This is somewhat unrelated but can we please stop with the extremely liberal use of "generational talent." The guy in the quote calls her a generational then proceeds to say she is the making of another athlete who is of the same generation. What do you guys think generational means? There can't be a "handful" of generational talents in a generation. There is one. One talent greater than all of their generation
But I get it. If you don't know the whole story, you see anyone tied to doping and you think that means they are dirty. I mean a European guy Weldon ran into at Millrose last year just assumed the whole OAC was dirty as they are coached by Ritz who was part of the NOP.
I don't get it. What's the whole story that makes you think OAC is clean?
I don't know the reason, but Women's Distance Running has really Raised the Bar, Very few even Mention the 2nd Place Woman unknown to all but her famil and friends and maybe some Really Hard Core fans also broke 29 Minutes,Anyways looking forward to her Half Marathon on March 3rd will we see another mind boggling performance?
On another note can anyone set a World Record without suspicion? Example if Alicia Monson runs a 27:59 for 10000 on a legal course or Track And she says she got faster by doing Double Threshold Runs for the First Time? I think people would still be whining that they must have used PED'S, and this is SAD for the Sport
If any female runs sub 28:00 in my lifetime, they are 100%, without a doubt doping.
These threads amuse me. To think it possible a runner today - a Kenyan runner - might be doping because of yet another outlandish performance is like wondering if Al Capone in the Prohibition era was a legit businessmen or a mobster. These outlier performances are becoming as common as leaves falling from a tree and we are having the same discussions about them on a monthly basis. "Generational talents" are everywhere now.
These sort of breakthroughs tend to produce plenty of cynicism. There are four main factors that, taken in some combination, could reasonably explain a performance like Ngetich's 28:46, and three of them are pretty cynical. Option 1: The course had to be short. Option 2: Shoe technology has rendered times and records meaningless. Option 3: Anyone who runs that fast must be doping. Option 4: She's a generational talent. None of the first three responses is entirely unjustified, but let's get to them in a minute. When we try to make sense of a time we've never seen before, sometimes we forget there is a living, breathing person at the center of it. That's a source of frustration for Ngetich's agent, Davor Savija of Ikaika Sports, who has long believed in the greatness of Ngetich and says context is often missing from these discussions. Ask Savija about 28:46, and he is unequivocal: Ngetich is a top, top talent who is thriving now that she finally has the training environment in which to succeed. "This is a generational talent that is here to stay," Savija told LetsRun on Tuesday. "...This is some kind of Faith Kipyegon in the making."
Which of the explanation(s) do you find most convincing?
Moronic short course claims are completely unjustified. You have THOUSANDS of athletes who recorded more than 10kilometers while running in Valencia. This is a race which has been organised for more than 10 years without any issue related to the measurement of the course. This is silly
These threads amuse me. To think it possible a runner today - a Kenyan runner - might be doping because of yet another outlandish performance is like wondering if Al Capone in the Prohibition era was a legit businessmen or a mobster. These outlier performances are becoming as common as leaves falling from a tree and we are having the same discussions about them on a monthly basis. "Generational talents" are everywhere now.
So Rhonex Kipruto isn't the only cheat he's worked with then? Multiple cheats.
All the 'pay back your money' and 'AIU come and have a close look' stuff is just PR fluff, but I guess it's working if the owner of the greatest running website on earth falls for it too.
trollism: if they evade testing, they are doping!
Also trollism: if they make themselves available for testing, they are doping!
I do not usually turn to doping as the first explanation, but as I said in the other thread, would it not be a bit unbelievable if Kiplimo ran 25:54 for a road 10k splitting a 12:50 the first half? That's basically equivalent to what she did...
Not necessarily equivalent, you're assuming the previous records were equal between men and women; which they may not have been. Women are making more gains in recent times - probably a bit of levelling up.
Regarding doping, it's definitely possible, but doping alone couldn't lower the record so much.
