Abraham Kiptum WORLD RECORD 58:18 Half Marathon

Kiprop slowed because he got older.

His 3:26 was on EPO like the other 2 Lagat and El G.

None had the basic speed to break 3:30

Yes. But for a welcome change, rek is right about one thing: if Coe's 3:29 (and 1;41! Lol he is still laughing I am sure) were clean, then Kiprop's 3:26 would also be believable.

But, for the most part of the 80s, blood transfusions were legal, and thereafter undectable if done properly, and initially there were no OOC tests.

Finally, rek what, no significant non African improvements in the last 28 years? Kidding, right? From 14:23 to 2:15 for the ladies, or 26:44 and 59:33 for the guys, I would call that significant.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Kiprop slowed because he got older.

His 3:26 was on EPO like the other 2 Lagat and El G.

None had the basic speed to break 3:30

I suspect you are probably right.

Rekrunner continues to maintain that EPO doesn't work on Africans - nor any other kind of stamina-related doping - which I find puzzling, since they are using it in numbers. Are they idiots? I don't think so. Their performances reflect something, because I don't believe East African runners are simply on a different planet from the rest. And now some of them are being caught.

I have followed tennis for years and in the last 15 years or so I have seen the game transformed by an influx of players who never tire, many - yet again - from a particular nationality, but not all. I recently spoke with a former senior WADA official, whom I know personally, about a particular player - widely suspected of doping - and his response was, "yeah - he's on EPO. All of them (his countrymen) are; they've been doing it for years - they've gotten really good at it". The official also said it makes it really hard to catch the dopers "when different masking substances are introduced every week", and the sports governance bodies typically don't want to bust their marquee names. So there you have it. Whether I'm watching pro tennis, cycling, soccer, or running, I'm increasingly watching the modern phenomenon of the apparently "tireless" athlete. Their stamina is through the roof.

Rekrunner, you say the advantages of doping in sprinting doesn't prove that doping will work for distance events, and ask that I give examples of distance runners who demonstrate that advantage. I do find it a bit odd that you overlook the recent busts of quite a few Kenyans, as ipso facto suggesting they likely gained some advantage from their doping, but we also have names like Ramzi, who many suspected for quite a few years - because he had gone from average to exceptional; the Chinese distance runners from the early '90's - whose records no one believes; the Eastern bloc middle distance runners of the '80's - whose records still stand and no one believes; and we can even go back to the likely blood-doping of Laase Viren - athletes have long been able to dope to improve their stamina, even before EPO's, and they clearly still can. Take one specific race - the women's 1500m final at London in 2012. Most of the field in that final doped, as subsequent tests have revealed. Doping may work better for women - but doesn't only work for women. The fact that we might speculate on the exact degree of improvement, because of limited data, doesn't refute the pretty safe assumption it has had some benefit.

On a previous point, I don't think that the runners who succeeded Cram and Coe were inherently better, so I still go with 3.29 1500m (3.46 mile) as a more "natural" world record territory. I would be dubious that the Monaco track could add a full 2 seconds over that distance - that's more like the difference between cinders and mondo.

casual obsever wrote:

Yes. But for a welcome change, rek is right about one thing: if Coe's 3:29 (and 1;41! Lol he is still laughing I am sure) were clean, then Kiprop's 3:26 would also be believable.

But, for the most part of the 80s, blood transfusions were legal, and thereafter undectable if done properly, and initially there were no OOC tests.

Finally, rek what, no significant non African improvements in the last 28 years? Kidding, right? From 14:23 to 2:15 for the ladies, or 26:44 and 59:33 for the guys, I would call that significant.

If Coe was a doper why didn't he run 3..26? The double Olympic 1500m champion was way faster than El G, Ngeny, Lagat, Kiprop ...

Armstronglivs wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Yes. But for a welcome change, rek is right about one thing: if Coe's 3:29 (and 1;41! Lol he is still laughing I am sure) were clean, then Kiprop's 3:26 would also be believable.

