Pre Classic - Women's 800 WR's Days are Numbered

anuti wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

This is not the crazy progression it appears to be. Or am I missing something.

Exactly. Thick-headed autists don’t get it smh. To willfully dismiss this performance just shows you argue in bad faith or are just stoopid. Which one is it, pal?

Since you suspect her to dope, lets hear your theory. When do you think the starting doping? What kind of program is it? Who is involved? Who supplies her?

he is the worst regular poster I have noticed on these forums. I usually prefer not to engage with him.

The world record is not out of the question at all. People are forgetting her mid 49 flat speed. Getting a rabbit to go out in low 55 is a pace that won’t come close to redlining her. That’s 6 second slower than her flat 400 open. The biggest thing would be to get someone to work the next 200 and bring her through in sub 124. There aren’t too many people out there that are able and pry willing to do that. For anyone who disagrees with saying a low 55 is too fast for her, it’s the equivalent of Amos going out in 50.1x according to his 44.99 PR 11.5% slower opening quarter than her 400pr.

Armstronglivs wrote:

anuti wrote:

Exactly. Thick-headed autists don’t get it smh. To willfully dismiss this performance just shows you argue in bad faith or are just stoopid. Which one is it, pal?

Since you suspect her to dope, lets hear your theory. When do you think the starting doping? What kind of program is it? Who is involved? Who supplies her?

We weren't able to answer those questions about Lance, either, so I guess that showed he wasn't doping.

But if an 8 second improvement over 800m in a year, that includes taking out a doped wr, as many predict here, doesn't ring any alarm bells nothing will.

Sorry to enlighten you, pal, but Lance had long been a prime suspect since day one even before his eventual bust.

anuti wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

This is not the crazy progression it appears to be. Or am I missing something.

Exactly. Thick-headed autists don’t get it smh. To willfully dismiss this performance just shows you argue in bad faith or are just stoopid. Which one is it, pal?

Since you suspect her to dope, lets hear your theory. When do you think the starting doping? What kind of program is it? Who is involved? Who supplies her?

LOL,i was banned for this? This Armstrong guy likely a mod.

A front-page aticle revealed how Mu, Hodgkinson and Rogers each negative split their race.

https://www.track-stats.com/womens-800m-negative-splits-all-the-way-to-gold-silver-bronze/

Also significant is that the three medalists smoothly shifted paces from 200m - 600m (59.8 for Mu; 59.9 for Hodgkinson; 59.4 for Rogers) and limited deceleration down the stretch. This sub-60 between goalposts is what secured a fast pace and, eventually, their medals. Reekie (60.4) couldn't hold that pace from 2 to 6 and 'kick'.

Runnerofruns wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A new wr would be proof of doping. So - yeah, it's possible.

Can we PLEASE ban this poster? Literally all they do is accuse runners of doping.

Of course, anyone in our sport could be doping. But look at the form of the particular runner you are accusing. Very few in the history of the world with her body type and fluid form.

Absolutely baseless claims are getting really annoying, and frankly hurt the progress of the sport.

#banarmstronglivs

+1

People could be doping but just looking at times isn't a good indicator imho. Armstronglivs is just an annoying troll trying to derail any thread.

High hopes wrote:

No way the WR goes. This is a victory lap. Hayward Field isn't as quick as the Tokyo track either. I wouldn't be surprised if this is won in 1:56-1:58

Yes, this. Generally there is a letdown after a major championships. Athletes don't run anywhere near what they did in the championships. It's great marketing for Pre to get all the medalists, but there's not going to be any world records.

oldschoollrc wrote:

Need to get Muir into that as well.

Wrong Brit, I think you mean hodgkinson.

Bad Wigins wrote:

This is equivalent to getting a 1:43 flat man and some 1:44ers and calling it a threat to Rudisha.

No a 1:43 flat man is 2.1 seconds off the record. Mu is only 1.8 seconds off the record, so it's equivalent to a 1:42.7 guy, negative split, who runs a 43 high in the open 400.

More important than the field is the pacers!!!!! We need to see an opening lap sub 56 led by someone other than Mu.

The women’s world record is safe. There’s a world of difference between 1:53, and 1:55 at that level.

Btw, Kratochvilova’s WR was a negative split. Her 400m PR is 47.99. No one running today has her strength, drugs or not.

hetooouchme wrote:

oldschoollrc wrote:

Need to get Muir into that as well.

Wrong Brit, I think you mean hodgkinson.

Keely Hodgkinson is already in the field. It was announced a few days ago.

Laura Muir is running the 1500.

wwharrier wrote:

The world record is not out of the question at all. People are forgetting her mid 49 flat speed.