Has to be a generational talent too.
She's no more or less suspicious than Faith Kipyegon.
So Rhonex Kipruto isn't the only cheat he's worked with then? Multiple cheats.
All the 'pay back your money' and 'AIU come and have a close look' stuff is just PR fluff, but I guess it's working if the owner of the greatest running website on earth falls for it too.
trollism: if they evade testing, they are doping!
Also trollism: if they make themselves available for testing, they are doping!
If they're part of a management team that has numerous recent high profile dopers, they're doping.
These threads amuse me. To think it possible a runner today - a Kenyan runner - might be doping because of yet another outlandish performance is like wondering if Al Capone in the Prohibition era was a legit businessmen or a mobster. These outlier performances are becoming as common as leaves falling from a tree and we are having the same discussions about them on a monthly basis. "Generational talents" are everywhere now.
You are easily amused.
That's because the sport is a joke. And so are many of the fans.
I do not usually turn to doping as the first explanation, but as I said in the other thread, would it not be a bit unbelievable if Kiplimo ran 25:54 for a road 10k splitting a 12:50 the first half? That's basically equivalent to what she did...
Not necessarily equivalent, you're assuming the previous records were equal between men and women; which they may not have been. Women are making more gains in recent times - probably a bit of levelling up.
Regarding doping, it's definitely possible, but doping alone couldn't lower the record so much.
Has to be a generational talent too.
She's no more or less suspicious than Faith Kipyegon.
You have it round the wrong way. It isn't talent alone that will reduce the records. It needs doping. And a lot of it. As I've pointed out in other threads, she's nearly as fast now as Billy Mills was in Tokyo and so many here think she can still be clean. But she's not the only one, by any means.
Not necessarily equivalent, you're assuming the previous records were equal between men and women; which they may not have been. Women are making more gains in recent times - probably a bit of levelling up.
Regarding doping, it's definitely possible, but doping alone couldn't lower the record so much.
Has to be a generational talent too.
She's no more or less suspicious than Faith Kipyegon.
You have it round the wrong way. It isn't talent alone that will reduce the records. It needs doping. And a lot of it. As I've pointed out in other threads, she's nearly as fast now as Billy Mills was in Tokyo and so many here think she can still be clean. But she's not the only one, by any means.
And who says that Mills' PB should not be achievable by a woman 60 years later?
You have it round the wrong way. It isn't talent alone that will reduce the records. It needs doping. And a lot of it. As I've pointed out in other threads, she's nearly as fast now as Billy Mills was in Tokyo and so many here think she can still be clean. But she's not the only one, by any means.
And who says that Mills' PB should not be achievable by a woman 60 years later?
It isn't. His PB from 1965 is 28:17.6.
The WR in '65 was 27:39.89.
59 years later, the women's WR is 29:01.03 (28:46 on the road - questionable course?)
Just try to accept that Armstronglivs is completely damaged and that all he writes is not worth reading.
Three thoughts. I think there's something going on that is next level beyond just EPO and regular super shoes.
1. I think they need to start doing chromosome and testosterone level testing in addition to physical examinations for all record broken runs. Not all women who are slightly more male (Semenya) necessarily look like males.
2. CRISPR has gotten FDA approval for genetic modifications to eradicate sickle cell disease. This technology is not regulated outside of the developed world. Might we be seeing one of the first genetically modified athletes by way of a CRISPR-like procedure where something gets enhanced or removed to benefit the runner?
3. Pro cycling is riddled with mechanical doping allegations (bike is electric but hidden). Might we be seeing the early signs of these shoes having some extra, 3rd party-enhanced advantage like battery-operated springs/recoil, that's adding energy return that was not originally hers?
Her form is not great and yet she's running that fast? Energy costs for operating at those speeds, for a woman, is extremely high. I suspect one of the 3 items I listed above is happening.
Actually, her running form is spectacular.