But, for the most part of the 80s, blood transfusions were legal, and thereafter undectable if done properly, and initially there were no OOC tests.

Finally, rek what, no significant non African improvements in the last 28 years? Kidding, right? From 14:23 to 2:15 for the ladies, or 26:44 and 59:33 for the guys, I would call that significant.

If Coe was a doper why didn't he run 3..26? The double Olympic 1500m champion was way faster than El G, Ngeny, Lagat, Kiprop ...

Ramzi doped and only ran a 3:29.

Ezekiel bread wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If Coe was a doper why didn't he run 3..26? The double Olympic 1500m champion was way faster than El G, Ngeny, Lagat, Kiprop ...

Ramzi doped and only ran a 3:29.

Never in the same class.

Ezekiel bread wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If Coe was a doper why didn't he run 3..26? The double Olympic 1500m champion was way faster than El G, Ngeny, Lagat, Kiprop ...

Ramzi doped and only ran a 3:29.

Only ran a 3:29.14 from a clean base of about 3:38/3:39? ? Ramzi improved from 3:39 to 3:30 (~4%) in one year! His fastest time post-ban was 3:37, so I put him in a category of around of 3:37-3:38. Those times wouldn't qualify him for the Olympics or WC, but yet he goes on to win double-gold at Helsinki and Olympic gold at Beijing...some of Champions are made of dope. Lol.

"James Nolan was 100 per cent sure about Ramzi. Not only was he never taken in or mildly impressed, he knew from day one Ramzi was on drugs. When the Moroccan turned Bahraini first burst onto the scene at the 2005 World Championships in Helsinki, winning the 800-1,500 metre double, Nolan told us he was “doped up to his eyeballs” – but of course we never printed that. We were 99 per cent sure; we just didn’t have any hard evidence."

Thanks for "rek is right about one thing" -- I will bookmark that. While you would call 1% significant, the significance pales when compared to 3%. We've already discussed to death the relative quantity and quality of significance of the men's progress, and why the women's events, lacking maturity, depth of quality, and an East African explosion in the 1990s for other reasons, must be considered separately. I'm responding to claims that expert Professor Schumacher expects up to 1:00 gains in the 10K, while the best non-African example of progress is 24 seconds faster than Barrios (which is significant on its own), and the second best is 9 seconds faster.

casual obsever wrote:

Yes. But for a welcome change, rek is right about one thing: if Coe's 3:29 (and 1;41! Lol he is still laughing I am sure) were clean, then Kiprop's 3:26 would also be believable.

But, for the most part of the 80s, blood transfusions were legal, and thereafter undectable if done properly, and initially there were no OOC tests.

Finally, rek what, no significant non African improvements in the last 28 years? Kidding, right? From 14:23 to 2:15 for the ladies, or 26:44 and 59:33 for the guys, I would call that significant.

Still, within the same body type, the best non-Africans tend to be heavier. Compare Ryan Hall 127 pounds, Galen Rupp 134 pounds, Chris Solinsky, first sub-27:00 10K, weighing a hefty 160 pounds, Sondre Moen 136 pounds to Wanjiru, 115 pounds, Geb 120 pounds, Bekele 123 pounds, Meb 125 pounds. Runners like Tergat (136 pounds) would be the large exceptions which weigh as much as some of the lightest non-Africans. Ryan Hall struggled for many years, (lacking strength with low T), and when he stopped running, buffed up with some 20-30 pounds of muscle.

Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:

That's corny rekrunner...E. Africans do not weigh 20-40 lbs less than their non-African competitors. When I'm watching the fast cats toe the line at the start of a 15, 5, 10, SC, etc., I'm seeing thin, skinny, diminutive looking competitors from all nations that look identical in build to the Kenyans & Ethiopians - only the skin color is different.

