Sebastian Coe vs Said Aouita - 1500/mile race - Who would win?

I said they were fast times. You even quoted it.

I didn't say that, but I think it is not a bad answer. I think the hypothetical matchup is each at their best.

Who is the greatest? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So to be clear, with all these late 1990 and 2000 Moroccan examples, you are helping me argue that there is no "as soon as" link between "through the roof" improvements, which didn't occur until post-1990, and EPO-availability as early as 1987, and O2-vector doping as early as the 1970s.

So you're saying that Coe had too much acceleration and change of pace for Aouita so long as he tucked in behind him in a non paced championship race, but that Aouita would be favoured to win in a WR attempt time trial? Which year is this? 84? 86? What if the hypothetical match up of the OP occurred in 81?

casual obsever wrote:

I don't know. I'd go with the Tucker suspicion scale, while I am less optimistic than him.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7610954

All of the above would get at least a 7 from me.

No way WvN is only a 5, he took a WR off MJ, that puts one on a mega suspicious list. Local biases, "our guys don't do drugs, we're a better society than that, we don't need to cheat. I know his/her parents and they're good people."

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Given all O2-vector doping results are the same, seems like we should seek to find a better explanation for the unprecedented African performance improvements.

There are at least two reasons, as pointed out to you several times:

a) Blood doping was next to impossible in most parts of Africa during the 80s, and using EPO in the 90s was not.

b) The training was quite rudimentary in most parts of Africa during the 80s, which changed dramatically with the European coaches/agents/managers moving there.

a and b combined formed a cascade effect, as with the success came yugely increased popularity of "professional" running in Kenya.

(Also I doubt that they are exactly the same, but that's a minor detail.)

Well stated, nobody is saying that East Africans don't have a higher prevalence of fast runners it's just the cocktail of undetectable drugs and extreme training both arrived in these countries in the mid 90s to dramatic effect.

Van der Zwaan wrote:

Moses Kiptanui (McDonald)

Daniel Komen (McDonald)

Paul Tergat (Rosa)

Moses Tanui (Rosa???)

Paul Bitok

All cheats?

You know my real troll name wrote:

No way WvN is only a 5, he took a WR off MJ, that puts one on a mega suspicious list. Local biases, "our guys don't do drugs, we're a better society than that, we don't need to cheat. I know his/her parents and they're good people."

Agreed, that's also why for example Jager and Wilson get off so easy here, plus of course - as demonstrated in this thread - Coe and Ovett with the Brits.

Firstly, I'm not quite sure why this formerly published (on these boards) data, which focuses on 'non-African' athletes is relevant to this thread/discussion? By excluding Africans (who have always had a large presence in the ranks of the world's best middle and distance runners), you're basing all implied 'drug trends' on European athletes. Given the provenance of recent positive cases over the last few years, I would strongly suggest that this is at least a case of 'barking up just one small tree'.

My personal assessment of the trends shown in the progression of the 5000m, is that it merely shows a natural and expected progression over the last 50+ years. In fact, the rate of improvement from one decade to the next shows a diminishing rate of progression, which is what one should see!

A 9 secs improvement down to 8 secs, down to 6 and then 3 secs, is perfectly normal, illustrating a gradual improvement in tracks, spikes, knowledge of nutrition, physiology, training, etc. A suggested effect of a variety of different drug types are not necessary to explain this trend, although it is applied, nonetheless.

Secondly, this analysis is based on just 5 athletes per decade! This is hardly a satisfactory sample pool to get a clear picture of trends based on available drug use. I would suggest you need 20 athletes at least to provide some useful data.

I have compiled a similar list based on top 10 performers and top 10 performances for each decade, in the 800m. This is not ideal, as explained in the previous paragraph, but it does give a more accurate impression than that based on just 5.

The first thing I noticed, as I went through all the athletes' names until I reached the No. 10 non-African, was just how much longer it took to reach that point with each succeeding decade. While that wasn't much of a surprise to me or probably anyone here, the sheer number of Africans that were ahead of the 10th non-African increased enormously in the 90's and 00's.

I don't have the time to type up all the athletes (African as well as non-African) at present, I will give an overview of what I found.