"...she's got legs right up to her neck...", as they say.
Also following her pacer every step of the way, and he does a good job of making sure she does.
10K Valencia Ibercaja, un 10.000 extremadamente rápido para miles de locos del running · World Record en 2020: Rhonex Kipruto (26:24) · Carrera Gold Label de...
(Commentary is in Spanish, but if you turn on closed captioning and set the setting to translate, you can get the closed captioning in just about any language you like.)
Why over focus on Agnes? EMMACULATE ANYANGO has the following track PBs 4:24, 9:29, 15:22 and 32:51.
She ran as slow as 15:40 back in May 2023
This 23 year old has results from all the way back in 2017 (9:40 for 3000m in Kenya). not a new kid on the block
In November she goes 30:01 and now 29:57
That one is even more insane
why are you quoting slow times? anybody can blow up in a race or be sick or just give up. if she was consistently running 15 minutes 10 races in a row then okay, a big jump would be suspicious. but just one race, so what?
And who says that Mills' PB should not be achievable by a woman 60 years later?
It isn't. His PB from 1965 is 28:17.6.
The WR in '65 was 27:39.89.
59 years later, the women's WR is 29:01.03 (28:46 on the road - questionable course?)
Just try to accept that Armstronglivs is completely damaged and that all he writes is not worth reading.
I pointed out that Mills in Tokyo was only a few seconds faster than Ngetich has run on the roads. He was an incredibly talented highly-trained athlete. Only those with no knowledge of the history sport and what doping has done to it cannot see there is no way any female runner today should be coming close to matching a male athlete of his class. This board demonstrates how the stain of doping has grown and persists in the sport because most fans cannot and will not see it.
I have to agree. I remember when Liz McColgan ran 30:59 and then 30:38 at the '88 and '89 Red Loster 10K, and thinking how incredible those performances were. They were at the time. Fast forward 35 years and women are now running what are effectively elite men's times. Yes, 2:11 is elite. Not by a ton, but it is. Same with a 28:46 10K. They're the lower end of elite, but elite nonetheless - and not something women should be running without some sort of 'assistance'. Assistance doesn't entail reasonably expected time improvements over a 35 year span. This is another instance of the Chinese women who, back in the late 80's, started crushing world records. Their coach claimed it was a result of their diet. The diet? Turtle soup. Yes really. Today the only questions is what is the Kenyan women's 'turtle soup'? These performances are clearly suspect. They will always have an asterisk after them, even if the asterisk is in thought only. Shoe technology has apparently surpassed PED and PED testing technology, and the results are fairly obvious.
The sad reality is that talent in distance running for a long time has largely meant how well someone responded to performance enhancing drugs, now talent additionally means how well someone response to shoes that should have been banned if Nike didn't corrupt the sport by first giving their athletes banned substances and now mechanical aids that further distort the spirt.
Ashley Mateoo's article in Outside titled "Hyper Responders" had half of the modern story well, but skipped over the responding to drugs angle, "The truth is, while Assefa and Kiptum won the genetic lottery when it comes to optimizing endurance performance, they likely also respond super well to super shoes."
Now is it possible for a woman, with male pacers, to run a 28:46 on the roads without using performance enhancing drugs? I am still very skeptical. I think one of the worst things about Nike corrupting the sport to allow clown shoes with high stack heights to be "legal" is that it actually gave athletes a free pass to use banned substances as well. The shoes have been a great cover for likely increased doping by top athletes since they appeared in 2017. Yes the shoes help most people, but for now the golden ticket to world records appears to be a hyper responder to drugs and shoes.
Elite athletes are also hyper responders to training, and are naturally genetically gifted based on their body type. Such is life.
Teeth braces at this age are a nuanced association with HGH.
Judging by events in my middle class neighborhood, they are also a nuanced association with people who are unhappy with their appearance and finally have the money to do something about it. (Only here, it's Invisalign.)
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.