Jess Hull progression - nothing to see here

Armstronglivs wrote:

QLDer wrote:

Shelby tested POSITIVE. She's proven guilty. It's rubbish to compare burrito to Jess.
You've made your mind up and good for you, but don't pretend that you are the jury and the case is settled.

Still waiting for you to tell us all where is the special 'good' time of women's 1500m running. So we can all cheer for clean athletes to come right up to it, but never faster, thus they 'are a DoPeR'. How boring.

So care to explain how a clean athlete can improve 7 seconds in a year to match times previously only attainable by doped Chinese world record-holders? Clean is as good as doping?

Armstronglivs wrote:

dope up wrote:

Everyone has a different amount of talent. Women dope who run 5:00. There is no time that indicates doping. Extreme leanness is a sign. Extra musculature is a sign. Hull has gotten very lean. Tuohy is very muscular. Hiltz has gotten leaner.

Running the same times as doped Chinese indicates doping.

QLDer wrote:

Biased Aussie here.

Just noting the hypocrisy of Jess's 1500m 5 sec improvement- DoPiNg!

Vs US Trials. Nikki Hiltz 4 second PB, Emily McKay 4 second PB, Sinclaire...similar. OMG Team USA is AMAZING!

Jess is a smart competitor with a smart team. They have been focussed on peaking at Paris for years. Every other result has only been a prelude for this Oly-period. She's now in 3.52 shape due to uninterrupted training, altitude, she's probably a couple of kg leaner for these few weeks. AND she got lucky and drafted the GOAT on the very inside of lane 1 all the way.

Jess has been a gun for years. She's just upped her confidence. Watch ESP and others do similar in the next few months. 3.53 is the the new 3.57 because they believe they can and they are training towards it.

interesting graph wrote:

2019 - 4:01.80

2020 - 4:00.42

2021 - 3:58.81

2022- 3:59.31

2023 - 3:57.29

2024 (so far) - 3:50.83

How often do deeply experienced athletes take 7 seconds off their 1500 PR in one year at the age of 27?

Nike athlete. Who is her coach, and where is she based?

Armstronglivs wrote:

dope up wrote:

Everyone has a different amount of talent. Women dope who run 5:00. There is no time that indicates doping. Extreme leanness is a sign. Extra musculature is a sign. Hull has gotten very lean. Tuohy is very muscular. Hiltz has gotten leaner.

Running the same times as doped Chinese indicates doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Karma Police wrote:

So what you are saying is in your opinion it is probable.

Innocent until proven guilty is not being naive. You're the one accusing, so show us evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal defence to a crime. We aren't discussing that. It isn't relevant to a judgement of fact according to what is likely, probable or even fairly certain.

WADA has put T and F in the same category as cycling, body building and weightlifting for risk of doping. Do you think the best in those sports will be clean? Hull has made an unforeseeable improvement in a year, to record a time that is in the same region as Chinese dopers. Only wilful naivety can argue a standout performance like that will be clean in a sport likened to bodybuilding, weightlifting or cycling.

QLDer wrote:

Ok here's some Chinese dopers in the all time 1500m list. And we can be fairly confident of these because there was inside reports of compulsory doping.

3:56.31, 1997
Dong LIU

3:57.03, 1997
Liu JING

3:57.46, 1993
Linli ZHANG

3:58.64, 1993
Renmei WANG

Now yes, of course there were other Chinese women that were faster. But the point is- it's not black and white. There is no time in this general realm that is yes/no, clean/dirty. A 3:58 can be dirty and a 3:50 can be clean.

What is clear is a positive test. Or someone in the system that whistle-blows.

I am Sam wrote:

...and I have never heard you accuse a new zealander...I know you don'ty6 have spiders and snakes, you mean there are no drugs availabler there either?

I am Sam wrote:

This quoted post has been removed.

That would be the least of his worries. Even an attorney cannot make defamatory comments...within a court case yes, but not casting aspersions.

LRC is very, very lax on this sort of stuff.

Karma Police wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So care to explain how a clean athlete can improve 7 seconds in a year to match times previously only attainable by doped Chinese world record-holders? Clean is as good as doping?

Um, that is pretty obviously factually incorrect. Hull is ranked no.3 this year, for starters.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

That would be the least of his worries. Even an attorney cannot make defamatory comments...within a court case yes, but not casting aspersions.

LRC is very, very lax on this sort of stuff.

No one has been sued for expressing opinions about doping on this site. You are unaware of how freedom of speech applies here.

yty wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Running the same times as doped Chinese indicates doping.

You know nothing about training, you know nothing about modern technology, you know nothing about running since color television was invented.
Like the simpleton that you are, you only have one answer for everything: doping!
You are ignorant.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Karma Police wrote:

Um, that is pretty obviously factually incorrect. Hull is ranked no.3 this year, for starters.

She is 7 seconds faster than she was in 2023 and she has run a time that the doped Chinese former world record holder ran. So you think a clean former also-ran can now be as fast as a doped world record holder in the event.

Armstronglivs wrote:

yty wrote:

You know nothing about training, you know nothing about modern technology, you know nothing about running since color television was invented.
Like the simpleton that you are, you only have one answer for everything: doping!
You are ignorant.

Actually, doping is the answer the athletes have.