1960's - only 1 African born athlete (Kiprugut) in the top 11. The top 10 guys were: - Snell, Ryun, Doubell, Kemper, Bell, Dyce, Plachy, Farrell, Sandison & Crothers. Interestingly only Snell had a 2nd performance (1:45.1) that made it into the top 10 times.

Top 10 men - average time = 1:45.02

Top 10 performances - average time = 1:44.97

1970's - Only 2 Africans (Boit & Kipkurgat) in the top 12. Of the top 10 non-Africans - Coe, Wohlhuter, Juantorena, Fiasconaro, Beyer, Van Damme, Marajo, Susanj, Ovett & Wottle - only El Caballo has more than 1 time that appears in the top 10 times, with 4 performances!

Top 10 men - average time = 1:43.69

Top 10 performances - average time = 1:43.53

1980's - There are 3 Africans that make it in to the top 13, with Koskei at No.3, Konchellah at No.6 and Ereng at No.7.

The top 10 non-Africans are: - Coe, Cruz, Gray, Cram, Barbosa, Mack, P. Elliott, Wuyke, Druppers and Jones.

Interestingly, the top 10 times are provided by just 4 athletes (Cruz, Gray, Coe & Cram), with half, 5 of them, coming from Cruz, and 3 from Gray. This does distort the stats somewhat and makes for a bigger disparity between top 10 men and top 10 times.

Top 10 men - average time = 1:42.97

Top 10 performances - average time = 1:42.44

1990's - This is where there is a big sea change in the 800m event. Before reaching the 10th fastest non-African man over 800m, I had to get to No.25. So, there were 15 Africans and 10 non-Africans in the top 25. The other thing that struck me was the sheer quantity of performances from the African athletes compared to the non-Africans, and that's not just from Kipketer. I counted 96 performances from African born athletes that were quicker than the 10th fastest European, Martin Steele at 1:43.84. That works out at c. 6 times/performances (on average) for each of the 15 African runners. In contrast, only Rodal (with 3) and Gray (with 2) amongst the non-Africans, set more than 1 time that made it into the top 10 non-African performances.

The top 10 non-Africans were: - Rodal, Gray, Tellez, Bucher, P. Elliott, Barbosa, Everett, Kenah, Douglas and Steele.

Top 10 men - average time = 1:43.13

Top 10 performances - average time = 1:43.00

2000's - We have to go as far as the No.19 fastest man to reach the 10th fastest non-African. In other words, there are 9 Africans and 10 non-Africans, so there is more of a balance than compared to the previous decade.

The top 10 non-Africans were: - Borzakovskiy, Bucher, Lopez, Baala, Czaplewski, Som, Milkevics? K. Robinson, Reed and Longo.

The top 10 times set from the above were provided by just 5 athletes, and 2 of those (Borza & Bucher) provided 7 of them!

Top 10 men - average time = 1:43.27

Top 10 performances - average time = 1:42.92

2010's - Like the 1990's, I needed to go as far as the 25th fastest man from this decade (well 8 years) before reaching the 10th fastest non-African. Also, like the 90's, there were some 97 performances from 15 African athletes that were better than the 10th fastest non-African. In contrast, there were 20 performances from the 10 non-African athletes that were faster than the 10th fastest non-African athlete, Lewandowski at 1:43.721

The top 10 fastest non-Africans were: - Tuka, Bosse, Soloman, Murphy, Symmonds, Kszczot, Berian, Brazier, Lopez and Lewandowski. Of those, Bosse, Soloman and Symmonds all produced 2 performances that made it into the top 10 fastest times by non-Africans.

Another standout is the fact that half of the non-Africans are from the US. That's a greater number than in any of the previous 5 decades!

Top 10 men average time = 1:43.14

Top 10 times average time = 1:43.01

In concluding, I think the stats show that there has really been very little change in the depth of standards over 800m since the end of the 70's. If we look at the average of the top 10 performers (top 10 men):

1960s: - 1:45.02

1970s: - 1:43.69

1980s: - 1:42.97

1990s: - 1:43.13

2000s: - 1:43.27

2010s: - 1:43.14

NB, some of the performances from the 60's would have been on cinders, so if that were taken into consideration, then possibly 0.5 secs could come off the average.

