That there is no consensus about what is the clean record shows that no top performance can be trusted. Any of them could be doped. The logical position is then to assume they all are and conclude we will never know what is the clean record.
No I agree with that - pretty efficient race (moreseo mentally) for Ngeny to run. But it's still 3.43 and that's a time which let's be honest nobody is approaching now - even an incredible talent like Jakob. And the problem is still the era which was a free-for-all - especially with respect to an endurance boosting, hematocrit boosting drug we all know very well.
Pacing does matter for sure. Obviously -but you still have to run the time. This season will be really interesting - Jakob and the rest of this current elite crop who are now settled in with performances under 3.30 really hitting their primes with pacing lights there to help them switch off and just autopilot on the perfect pace and rhythm.
All fair points. I do think we might have to note that Jakob is a super-talent, but his best race to challenge a WR might be the 3,000 or 5,000. He lacks the speed possibly necessary to run under 3:27.0 but I do think running the mile distance might assist him and a sub-3:44 I can see. For Ngeny, even though he never put up a monster 800 mark the fact that in ‘98 he ran 1:45.87 in his first race off the plane in Europe while he was in more like 3:36-7 fitness is just further emblematic he was more of an 8/15 guy. Jakob is decidedly 15/5, so I could see him as a bigger talent than Ngeny just across different distances. I do think Cheruiyot would’ve approached the times in ‘18-‘19 but you can pinpoint the few opportunities he really went for it and why he only ran 3:28-29 instead of hitting 3:27.
That there is no consensus about what is the clean record shows that no top performance can be trusted. Any of them could be doped. The logical position is then to assume they all are and conclude we will never know what is the clean record.
We don't know which performancese are clean and which are doped - conclusion: all must be doped.
All fair points. I do think we might have to note that Jakob is a super-talent
Agreed, but his dominance (1500 - 5000) in this dirty sport is highly suspicious, and wasn't his brother outed as a likely doper, and then fell off a cliff?
1935: Anabolic steroids first synthesized in Germany. first known use in sport was at the 54 Olympics (Russian weightlifters)
1947: First study to show blood packing gave performance advantages. First known use in sport in early 60’s in TDF. Post 68 Olympics is when it’s believed to get wide use in distance running with Lasse Viren in the 70’s being the poster boy.
Then comes EPO in the late 70’s. Human EPO purified in 1977 but it’s beneficial properties were known going all the way back to 1905
My guess would be Josh Kerr. He is still ahead of some obvious dopers, so that weakens his claim though. He does have advantage of latest tech, fast tracks, etc.
On the other hand there is a pretty good chance that no one on this list is clean. I wouldn’t bet my life savings on anyone listed.
That there is no consensus about what is the clean record shows that no top performance can be trusted. Any of them could be doped. The logical position is then to assume they all are and conclude we will never know what is the clean record.
But if you had a million dollars (house money) to bet, who would you put your money on? You can pick anyone you want. Some runners are clean, who do you think is the fastest?
Also, I don't mean to offend anyone. I love the sport and enjoy watching it. I think there are a few guys on this list who might be clean and some who are for sure doped (and have been caught). I just was curious what other people thought.
p.s. To those of you who down-vote a question (2 people already have), can you explain why? I am literally just curious what others think; I am not casting aspersions at any particular athlete or athletes.
But if you had a million dollars (house money) to bet, who would you put your money on? You can pick anyone you want. Some runners are clean, who do you think is the fastest?
Josh Kerr.
I'd bet against any Algerian, Kenyan, Moroccan (because of their sad history), pre-2009 runner (because of lax testing), anyone with a likely doping history or suspicious or banned teammate or coach.
Then (note the original list was cut short) I get the following who actually might be clean:
That there is no consensus about what is the clean record shows that no top performance can be trusted. Any of them could be doped. The logical position is then to assume they all are and conclude we will never know what is the clean record.
No, if the evidence is inconclusive regarding guilt and non-guilt, it is illogical to conclude regarding guilt.
That there is no consensus about what is the clean record shows that no top performance can be trusted. Any of them could be doped. The logical position is then to assume they all are and conclude we will never know what is the clean record.
No, if the evidence is inconclusive regarding guilt and non-guilt, it is illogical to conclude regarding guilt.
well, yeah. Everyone is innocent until they may be proven guilty by a negative test.
Also, this documentary is just too long, too slow for most viewers, and too true. It does make you think about the upper echelons of sport though. The journalist who made this is one of the very best in the world, Hajo Seppelt.
Legitimate question for those who know the history of the sport better than me. When was EPO explicitly banned? New supplements pop up all the time that are at first legal and then later studied more and banned. Colostrum for example is a relatively new supplement that WADA has not banned but they are investigating as it can increase growth hormone. I guess my point is that of course when something is explicitly banned and you take it anyway you are a cheater and should be punished. If it was taken in good faith before being banned is that person really a cheater or bad person? (assuming they stop once it becomes it is banned). Of course those performances are still enhanced, but maybe not maliciously enhanced if that makes any sense. (Probably TLDR I know)
EPO was banned by the IOC in 1990.
The first "official" test for EPO wasn't until 2000 when it was experimented with at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
Seven (7) athletes, presumably endurance athletes, tested positive for EPO. However, there was some issues with the "on" - "off" model being used & the 7 athletes were not banned nor suffered any consequences from the positive test. To this day their identities have never been released:
Italy's Roberto Barbi holds the infamous distinction of being the first elite to test positive for EPO & consequently banned in 2001. He was glowing in a pre-race test he have on the fac he arrived in Edmonton for 2001 WCs marathon:
Roberto Barbi (born 25 March 1965), born in Switzerland but Tuscan of Bagni di Lucca, is a former Italian long-distance runner who specialized in the marathon. He was banned from sports for life in 2009, after his second EPO...
The first 1500 runner to test positive & be banned for EPO is France's Fouad Chouki. Chouki, with a PR of 3:30.83, is a WC finalist & teammate of Olympic medalist Mehdi Baala:
Fouad Chouki (born 15 October 1978 in Strasbourg) is a French middle distance runner who specializes in the 1500 metres. He won a bronze medal at the 2001 Mediterranean Games in Tunis and finished fourth at the 2002 European...
So, it would have been unlimited use with impunity of EPO throughout the 1990s. After 2001, things got a little tricky with a reliable EPO test implemented both IC & OOC. What we saw because of this was a shift to blood doping which was an effective form of O2-vector doping. It wasn't until 2009 when to biological passport (ABP) was introduced that put a stop unlimited blood doping forcing the dopers to microdose.
That there is no consensus about what is the clean record shows that no top performance can be trusted. Any of them could be doped. The logical position is then to assume they all are and conclude we will never know what is the clean record.
We don't know which performancese are clean and which are doped - conclusion: all must be doped.
The logic of a damaged brain.
I am always reassured by your responses that you have no idea what you are reading.
That there is no consensus about what is the clean record shows that no top performance can be trusted. Any of them could be doped. The logical position is then to assume they all are and conclude we will never know what is the clean record.
No, if the evidence is inconclusive regarding guilt and non-guilt, it is illogical to conclude regarding guilt.
You haven't understood what I was saying. If we cannot safely conclude that any top performance is clean then we are left with the alternative, that the performance is doped. We are not trying to prove doping but can assume doping unless it can be shown otherwise. It can't. This thread proves it. No one can mount an argument that, of a range of given performances since the '90's, we can determine what is the true clean record beyond dispute. Hence, all could be doped. We can therefore assume that.
