammates, closest friends, and even spouses don’t know that they’re doping. Several of the BTC women were completely shocked by Shelby’s positive test. They had no idea.
You know what is a better way to know if an athlete is doping? Developing a pattern of testing for an athlete when you see a statistical or biological anomaly. Jess Hull just ran a statistical anomaly time.
Her interview with Australian press is on Instagram. She seems very genuine. I would be very surprised if she's doping.
Lance Armstrong also gave interviews and 'seemed very genuine', whatever that means, when he won 7 consecutive Tour de France titles with some 'aid'. I heard he was even the face for the Live Strong campaign to fight cancer, such a standout gentleman.
I never saw any genuine interviews from him. Whenever questioned on the topic of doping he simply deflected and stated that he had passed every drugs test he’d taken. It’s the same crap denial that Regina Jacobs employed.
Now do their marathoners. Bunch of women in their mid-to-late 40s running huge PRs, sub-15 5000s, and even a marathon national record 🤔
This is what bothers me...
all college kids seem to be able to break 4:00 in the mile
Nico Young just ran sub-13, sub-27, 3:34, and 1:45 in the same season.
HS kids who run sub-9 for 3200 are a dime a dozen.
Three of the fastest 800s of all time were just run in the same race (by randos we have barely heard of)
Jessica Hull can run 3:50, Nikki Hiltz can run 5:55, and Laura Muir just ran a PR in the twilight of her career
Faith Kipyegon doesn't even look tired after her 3:49 WR
Men have run 12:3x in the 5000m and lost the race
Sub-13 is something that pros can just do in a small meet or time trial
Men's marathoning is in 2:01-land and 2:05 is considered "meh" (except in America)
Women's marathoning includes a 2:11 from a runner we didn't really know
the men's 1500m has to be 3:30 flat (or faster) or it is not even considered a good race.
And runners can keep smashing PRs until their 30s and early 40s?
So if we grant that the shoes and training is better, that can't explain everything, can it?
No. So there is some PED (or combo of PEDs) out there. What is weird to me is that all these people from random high schoolers to Faith Kipyegon and Jakob and the Algerians are taking "something" but nobody on this message board has a clue what it is?
How can every coach, collegiate runner, former pro, gym-bro, and obsessed masters runner on this board have ZERO clue what these people are on?
Are we all totally being left out of some loop? How do all these elites know what to take, how to take it, and where to get it, but we don't even know what it is? Man, we are clueless.
One more thing... I am not even a cynic. I sort of like to think (pretend?) that this is all clean and real. After all, T&F is my favorite sport. I don't want to assume that "everybody is doping at this level." That is not my idea of a healthy attitude (even if it might be true).
Maybe the pace lights, shoes, tracks, training groups, double thresholds, better coaching, altitude camps, and legal gray area stuff (inhalers, bi-carb, IVs, meds, etc.) allow for runners to do things that guys 25 years ago could never dream of unless they went straight to the EPO.
Maybe each of these factors is worth 1 second in the 1500m? That would explain how the US trials used to be won in 3:39 and now it is 3:30. Maybe we have no reason to be so cynical? I just convinced myself. :)
Now do their marathoners. Bunch of women in their mid-to-late 40s running huge PRs, sub-15 5000s, and even a marathon national record 🤔
This is what bothers me...
all college kids seem to be able to break 4:00 in the mile
Nico Young just ran sub-13, sub-27, 3:34, and 1:45 in the same season.
HS kids who run sub-9 for 3200 are a dime a dozen.
Three of the fastest 800s of all time were just run in the same race (by randos we have barely heard of)
Jessica Hull can run 3:50, Nikki Hiltz can run 5:55, and Laura Muir just ran a PR in the twilight of her career
Faith Kipyegon doesn't even look tired after her 3:49 WR
Men have run 12:3x in the 5000m and lost the race
Sub-13 is something that pros can just do in a small meet or time trial
Men's marathoning is in 2:01-land and 2:05 is considered "meh" (except in America)
Women's marathoning includes a 2:11 from a runner we didn't really know
the men's 1500m has to be 3:30 flat (or faster) or it is not even considered a good race.
And runners can keep smashing PRs until their 30s and early 40s?
So if we grant that the shoes and training is better, that can't explain everything, can it?
No. So there is some PED (or combo of PEDs) out there. What is weird to me is that all these people from random high schoolers to Faith Kipyegon and Jakob and the Algerians are taking "something" but nobody on this message board has a clue what it is?