These stats show that over the last 4 decades, the average time for the best 10 non-African men over 800m, has fluctuated by just 0.3sec.

If we now look at the fastest 10 performances/times run by non-African men in each decade we see a similar pattern.

1960s: - 1:44.97

1970s: - 1:43.53

1980s: - 1:42.44

1990s: - 1:43.00

2000s: - 1:42.92

2010s: - 1:43.01

We see that for non-African athletes, the average of their best times set over the past 3 decades have differed by just 0.09secs.

The one slight anomaly from the stats above is the 1980's being on average about 0.5sec faster than the decades that followed. This can partly be explained by the fact that half of the ten fastest times were set by just one person, Cruz. But, when you then compare to the previous table (that of fastest 10 performers), one can see that there is actually little change in the 80's to the overall trend.

At this juncture, I want to raise the point that dividing the last 50 years into nice rounded decades starting with years ending in zero (0) is a somewhat arbitrary division. In the same respect, so is 10-year groupings; why not 12- or 15-year divisions?

I have conducted further analysis of 800m data in which I have changed the start of each decade assessed. I have also chosen to include African athletes, and this time focused on the top 10 performers' best time in each decade, rather than top 10 performances: otherwise some decades would just reflect the dominance of 1 or 2 men, e.g. Kipketer or Rudisha.

I have chosen to divide the years into:

1964-1973;

1974- 1983;

1984 - 1993;

1994 - 2003;

2004 - 2013;

2014 - 2018.

The results show a very different trend.

1964 - 1973 (N.B. some times taken from 880yd races): -

Top 10 performers - Fiasconaro, Wohlhuter, Ryun, Wottle, Doubell, Vasala, Malan, Kiprugut, Broberg & Swensen.

Average time: - 1:44.37

1974 - 1983 (N.B. some times taken from 880yd races): -

Top 10 performers - Coe, Juantorena, Wohlhuter, Boit, Cram, Wulbeck, Beyer, Van Damme, Marajo, Kipkurgat.

Average time: - 1:43.50

1984 - 1993

Top 10 performers - Cruz, Koskei, Gray, Cram, Elliott, Konchellah, Coe, Barbosa, Ereng, Tanui.

Average time: - 1:42.82

1994 - 2003

Top 10 performers - Kipketer, Bungei, Borzakovskiy, Bucher, Rodal, Ndururi, Sepeng, Kimutai, Onyancha, Nduwimana

Average time: - 1:42.47

2004 - 2013

Top 10 performers - Rudisha, Amos, Kaki, Aman, Kitum, Yego, Borzakovskiy, Kamel, Solomon, Lalang

Average time: - 1:42.38

2014 - 2018

Top 10 performers - Korir, Amos, Rudisha, Tuka, Bosse, Makhloufi, Aman, Cheruiyot, A. Kipketer, Murphy

Average time: - 1:42.55

This doesn't look anything like the trend put forward by Rekrunner. Apart from the progression being more gradual, and reflecting a diminishing rate of progression - -0.87, -0.68, -0.35, -0.09, and then + 0.17 (based on just 5 years) - there is no clear 'blood doping' phase in the 70's or 'steroid free for all' in the 80's. Moreover, steroids were only legal in the first period covered (1964 -73), being made illegal in 1975. and steroids have been tested for since then. The idea that there was no testing for steroids in the 70's and 80's is not true. Of course, the testing improved and become more sophisticated, as any drug testing does, but there were athletes caught in these decades (mainly sprinters and field event competitors, and very few middle-distance guys), proving that there was a test and it was relatively effective.

The other takeaway from this analysis is the increased number of African athletes that appear on the lists, as the 'average time' improved. From just 1 African athlete appearing on the list from 64-73, to 2 in the 74-83 period, 4 from 84-93, 7 from 94 -03, 8 from 04-13 and 7 in the last period.

I don't believe that this trend is purely down to EPO use being more widespread in African nations, although we know that testing there has been less robust compared to most other parts of the world, and I do think it has played a part. What I do believe, however, is that by adjusting sample group sizes and changing the dates of the groupings just slightly, you can derive a completely different picture and trend.