Unless you mean the "clean world record," it is definitely out of the question... It's 1:53.28 and run by a 47.99 runner.

she already won the olympics, might as well go for it in addition to the appearance fee

crwnikeboy wrote:

The women’s world record is safe. There’s a world of difference between 1:53, and 1:55 at that level.

Btw, Kratochvilova’s WR was a negative split. Her 400m PR is 47.99. No one running today has her strength, drugs or not.

+1

And 47.99 was the WR at the time. When Mu runs 48.0 and is as strong as Krato was she will be fast enough to think about the 800 WR. Unless in the meantime the 1-2% tracks become 3% tracks and the super spikes even better than they are now.

Are You Serious wrote:

hetooouchme wrote:

Wrong Brit, I think you mean hodgkinson.

Keely Hodgkinson is already in the field. It was announced a few days ago.

Laura Muir is running the 1500.

This is what the OP posted so excuse me but it doesn’t show her here which is why I said that

quote]Ray Cyst wrote:

Gonna be a barn burner!

The field so far.

JAM

GOULE, Natoya

1:56.44

1:56.15

USA

GRACE, Kate

1:57.20

1:57.20

USA

MU, Athing

1:55.21

1:55.21

UGA

NAKAAYI, Halimah

1:58.03

1:58.03

GBR

REEKIE, Jemma

1:56.90

1:56.90

USA

ROGERS, Raevyn

1:56.81

1:56.81

USA

WILSON, Ajee

1:58.39

1:55.61[/quote]

Bad Wigins wrote:

This is equivalent to getting a 1:43 flat man and some 1:44ers and calling it a threat to Rudisha.

Eh, kinda. I think the equivalent's a little faster (high 1:42ish?), and I'd be excited if a guy negative split 1:42-high by blasting the competition wire-to-wire in a championship race after three hot, muggy rounds. And looked easy doing it. Even more if he had a 44.xx 400 PR and spent a chunk of that 800 on the outside of lane 1. Just getting Mu a good rabbit should help a lot.

Despite that excitement, I'd still be surprised to see a post-Olympics WR in any of the mid- or long-distance races, let alone the most imposing one on the books. Even if they get good pacers on what seems to be a decently quick Hayward track, it's a lot to expect. It certainly helps that she focused on the 400 during the NCAA season, since she should still be a bit fresher at 800, but trying to stretch that kind of physical and mental peak across multiple weeks? Real tough. Especially when those weeks included traveling from Oregon to Tokyo and back, plus three 800s, an AR, and an Olympic gold. Can't wait to watch, though, since she's constantly raising the bar.

Curious_Cat wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

We weren't able to answer those questions about Lance, either, so I guess that showed he wasn't doping.

But if an 8 second improvement over 800m in a year, that includes taking out a doped wr, as many predict here, doesn't ring any alarm bells nothing will.

Sorry to enlighten you, pal, but Lance had long been a prime suspect since day one even before his eventual bust.

Sorry to enlighten you, but the only grounds for suspicion about Lance for years was his performances - as is the case with most dopers. No one had answers to the kinds of questions above or we would have known for a fact he was doping. It took over a decade to present a provable case against him. If Mu dopes the last thing we would expect to find out is the answers to those sorts of questions posed above. But off-the-charts improvements in performances can start to raise flags - as they would with any athlete. From 2.01 to 1.53 in a year would be such a flag.

GrapeSon wrote:

Runnerofruns wrote:

Can we PLEASE ban this poster? Literally all they do is accuse runners of doping.

Of course, anyone in our sport could be doping. But look at the form of the particular runner you are accusing. Very few in the history of the world with her body type and fluid form.

Absolutely baseless claims are getting really annoying, and frankly hurt the progress of the sport.

#banarmstronglivs

+1

People could be doping but just looking at times isn't a good indicator imho. Armstronglivs is just an annoying troll trying to derail any thread.

Some times are an indicator. 1.53 is one such as it is a doped wr that has defied every doper since - and yet many here think a clean athlete will beat it. Naive.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Curious_Cat wrote:

Sorry to enlighten you, pal, but Lance had long been a prime suspect since day one even before his eventual bust.

Sorry to enlighten you, but the only grounds for suspicion about Lance for years was his performances - as is the case with most dopers. No one had answers to the kinds of questions above or we would have known for a fact he was doping. It took over a decade to present a provable case against him. If Mu dopes the last thing we would expect to find out is the answers to those sorts of questions posed above. But off-the-charts improvements in performances can start to raise flags - as they would with any athlete. From 2.01 to 1.53 in a year would be such a flag.

i find armstronglivs annoying af and still think he's on the mark here. just don't engage with him rather than pose silly questions trying to 'catch' him.

mu miiiight get the wr but not this season.