How can every coach, collegiate runner, former pro, gym-bro, and obsessed masters runner on this board have ZERO clue what these people are on?
Are we all totally being left out of some loop? How do all these elites know what to take, how to take it, and where to get it, but we don't even know what it is? Man, we are clueless.
Not everyone has “ZERO clue”. You need to be close knit with an elite runner or two or their coaches to be in the know.
Your post is like someone ranting about politicians taking bribes and no one having any clue how they do it. Technically it is both true that most people know that most politicians are talking bribes and also that they have no clue how exactly they are doing it, but a small number of people close to the politicians do know how. The whole system is based on a perception of cleanness, so most people can not know the details, else the whole shop closes.
My kids' squad has 4-5 going to the OG. Without any question none of them are doping, just no doubt at all. I don't get the assumption that if someone does something good they are doping. For example one person said you have to dope to run under 10 for the 100, but I know a white 100 runner well who is close tot hat, and without any doubt he does NOT dope.
I think there is an element of people assuming others are doping, because they are just so much better, and it makes them feel better.
You don’t know these things for a fact. Some athletes’ coaches, teammates, closest friends, and even spouses don’t know that they’re doping. Several of the BTC women were completely shocked by Shelby’s positive test. They had no idea.
You know what is a better way to know if an athlete is doping? Developing a pattern of testing for an athlete when you see a statistical or biological anomaly. Jess Hull just ran a statistical anomaly time.
Not by much more than others in the same race, and by less than some. Testing in Australia is strong. Lose the guilty until proven innocent.
One more thing... I am not even a cynic. I sort of like to think (pretend?) that this is all clean and real. After all, T&F is my favorite sport. I don't want to assume that "everybody is doping at this level." That is not my idea of a healthy attitude (even if it might be true).
Maybe the pace lights, shoes, tracks, training groups, double thresholds, better coaching, altitude camps, and legal gray area stuff (inhalers, bi-carb, IVs, meds, etc.) allow for runners to do things that guys 25 years ago could never dream of unless they went straight to the EPO.
Maybe each of these factors is worth 1 second in the 1500m? That would explain how the US trials used to be won in 3:39 and now it is 3:30. Maybe we have no reason to be so cynical? I just convinced myself. :)
The problem is all those things have been available the past few years. They don’t explain Hull’s sudden drop from 3:57 to 3:50 this year. And they don’t explain how a runner who has never finished higher than 7th in an outdoor world championship race is all of a sudden the 5th fastest woman ever.
Now do their marathoners. Bunch of women in their mid-to-late 40s running huge PRs, sub-15 5000s, and even a marathon national record 🤔
This is what bothers me...
all college kids seem to be able to break 4:00 in the mile
Nico Young just ran sub-13, sub-27, 3:34, and 1:45 in the same season.
HS kids who run sub-9 for 3200 are a dime a dozen.
Three of the fastest 800s of all time were just run in the same race (by randos we have barely heard of)
Jessica Hull can run 3:50, Nikki Hiltz can run 5:55, and Laura Muir just ran a PR in the twilight of her career
Faith Kipyegon doesn't even look tired after her 3:49 WR
Men have run 12:3x in the 5000m and lost the race
Sub-13 is something that pros can just do in a small meet or time trial
Men's marathoning is in 2:01-land and 2:05 is considered "meh" (except in America)
Women's marathoning includes a 2:11 from a runner we didn't really know
the men's 1500m has to be 3:30 flat (or faster) or it is not even considered a good race.
And runners can keep smashing PRs until their 30s and early 40s?
So if we grant that the shoes and training is better, that can't explain everything, can it?
No. So there is some PED (or combo of PEDs) out there. What is weird to me is that all these people from random high schoolers to Faith Kipyegon and Jakob and the Algerians are taking "something" but nobody on this message board has a clue what it is?
How can every coach, collegiate runner, former pro, gym-bro, and obsessed masters runner on this board have ZERO clue what these people are on?
Are we all totally being left out of some loop? How do all these elites know what to take, how to take it, and where to get it, but we don't even know what it is? Man, we are clueless.