There was testing for anabolic steroids but it wasn't very sensitive and was really only effective for recent use. OTOH, there was no test for testosterone use as they didn't have the state of the art Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) test that is used now to detect synthetic testosterone in samples. And the T/E ratio was set very high back then (6/1) which means an athlete would have to use very high dosages to trip that marker. So, basically small to moderate dosing of T was a free b back then. And as mentioned so many times here, blood doping was another free b (given resources & $$$$), as there was no detection methods at all (no ABP = free & clear blood doping).

And something you should read here from the experts:

"Though no athletes were caught doping at the 1980 Summer Olympics, it has been claimed that athletes had begun using testosterone and other drugs for which tests had not been yet developed. A 1989 report by a committee of the Australian Senateclaimed that "there is hardly a medal winner at the Moscow Games, certainly not a gold medal winner...who is not on one sort of drug or another: usually several kinds. The Moscow Games might well have been called the Chemists' Games".[24]

"A member of the IOC Medical Commission, Manfred Donike, privately ran additional tests with a new technique for identifying abnormal levels of testosterone by measuring its ratio to epitestosterone in urine. Twenty percent of the specimens he tested, including those from sixteen gold medalists would have resulted in disciplinary proceedings had the tests been official.[24] The results of Donike's unofficial tests later convinced the IOC to add his new technique to their testing protocols.[25] The first documented case of "blood doping" occurred at the 1980 Summer Olympics as a runner was transfused with two pints of blood before winning medals in the 5000 m and 10,000 m.[26]"

Uniform? I wore uniforms in track and cross-country. I've also been called a grammar jerk, as if somehow I made a mistake, for pointing out things like "whoms" and "uniformed" which make it easy to dismiss your message entirely as coming from someone even more uneducated. Much of the science in these discussions, like time trial experiments, or survey results, is not that hard to understand. It's also not hard to understand when basic parts of the scientific process is missing, and what the implications can be on the observed results. To talk about performance, the difference between HIF and EPO is not as important as knowing how a stopwatch works, and how to use a spreadsheet. My "clean agenda"? I didn't know I had one, but if I did, you are trying to make it sound bad to argue to be clean.

Everybody hates Ross Tucker wrote:

Rekrunner is also a hack, an uniformed and uneducated know-it-all whoms bias knows no bounds. He doesn't know the difference between HIF's and exogenous epo but blindly follows beliefs on it and uses the veil of science he does not understand to push his clean agenda.

Yes, you or someone else on here has posted this highlighted text on Moscow before. It doesn't divulge how someone can CLAIM that every gold medal winner in Moscow was on some form of drugs, 9 years later on the other side of the World?

Anyone can claim anything, but without offering actual evidence, it's just gossip.

IIRC, the first documented case of blood doping in the 1980 Olympics was actually a confession by a Finnish athlete who competed in the 5 and 10k. This is well documented, as is the 1984 case of Vainio competing in the 10k at LA and the claims by Canova of some leading Italian 5 and 10k athletes using blood transfusions (no mention of steroids!) in the 1980-84 period. There is a common link between those 'cases'; they were all distance runners, and they were from just 2 nations.

How these facts can be extrapolated, spun and applied to events like 800m and 1500m, with very different training demands and energy systems, requires a somewhat bold leap of faith. Ask yourself why there were dozens of cases of throwers, sprinters and women athletes caught between 76 and 84 for steroids, and then compare to the number of middle distance men that were found similarly guilty?

What were the thoughts and beliefs (of coaches) at that time as to the benefits of steroids or blood doping for 800m? It's all very well looking back and stating from a position of 40 years more knowledge and understanding, how beneficial steroids and blood transfusions 'would be' for these events, but at the time, with a seeming lack of factual cases of those actually using these peds, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that either practices were widespread in this era.

I'm not saying there were no drugs being used at this time, there clearly were, and we know this due to documented evidence.

I'm not saying that no middle distance male athlete was taking peds either, as we know that Beyer, for example, was on a state sponsored doping programme run by the GDR. But what I am stating is that we cannot base what athletes were doing in other events and disciplines, and apply their behaviour to events where the same evidence is lacking.

rekrunner wrote:

Uniform? I wore uniforms in track and cross-country.

I've also been called a grammar jerk, as if somehow I made a mistake, for pointing out things like "whoms" and "uniformed" which make it easy to dismiss your message entirely as coming from someone even more uneducated.

