Ho Hum wrote:
Look, this is nonsense if you actually have a sense of Lagat's career. He ran 3:26 in the 1500 in his prime, and his best 1500 last year was 3:34. In fact, look at what's happened to his 1500 since that 3:26, and you'll see a nice consistent loss of speed. Yearly SBs from 2001:
3:26.34
3:27.91
3:30.55
3:27.40
3:29.30
3:29.68
3:33.85
3:32.75
3:32.56
3:32.51
3:33.11
3:34.63
And for those who don't think it's possible to run fast as an older athlete, Eamonn Coughlan ran his last sub-4:00 mile at 41.
If you want to argue that Lagat's earlier times were doped, that's fine. However, to claim that his times haven't gotten worse when they very clearly have is just ignorance. His 5k has improved because he never focused on it in his prime. Here's the reality: he is a 3:33-34 guy with the endurance to go with it, much like Rupp last year (actually worse endurance).[/quote]
A 3:59 mile and a 7:33 indoor 3K are a little different.
Based on his regression in the 1500m, you could extrapolate back that he could have run about a 7:17 for the 3K in his prime. That is 2 seconds ahead of a WR (Komen's 7:19) that is a little hard to fathom in that it is way out there and seems untouchable. Like the Chinese women's MD records.
Also interesting, that nobody is even coming close to 3:26 in the 1500m these days, breaking 3:30 is very rare. Why do you think that is?
I am not saying what Lagat did was impossible. I am just saying that to accept it without question, in light of all that has been exposed in the past 5 years and the fact that they guy did have a "false" positive at one point, is not really opening your eyes. It is certainly not "nonsense" to say the performance invites a lot of questions.