This is where I’m at as well. I do believe there are clean runners at the top level, but I’m a math guy and have literally done analytics for another professional sport. This of statistical noise at the highest end of the bell curve has to indicate an outside factor. Not everybody is this good. I literally started a thread asking this question. Can it be as simple as the bi-carbonate systems plus double thresholds really works? Both have been around though. Maybe bi-carbonate has never been this refined, but the crux of Kenyan training for decades was basically a form of double threshold. There has to be something that allowed this breakthrough across all ages/nationalities/genders.
Obviously, "not everyone" since some people are doping. What I meant was that the thousands of us on Letsrun and who I have known over the years running have no clue.
How can we all be so connected to the sport and not have one concrete story of someone we know who doped effectively?
I mean, are all dopers like the best secret keepers every? Maybe. They have good reason to be.
But are their PTs, coaches, former sponsors, massage therapists, friends, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, disgruntled teammates, and former colleagues ALL 100% complicit in keeping this secret? Wow! That is amazing.
Why are there basically zero people with believable stories to tell about how this "dark web" of doping exists without any of us knowing about it?
What I've seen shows no particular reason for suspicion. She has had a huge improvement in race tactics. In prior years, she had a tendency to hang out well to the outside, to avoid problems in the pack. This time, she got out of the box immediately in the first 100m, then was on the rail, with the perfect pacer, and no fear of being stepped on from behind the rest of the way.
It is also worth bearing in mind that track distances are measured and certified based on a ‘line of running’ that is 300mm (near enough to 1 foot) out from the inside of lane 1, provided there is a raised feature or other items delineating the inside of lane 1 e.g. rail, kerb, cones or even bricks. (If there is no raised feature or other items, the line of running is taken as 200mm from the inside of the lane which of course is always the case for lanes 2, 3, 4 etc.)
The 300mm figure is applicable for the Paris track in question. So, an athlete running very close to the inside of lane 1 could be running partly of fully inside the measured line of running. In that case, an athlete would LEGALLY be running a bit less than the certified distance AROUND THE BENDS.
Apart from the Paris case under discussion here, the same consideration is relevant to the 800m breakthrough run (1:44.12) by Peyton Craig in Vienna a few weeks ago.
Sure, any runner can take advantage of the above factor, but not many do, or get the opportunity to do so when the stars align.
One more thing... I am not even a cynic. I sort of like to think (pretend?) that this is all clean and real. After all, T&F is my favorite sport. I don't want to assume that "everybody is doping at this level." That is not my idea of a healthy attitude (even if it might be true).
Maybe the pace lights, shoes, tracks, training groups, double thresholds, better coaching, altitude camps, and legal gray area stuff (inhalers, bi-carb, IVs, meds, etc.) allow for runners to do things that guys 25 years ago could never dream of unless they went straight to the EPO.
Maybe each of these factors is worth 1 second in the 1500m? That would explain how the US trials used to be won in 3:39 and now it is 3:30. Maybe we have no reason to be so cynical? I just convinced myself. :)
I’m not either. It’s just that doping triggers the most interesting discussion on this site, so that’s why I post about it a lot. I still hold that no more than 20-30% of the sport is blatantly doping. I love the competition, and a foot race is the simplest and truest competition there is. The spectacle of the Olympics is the greatest event in the world as well.
There has to be something about that track. Isn't it the same track on which Jakob crushed the 2-mile WR? Is this the track that is being used for the Olympics?
If you'd have told me a year ago that Jessica Hull was going to run the equivalent of a 4:07 mile, I'd say your crazy. I always thought she was more a natural 5Ker whose baseline was around 4:19 mile and was making some modest improvement along with the rest of the female milers and would be moving up to the 5K any day now.
I like your posts and generally agree. I, again, have to agree here. The only thing is that I’m a biased Australian. A few other Qs too. The drug testing in Oz is horribly strict, to a very high standard and frequent - you can’t get away with the shenanigans that are routine in so many other countries. Also, import/export of anything at all - even fruit and vegetables - os extremely strict and heavily regulated. Let alone drugs or ‘packets’ of things. Customs open everything and anything that isn’t declared properly or just to spot check. The average pharmacy is terrible too - one needs a doctor’s prescription for anything of use (unlike in many countries where one can get EPO in the average phamacy..laughably impossible in OZ) + even a doctor will be heavily eyeballed if the doctor is prescribing off-label frequently. It’s insanely regulated and ‘big brother’ like in Australia. If she’s on PEDs, how on earth would she get them in Oz? Someone in Ferntree Gully cooking up a storm? It’s not impossible, just close to it in Australia. It’s not the place to go and live in if that’s what she’s doing.