Much of the science in these discussions, like time trial experiments, or survey results, is not that hard to understand.

It's also not hard to understand when basic parts of the scientific process is missing, and what the implications can be on the observed results.

To talk about performance, the difference between HIF and EPO is not as important as knowing how a stopwatch works, and how to use a spreadsheet.

My "clean agenda"? I didn't know I had one, but if I did, you are trying to make it sound bad to argue to be clean.

You do not understand it and use science to back your points and not always time trials. If you did, you would know the difference between HIF and exogenous epo is the basic scientific argument and it is not missing from discussion, it's Canova's argument and what you are trying to use to sway opinion but you are too clueless to see it and understand it.

Where did I say it was bad to be clean? Point it out to me. I said that you lack objectivity and are easily drawn to conclude all evidence is proof of your theories or in layman for you, a clean agenda to prove everyone is clean.

Take your grammar and stick it where the sun don't shine. I'm not pretending to be a grammar expert like you with science.

Well...my suggest is to contact the Australian Senate Committee and tell them their 1989 report doesn't offer "actual evidence" if you think you know more than what investigation revealed.

IIRC, the first documented case of blood doping in the 1980 Olympics was actually a confession by a Finnish athlete who competed in the 5 and 10k. This is well documented, as is the 1984 case of Vainio competing in the 10k at LA and the claims by Canova of some leading Italian 5 and 10k athletes using blood transfusions (no mention of steroids!) in the 1980-84 period. There is a common link between those 'cases'; they were all distance runners, and they were from just 2 nations.[/quote] Did you know Vainio tested positive for Metenolone at LA consequently having his silver in the 10k disqualified? The story on this is too funny - he thought he was supposed to be administered T injections (non-detectable) but instead was given a long glow time anabolic steroid. Lol. And what's this funny business of the FAA running their own control tests on their distance runners to help them avoid getting pinged at international competitions? FFS, that sounds like something the Soviet block nations were doing (see below). So, here's some evidence that some (certainly not all) top level distance runners were using androgens.

Doping case at the Olympics 1984

"In 1984, Vainio started his season by finishing third at the Rotterdam Marathon with a personal record of 2:13:04. After the race he gave a doping sample in the test organized by the Finnish Athletics Association. The test did not have official status and was merely considered to be a control test to help avoid Finnish athletes getting caught at the tests performed in international championships. Therefore, only the so-called A-sample was taken and not the B-sample, which is used to ensure the test result after a positive A-sample. However, Vainio's A-sample was tested positive foranabolic steroids, and the head coach of the Finnish Athletics Federation, Antti Lanamäki, delegated Timo Vuorimaa, the head coach of long-distance runners, to inform Vainio about the test result. Vuorimaa informed Vainio only by mentioning that there was something strange in his test sample, not providing detailed information about the substance. Vainio believed that he had only been using testosterone and not anabolic steroids at all. Therefore, his only action was to give up drug use a little bit earlier prior to the anticipated tests.[2]"

"Vainio's track season was really strong. In June 1984, he competed five times in 5000 metres, the weakest result being 13:30.40, and once in 10,000 metres with his all-time second best result 27:41.75. At the Bislett Games on 28 June, he broke Lasse Virén's Finnish record in 5000 metres and finished second after Fernando Mamede[3] with the result 13:16.02. In July, he competed only three times; first two times in the Finnish Championships on July 6–8 in Kajaani, where he took the gold medals after solo runs in both 5000 metres (13:24.99) and 10,000 metres (28:06.85), and the third time when improving his 3000 metres record to 7:44.42 in Varkaus on 12 July. According to a Vainio interview in 2004, he took his next injection after the Rotterdam Marathonaround 10 July, and was sure that this time period would be long enough to allowmetabolism to take its effect and ensure a negative test at the Olympics.[2]"

"10,000 metres final was run on 6 August. Vainio took the lead after 5700 metres and only Alberto Cova was able to follow him. When the final lap started, these two runners were well over 100 metres ahead of the other runners. This time, hovewer, Vainio was not able to challenge Cova, who took the gold with the time 27:47.54. Vainio won silver with the time 27:51.10. Far behind, Mike McLeod was third at the finish line with the time 28:06.22. Vainio also qualified for the 5000 metres final, but was not permitted to start after his doping sample following the 10,000 metres final tested positive for Metenolone."

