Best Phone Call Ever To LetsRun.com: A Guy Just Called and Said "Gold & Bronze To US in Men's 1500 - Unbelievable!!!"

well, there's this to consider wrote:

a sceptic... wrote:

Here's a video of Makhloufi finishing 11th in 3:50.86 at last years World Championships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vts8_XEpMT0

And Manzano finished 13th in his sf in Daegu.

Manzano had already run 3:32 and was well established in the track and field scene.

Emil C wrote:

Here we have rojo - xenophobic as always.

I mean, how COULD anyone beat an American in a distance race? It's never happened before!

You sir, are a class A Phuckhead!

lolwut wrote:

well, there's this to consider wrote:

And Manzano finished 13th in his sf in Daegu.

Known to you!! Americans rarely know anything that goes on in the rest of the world, which substantiates the xenophobic mindset predominant here. Few would know anything about Mo Farah if he didn't train with Rupp (and so under Salazar). When a guy like Solinksy ran sub-27 (out of nowhere for the rest of the world), were suspicions raised? The problem is that there are other athletes and coaches throughout the world who actually know something about the sport, but aren't American - but if they aren't American how is this possible. The Kiwi's under Lydiard would have been disparaged to no end if LR existed in the early 1960's.

Manzano had already run 3:32 and was well established in the track and field scene.

Emil C wrote:

Here we have rojo - xenophobic as always.

I mean, how COULD anyone beat an American in a distance race? It's never happened before!

Leo was the 10th ranked guy in the race and he got silver. The guy who won gold was the 5th. Clearly Leo is on drugs.

Makhloufi did run 3:30 behind Willis in Monaco.......soooooooo.....That's not really a valid argument.

I looked up his PRs on IAAF site. Ran world junior XC and nothing special.

In 2009 he ran 3:34

In 2011 he ran 3:32

In 2012 he ran 3:30.

Nothing suspicious about these times by themselves. I have no idea whether he doped or not but from the surface of it, it would not appear like he has made progress at a rate which isn't commensurate with hard work alone. I could be completely wrong but the numbers don't raise suspicion.

Anyone defending this guy is a fu.cking idiot.

He will test positive. I guarantee it. He is Ramzi 2.0.

When he tests positive I will make a thread to show all the idiots defending him how stoopid they really are.

idiots

..."the truth" will set us all free.

Just a rotten shame others are denied their day in the Sun, in London!

If it looks too good to be true, it's often because it is.

I mostly agree with Cowboy, who objects to the drug discussion here. I have made this point elsewhere but I will make it here again: If every time we see a great result, we are going to immediately talk about possible drug use, there is no enjoyment left in the sport. No sport has done more than our's to root out PEDs. The testing procedures are not perfect but they are all we have. After Bolt's 100 meter win, one contributor wrote that any athlete running under 9.8 must be taking PEDs. Where is the joy in being a fan if that's how you watch?

All praise and congratulations to Leo and Centro. This is a great result. When I see Manzano's last 200 meter split that earned him a well deserved silver medal, I am in awe of what world class 5,000 and 10,000 runners can close with. I wish I could remember the year, but early in his career, Haile Gebreselassie won gold in the WC 5,000 with a faster last 200 meters than was clocked by the gold medalist in the men's 800. Thank you.

JerseyTrash wrote:

Puljos is definite doper. He got off the roids this year after his fat contract and look at him.

You mean his 24 HRs and 76 RBI in 109 games? You mean him batting .326 in June, .330 in July and .300 so far in August?

If he was on the roids before (I don't know if he was or not) then he's on them now...he just had 2 bad months to start the season, but he will end up with over 30 HRs and possibly 100 RBI, so right in line with what he's always done (just 99 RBI last year).

John O'Donnell wrote:

I mostly agree with Cowboy, who objects to the drug discussion here. I have made this point elsewhere but I will make it here again: If every time we see a great result, we are going to immediately talk about possible drug use, there is no enjoyment left in the sport. No sport has done more than our's to root out PEDs. The testing procedures are not perfect but they are all we have. After Bolt's 100 meter win, one contributor wrote that any athlete running under 9.8 must be taking PEDs. Where is the joy in being a fan if that's how you watch?

I think voicing opinions about drugs is important and responsible. Too often the mainstream media steers clear from being honest about its views on drug taking in sport because they fear a law suit or because they want to avoid controversy. Drug taking in sport is an unfortunate reality and to ignore it is almost to condone it. The pressure that websites such as these are able to put on obvious cheaters over the years (Marion Jones, Regina Jacobs, Carmelita Jeter, Rashid Ramzi, Fomenko etc) has arguably helped their ultimate convictions.

To take the same enjoyment from victories which were clearly aided by performance enhancing drugs (e.g. Rashid Ramzi last Olympics, Makhloufi this one) that take from clean victories (Tirunesh Dibaba, Rudisha) is completely irrational and itellectually and emotionally dishonest.

If you truly love track it is impossible not to have your eyes open about drugs taking. If we sit back and are happy when we see a Ramzi win a race then that takes out all enjoyment of the sport for me.

It is obvious that drug takers are one step ahead of the testers, unfortunately. We must not be satisfied simply by passing drugs tests: look at Marion! Look at Lance!

Isn't it easier to kick faster in a long race compared to a short race? For that final 200 in a 10000m race you switch to your fast twitch fibers and just gun it. At the end of an 800m, you have already been using the fibers and your muscles take a lot more pounding during the race.

Shenanigan--

Yes, exactly. The 800 comparison is completely misleading and dishonest.

a little off topic here, but lets not overlook the fact that Makhloufi being in the race and running the way he did was pretty instrumental in Manzano getting the silver. Manzano had a great kick, but he was also mowing down guys that Makhloufi had broken with 150 to go.

What made me suspicious of Makhloufi's performance was that absolutely savage burst of speed that he threw down at 300m. The way he absolutely demolished the best 1500 guys in the world was unbelievable, he just looked a little too good. He would have won by over a second if he had run through the line. It doesn't help that he comes from a region that has a less than stellar reputation when it comes to drug use.

To those people who say we have to be suspicious of both Makhloufi and Manzano, or neither:

1. When was the last time an elite N. African/Middle Eastern runner was busted for drugs? When has an elite American distance runner been busted?

2. Manzano wasn't even in the same stratosphere as Makhloufi last night. Manzano's performance was fantastic, Makhloufi's was otherworldly.

exactly....makhloufi didn't just run like a 3:30 guy on a normal progression, he ran like a 3:26 guy just destroying 3:30 guys.

All of the Makhloufi defenders are claiming that his 1200-1400 speed was nothing remarkable--then why did all of the athletes who went with him, including the 2011 WC silver medalist, suffer so badly?

Harry Carey wrote:

All of the Makhloufi defenders are claiming that his 1200-1400 speed was nothing remarkable--then why did all of the athletes who went with him, including the 2011 WC silver medalist, suffer so badly?

because he took 41 steps per 100 while everyone else took 44.

Harry Carey wrote:

All of the Makhloufi defenders are claiming that his 1200-1400 speed was nothing remarkable--then why did all of the athletes who went with him, including the 2011 WC silver medalist, suffer so badly?

He threw down an Alan Webb move at the 1200m point.

Bill Haverchuck wrote:

because he took 41 steps per 100 while everyone else took 44.

+1