Thanks for all the work on splits. Interesting stuff. I agree that part of the reason why Makhloufi looked so good was because the others underperformed slightly. I disagree with you slightly about whether he could have gone faster or not. (Whether or not he looked easy in the final 100m is really a moot point. What we do know for sure is that he wasn't pushed and had won the race with 100m to go.)
Moreover, while a discussion of splits is interesting, it is not conclusive either way and certainly not the only bit of evidence. The improvement compared to last season is a factor. The anecdotal evidence is relevant. Our knowledge of the heritage and background of other proven drug cheats is also relevant.
What is your explanation for their underperformance then? Either there is a phsycological impact (they choked) or there is a physiological impact (they were too tired after the semis or they timed their peak wrong or something). Personally I think there was a bit of choking ("how can we beat this doper...") and also they just could not live with his 1200-1300 split. It destroyed them.
quote]deanouk wrote:
You're right about how I feel about Makhloufi and whether or not he cheated. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, like I am with some runners, but that doesn't justify the OTT criticism and mud slinging that is going on on these boards.
[/quote]
Personally I don't mind the mud-slinging, although I admit that there are doubts either way. The reality of the situation is that the mud-slinging is not just on these boards though. Steve Cram's commentary was tantamount to mud-slinging. The way that none of the other athletes congratulated him was tantamount to mudslinging. The IAAF trying to stop him starting the race on a pretext is mudslinging.
The other thing is, the anonymous voice of Letsrun has track record of being proved right. When Rashid Ramzi won gold in Helsinki and Beijing, the consensus of the message board was immediate, just like it is today. At that time too, there were people who defended Ramzi, who accused us of mudslinging etc. I just hope we get proved right about Lance and Carmelita.
Given that the mainstream media is often a bit too hesitant to make drug accusations, I think the onus is on forums such as this one to discuss openly our suspicions, even in the florid language of letsrun.
quote]deanouk wrote:
What I do know is that I am far more confident that some illustrious runners from the last 20 years were more likely to have doped than Makhloufi.
[/quote]
Like who? This might well be the case, but it has no impact on Makhloufi.
quote]deanouk wrote:
As I said on one of the threads on here, if he now goes on to run a 3:27 somewhere before the end of the summer, then I might very likely revise my view on his authenticity. What he did yesterday is in keeping with the form of a 3:30 athlete. Yes, he put in a 12.4 100m split (which is an incredible turn of speed) but this was after 1200m. He then slowed quite dramatically afterwards, and not through choice until maybe the last 10m.
I remember Ovett ran a 12.0 100m stretch in the 77 World Cup 1500m in a similar overall time to Makhloufi's (Ovett ran 3:34.4) at 1300m, which to me is more impressive as he had to run a further 100m before doing it. Ovett also slowed, with a last 100m of 13.1. And that was a pb for Ovett at the time. He had never run as fast as that before and there was no suggestion before that race that he could do that to the likes of Walker & Wessinghage. It was truly incredible, but made the more so because Wessinghage at that stage was not the runner he was to become in 1980 (3:31.5) and Walker wasn't the athlete he'd been in 76.
Coe also ran a faster 100m stretch than Makhloufi, when he ran the last 100m in Moscow in 12.1. Again, more impressive than the Algerian's burst, because it came after 1400m, an additional 200m further on in the race than when Makhloufi "exploded"
Coe's 12.1 came after a 12.9 round the curve, Makhloufi's 12.4 came after a 13.8 after the curve.
I repeat, Makhloufi's run was not as awesome as it looked or what people are suggesting. It's not his fault that everyone around him ran poorly.
And again, stats don't lie. They are about the only way one can compare 2 different races (to an extent). Certainly it is a more accurate way than stating Makhloufi demolished some 3:28 and 3:29 runners, therefore he must be doped.
[/quote]
The stats don't lie, I agree. There have been more extraodinary middle distance performances in hitory which we think of as clean. Coe was pushed to the line in his final 100m in Moscow. Makhloufi wasn't really pushed even from 200m to go yesterday.