There weren't dozens of cases of women distance runners testing positive for androgens (maybe a half dozen or so - mostly Soviet block nations - that I found on Wikipedia's list of doping cases for athletics). Lots of throwers & sprinters testing positive though - probably, IMO, higher dosages being used too close to competition. Distance runners wouldn't need high dosages - too much bulk and weight gain. Lower dosages for improved recovery from hard workouts, some added leg strength & improved healing time from injuries is probably the objective. And what about undetectable T? (that Vainio was supposed to be using). I wonder how many distance runners from that era supplemented their hard training with "little T" for better recovery and any injury rehab, if applicable. We will never know since it was undetectable back then.

Also, 02-vector doping would have benefited the 800 as the aerobic energy system is pretty high for that discipline (~66%.).

Italian news article in 1983 suspecting Coe would not have passed doping controls for the 1983 WC, hence had to miss the event.

It would be great if someone has the original Italian article.

We all know the Italians know a doper haha.

It seems it is you who misunderstands a great deal, including it seems what my theories and conclusions are. Besides a correct understanding of the science, I also use history and math to support my arguments and theories. And unlike you, I offer support for my arguments and theories. Whatever science argues about HIF versus EPO, I find the question uninteresting, unless it tells me how it impacts top performance. I didn't say "bad to be clean", but "bad to argue to be clean" -- another misunderstanding on your part. You said "clean agenda" as an obvious criticism. I just didn't understand how a "clean agenda" could ever be considered a bad thing. If it was not meant as a criticism, I'll take it as a compliment. Others have accused me, with a similar baselessness, that my arguments about performance have the opposite goal of defending or promoting doping. I don't try to prove everyone is clean. I don't believe everyone is clean. There are enough prevalence studies -- more science I understood -- to demonstrate that many athletes are doping.

Everybody hates Ross Tucker wrote:

You do not understand it and use science to back your points and not always time trials. If you did, you would know the difference between HIF and exogenous epo is the basic scientific argument and it is not missing from discussion, it's Canova's argument and what you are trying to use to sway opinion but you are too clueless to see it and understand it.

Where did I say it was bad to be clean? Point it out to me. I said that you lack objectivity and are easily drawn to conclude all evidence is proof of your theories or in layman for you, a clean agenda to prove everyone is clean.

Take your grammar and stick it where the sun don't shine. I'm not pretending to be a grammar expert like you with science.

Indeed, I didn't look (initially) at 800m, and I didn't put forward any trend of performances over time.

Deanouk wrote:

This doesn't look anything like the trend put forward by Rekrunner...

Did you know Vainio tested positive for Metenolone at LA consequently having his silver in the 10k disqualified? The story on this is too funny - he thought he was supposed to be administered T injections (non-detectable) but instead was given a long glow time anabolic steroid. Lol. And what's this funny business of the FAA running their own control tests on their distance runners to help them avoid getting pinged at international competitions? FFS, that sounds like something the Soviet block nations were doing (see below). So, here's some evidence that some (certainly not all) top level distance runners were using androgens.

Doping case at the Olympics 1984

"In 1984, Vainio started his season by finishing third at the Rotterdam Marathon with a personal record of 2:13:04. After the race he gave a doping sample in the test organized by the Finnish Athletics Association. The test did not have official status and was merely considered to be a control test to help avoid Finnish athletes getting caught at the tests performed in international championships. Therefore, only the so-called A-sample was taken and not the B-sample, which is used to ensure the test result after a positive A-sample. However, Vainio's A-sample was tested positive foranabolic steroids, and the head coach of the Finnish Athletics Federation, Antti Lanamäki, delegated Timo Vuorimaa, the head coach of long-distance runners, to inform Vainio about the test result. Vuorimaa informed Vainio only by mentioning that there was something strange in his test sample, not providing detailed information about the substance. Vainio believed that he had only been using testosterone and not anabolic steroids at all. Therefore, his only action was to give up drug use a little bit earlier prior to the anticipated tests.[2]"

