She hadn't won an international race. That is an also-ran. Yes, I do know she is doping. Do you need her to run 3:48 to form that conclusion? Or 3:45?
No, you don't know i she is doping.
She is not 7 seconds faster than in 2023, but 6.46 seconds.
Looking at her Mile time of 4:15.34 from 2023 which converts to around 3:56.43, it's more like 5.5 seconds.
Still an enormous improvement.
You know more than WA, why don't you forward your unique knowledge to them? They immediately would ban Hull, and this would be good for the sport. Or do you prefer doped sport?
Only 6.46 seconds in a year? Not 7 secs? And that makes a difference, how?
I expect WADA will be showing some interest in her performances.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
No. I am arguing with a doping apologist who thinks no rational, concrete conclusions can be drawn from an established runner suddenly being able to run a time comprable to the most doped up athletes in the history of the sport and who laughably wants to eliminate experience, statistical norms, historical progressions and commonsense from the evaluation of performances in a dope addled sport. When the Ma's army showed up in 92/93 you would have been claiming they were clean despite anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of sports knowing we were seeing an obvious East Germany redux. The apologists will always cling to the alleged absence of direct proof, knowing full well that such proof is always very rare even for the most blatant dopers. In many ways running is analogous to baseball in that statistics and past performances over decades gives fans a window into credibly performances. When players suddenly started hitting 70 hrs and the once rare 50 hr mark was being achieved by 2nd rate players, it became obvious. Well Hull just suddenly hit 70 hrs.
She is not 7 seconds faster than in 2023, but 6.46 seconds.
Looking at her Mile time of 4:15.34 from 2023 which converts to around 3:56.43, it's more like 5.5 seconds.
Still an enormous improvement.
You know more than WA, why don't you forward your unique knowledge to them? They immediately would ban Hull, and this would be good for the sport. Or do you prefer doped sport?
I was wondering if someone would use the mile times to post the actual improvement. I calculated a 5.8 second improvement for Hull. For Yared Nuguse, I calculated a 5.7 second improvement. Both were in modern shoes, on a fast track and dragged to an amazing time by the world’s best pacers. Hull had a major change in the type of training for the year prior.
Ellie St. Pierre went from a relatively slow 4:02.34 1500m runner to having a 4.3 second improvement in 8 months. But that improvement was run in the 2nd fastest indoor mile time in history!
Nikki Hiltz and Corey McGee had relatively big improvements in one year and they’re nearly senior citizens by some people’s standards. And both of these improvements came after running two rounds. It wouldn’t shock me if they ran even faster this year.
I choose to believe that most or all of these runners are not doping and there are several good reasons for the bigger improvements in the last few years. Thinking everyone is doping is a miserable way to be a fan in my opinion.
That's true. And that's why you look for reasons to think they aren't doping. But not convincing.
Wtf kind of mathematical 'analysis' is this? This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here. Why would you be comparing WR % change in times to random improvements from an individual persons progression?
Did you know if you Ingrefied the WR's from his earlier 1500 times, the WR for the mens marathon would be 1:49 ... which tells you absolutely nothing.
Wtf kind of mathematical 'analysis' is this? This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here. Why would you be comparing WR % change in times to random improvements from an individual persons progression? Did you know if you Ingrefied the WR's from his earlier 1500 times, the WR for the mens marathon would be 1:49 ... which tells you absolutely nothing.
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 ONLY 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.
OK now I know that you know you have lost the argument here. You have changed your comment that I was replying to. I added the word in capitals in your comment, that's what you said which as I said, is factually wrong. Just admit the error, otherwise you are just lying. It's in writing on this page.
Your logic is flawed too. There are all sorts of reasons why a clean athlete can be as fast as a previous doped WR holder, one being the talent they started with, and other obvious ones.
Wtf kind of mathematical 'analysis' is this? This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here. Why would you be comparing WR % change in times to random improvements from an individual persons progression? Did you know if you Ingrefied the WR's from his earlier 1500 times, the WR for the mens marathon would be 1:49 ... which tells you absolutely nothing.
Maybe you should put on your abstract thinking cap. The analogy doesn’t seem that hard to grasp, but I’ll spell it out for you.
Would you be shocked if any of those WRs were broken to the same degree as Jessica Hull’s recent PR? It seems almost impossible to think women are just one Hull-jump from a 10.26, 3:44, 13:41, etc. I guarantee LRC would go ballistic in more ways than one.
The point is that Jessica Hull ran an UNBELIEVABLE time, literally.
No. I am arguing with a doping apologist who thinks no rational, concrete conclusions can be drawn from an established runner suddenly being able to run a time comprable to the most doped up athletes in the history of the sport and who laughably wants to eliminate experience, statistical norms, historical progressions and commonsense from the evaluation of performances in a dope addled sport. When the Ma's army showed up in 92/93 you would have been claiming they were clean despite anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of sports knowing we were seeing an obvious East Germany redux. The apologists will always cling to the alleged absence of direct proof, knowing full well that such proof is always very rare even for the most blatant dopers. In many ways running is analogous to baseball in that statistics and past performances over decades gives fans a window into credibly performances. When players suddenly started hitting 70 hrs and the once rare 50 hr mark was being achieved by 2nd rate players, it became obvious. Well Hull just suddenly hit 70 hrs.