"Vainio's track season was really strong. In June 1984, he competed five times in 5000 metres, the weakest result being 13:30.40, and once in 10,000 metres with his all-time second best result 27:41.75. At the Bislett Games on 28 June, he broke Lasse Virén's Finnish record in 5000 metres and finished second after Fernando Mamede[3] with the result 13:16.02. In July, he competed only three times; first two times in the Finnish Championships on July 6–8 in Kajaani, where he took the gold medals after solo runs in both 5000 metres (13:24.99) and 10,000 metres (28:06.85), and the third time when improving his 3000 metres record to 7:44.42 in Varkaus on 12 July. According to a Vainio interview in 2004, he took his next injection after the Rotterdam Marathonaround 10 July, and was sure that this time period would be long enough to allowmetabolism to take its effect and ensure a negative test at the Olympics.[2]"

"10,000 metres final was run on 6 August. Vainio took the lead after 5700 metres and only Alberto Cova was able to follow him. When the final lap started, these two runners were well over 100 metres ahead of the other runners. This time, hovewer, Vainio was not able to challenge Cova, who took the gold with the time 27:47.54. Vainio won silver with the time 27:51.10. Far behind, Mike McLeod was third at the finish line with the time 28:06.22. Vainio also qualified for the 5000 metres final, but was not permitted to start after his doping sample following the 10,000 metres final tested positive for Metenolone."

There weren't dozens of cases of women distance runners testing positive for androgens (maybe a half dozen or so - mostly Soviet block nations - that I found on Wikipedia's list of doping cases for athletics). Lots of throwers & sprinters testing positive though - probably, IMO, higher dosages being used too close to competition. Distance runners wouldn't need high dosages - too much bulk and weight gain. Lower dosages for improved recovery from hard workouts, some added leg strength & improved healing time from injuries is probably the objective. And what about undetectable T? (that Vainio was supposed to be using). I wonder how many distance runners from that era supplemented their hard training with "little T" for better recovery and any injury rehab, if applicable. We will never know since it was undetectable back then.

Also, 02-vector doping would have benefited the 800 as the aerobic energy system is pretty high for that discipline (~66%.).

]

Mike McLeod the true winner of the 1984 OG 10000m?

Lord Coe wrote:

Italian news article in 1983 suspecting Coe would not have passed doping controls for the 1983 WC, hence had to miss the event.

It would be great if someone has the original Italian article.

We all know the Italians know a doper haha.

There wasn't an original Italian article! The Italian link is an article written by an ex 2nd rate athlete, Andrea Benatti (born 1972, pbs of 10.89, 22.32 & 50.60 (100, 200, 400m))who is a blogger: in other words he posts a lot of gossip he finds elsewhere.

The original article was written and published in a Finnish tabloid (akin to the Sun in UK)in 83 by someone with a poor reputation and scant respect for evidence. This topic has been discussed on these boards before, and there were Finnish posters who downplayed the reliability of the newspaper and 'journalist'.

Mike McLeod the true winner of the 1984 OG 10000m?

]

Yes, I remember the 'stupidity' of Vainio well.

But the unfortunate events and story of how he was caught, only reinforces the evidence we have that points to long distance athletes from 2 specific countries, Italy & Finland, as being known dopers. Even then, it doesn't mean all distance athletes from those countries doped, but it is natural to suspect this group as being more likely to have; just as there is a heightened suspicion of Kenyan middle and distance athletes at present, down to dozens of positive test results in the last 3 years.

Also, while the current thinking is that 800m running is more aerobic (66%, you claim), this has changed quite considerably since the 80's understanding of the systems' breakdown. I have read accounts suggesting the ratio is 50%/50%, and in one training manual I have from 1985, written by Ron Hill and Harry Wilson (Steve Ovett's coach), they suggest the balance is 67% anaerobic to 33% aerobic! So this would seem to suggest that the philosophy of the time was that 800m running was more anaerobic, regardless if this is what now is the case?

9.5/10. Best one for some time. A great topic with total uncertainty and hardcore jihadists on both sides e.g. Coevett and Saidipede, LOL! Massive response, ongoing.

Nice work.

BTW, Coe FTW in all circumstances except an all-out WR assault with Aouita in top '85 shape and then it's 50/50.