Who is the doping apologist? I have kids who are elite athletes, and hate doping as much as anyone.
I am saying you have no evidence Jess Hull is doping, other than your gut feel, or worse, relying on Armstronglivs. You have no "concrete conclusions", do you even know what that means? Ma's army were obviously doped, like the former Eastern bloc athletes, and the Chinese swimmers. Are you really trying to compare Jess Hull's performance now to that? It's apples and oranges. Jess Hull lives in a small city south of Sydney, and trains with her dad. She has no access to labs to send her illegal substances, or labs to check if she is testing positive, or medical advisers to explain how to cycle the drugs.
I also do not know for certain she is not doping, just like you do not know she is. I am saying there are no obvious red flags, and improving 5 seconds in a 6-week span is not a red flag, for reasons I have said (for starters there is no way she started doping in those 6 weeks, so other factors are obviously at play).
Just because you talk tough, doesn't make you right.
She is not 7 seconds faster than in 2023, but 6.46 seconds.
Looking at her Mile time of 4:15.34 from 2023 which converts to around 3:56.43, it's more like 5.5 seconds.
Still an enormous improvement.
You know more than WA, why don't you forward your unique knowledge to them? They immediately would ban Hull, and this would be good for the sport. Or do you prefer doped sport?
Thinking everyone is doping is a miserable way to be a fan in my opinion.
i have no idea if she's doping or not but it's a dumb analogy because WRs are the peak of athletic performance, the margin for improvement is much smaller. jess hull's PRs are not the peak or anything close to the peak. i mean the next step is to take some dude at a park run improving his PR from 25 minutes to 19 minutes in a year and state he is doping because he improved faster than the WR progression.
Wtf kind of mathematical 'analysis' is this? This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here. Why would you be comparing WR % change in times to random improvements from an individual persons progression? Did you know if you Ingrefied the WR's from his earlier 1500 times, the WR for the mens marathon would be 1:49 ... which tells you absolutely nothing.
Maybe you should put on your abstract thinking cap. The analogy doesn’t seem that hard to grasp, but I’ll spell it out for you.
Would you be shocked if any of those WRs were broken to the same degree as Jessica Hull’s recent PR? It seems almost impossible to think women are just one Hull-jump from a 10.26, 3:44, 13:41, etc. I guarantee LRC would go ballistic in more ways than one.
The point is that Jessica Hull ran an UNBELIEVABLE time, literally.
Dude you're not einstein either.
Improving a WR - the fastest anyone has ever run - is not the same as improving a PB. You didn't work that out? Athletes have massive PB drops all the time. Just look at the ones listed on this thread, for starters.
i have no idea if she's doping or not but it's a dumb analogy because WRs are the peak of athletic performance, the margin for improvement is much smaller. jess hull's PRs are not the peak or anything close to the peak. i mean the next step is to take some dude at a park run improving his PR from 25 minutes to 19 minutes in a year and state he is doping because he improved faster than the WR progression.
You said I was arguing with a straw man. I don't think I am. Anyway, the "but you cannot prove it" rings very hollow when you look at that all time list. You keep missing the point, which is that she suddenly ran a time comparable to East Germany level, state sponsored dopers by your own admission. And of course, doping today does not require a state program, especially if a nation's sports authorities are in see no evil mode. Just ask the East Africa corp. An athlete going for broke to achieve Olympic glory seems a reasonable interpretation of events. And she likely won't even be the most doped athlete in her event. It is what it is.
This argument is an interesting dive into epistemology, i.e., the philosophy of knowledge. On the one hand, we have Karma saying knowledge of doping exists only when when it is supported by a positive test. On the other hand, we have Kookie saying knowledge of doping exists when it is supported by an athlete's times and progression.
Epistemology ( ih-PISS-tə-MOL-ə-jee; from Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē) 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists...
She is 7 seconds faster than she was in 2023 and she has run a time that ONLY 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.
OK now I know that you know you have lost the argument here. You have changed your comment that I was replying to. I added the word in capitals in your comment, that's what you said which as I said, is factually wrong. Just admit the error, otherwise you are just lying. It's in writing on this page.
Your logic is flawed too. There are all sorts of reasons why a clean athlete can be as fast as a previous doped WR holder, one being the talent they started with, and other obvious ones.
I don't know what pedantry you are trying to argue but my point is that the level Hull has achieved and the extent of her improvement isn't credible for a clean athlete. That's my view, however you choose not to agree. Also, when you take into account the previous wr of 3:50x - which was doped - there is no way a clean runner can attain that, whatever their level of talent. If it were so doping would have no significant effect on performance. But it does and significantly. Probably 6 or more seconds over the distance.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
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.