There's pretty much a universal body type for an elite male distance runner; small, thin, low BMI, flyweight, etc. I see some cats who are 5-5/5-6 weighing in at 115 - 120 lbs - not much bigger than a lot of female HS runners. You should know the universal body type of an elite male distance runner...shame on you for trying to pull a fast one here! ?

You still seem to have one basic misunderstanding -- my comments about EPO extend to all elites, Africans and non-Africans alike, in distance running events. I did a lengthy analysis to argue that one reason that it "doesn't work"(*) on East Africans, because it "hasn't yet worked"(*) on the best non-Africans either, because nothing appeared to "work"(*) over a period spanning 28 years from Jan 1990 to Jan 2018. This wasn't looking at science, but at what actually happened with the best performances in the real world over a period spanning decades. If you want to argue with me using examples, please restrict them to men's distance running events, and not tennis, or women in shorter events on steroids (something I often acknowledged already works). When we look at the recent busts, we find very few elite runners, like Kiprop, Erupe, Kisorio, Jebet, Jeptoo, and Sumgong. This is a handful of men and a handful of women in the whole history of time. We find small ratios like 2 in the top 100, or 3 in the top 30, or 2 in the top 16, leaving us with 98 in the top 100, 27 in the top 30, and 14 of the top 16 candidates potentially clean and natural. In a pool of hundreds and thousands of elites over time, I find it premature and prejudiced to project these handful of exceptions onto all Kenyan results. Has there been a recent increase in busts? The AIU recently published a figure that said something like 131 Kenyans were busted since 2004, something like around 8-9 per year, which seems to be about the same rate as the busts started making headlines around 2011-2012. It is too big, but it is still small in an absolute sense, compared to the number of athletes in the talent pool. Most of these are "no-names" and many of them were for steroids. And a bust doesn't mean that it worked, but at best that someone hoped it would work, and often in the case of Kenya, it was out of negligence or ignorance on the part of the athlete/doctor to treat illness rather than some explicit intent to improve performance. Lasse Viren blood doping is another one of these baseless statements. (*) Actually I argue that the effect is significantly exaggerated, and rarely say absolutely "it doesn't work". If you want to say it works "a little", then I'm not arguing against that. For example, I disagree with assertions like "Ramzi's clean baseline is 3:38-3:39", finding that method for determining a clean baseline deeply flawed.

Rekrunner, I am impressed with your knowledge, research and grasp of detail. Frankly, I don't think I'm equipped to contend with you on that level. But from everything I've come to understand about sport I feel you have somehow used your undoubted expertise to come to the wrong conclusion.

rekrunner wrote:

Lasse Viren blood doping is another one of these baseless statements.

Actually there is very good logic for suspecting Viren. We know they pioneered it in 1968 and were still doing it in the early 1980s, in between times their best athlete was strangely invincible for a week every four years against people who were faster than him. At a time when blood doping wasn't illegal.

Corny post again...rekrunner. On the bolded it sounds like you're suggesting a 100% detection rate with anti-doping when you say very few elite runners are caught as you listed those six speedsters there. It's my understanding that very few dopers get caught in the grand scheme of things. Wasn't it a WADA official who once said that "only the dopey dopers get caught?" I think you're smart enough to know that otherwise you're insulting your own intelligence, which I don't think you would risk doing in front of the LRC crowd. ?

Dick Pound, former head of WADA - "Only the dumb and the careless get caught".

I refer to tennis, in part because I know something about it, but also because WADA officials (privately) consider that EPO has become a significant factor in the sport, by giving players almost unlimited stamina. If EPO gives aerobic advantage in one sport, it is certainly going to do it in another.

Exactly. Thus, it is very misleading to compare that alleged 1% improvement to the 3% of the Africans. In the 70s and 80s, the Europeans were head and shoulder above the Kenyans + Ethiopians with respect to training, doping, nutrition, and even participation in distance running. That's why Rosa et al. had so much success after moving there.

Look up Kenyan marathon times of the 70s, and try to remember the best Kenyan marathon runner of the 80s.

Then try to find the best female Kenyan marathon runners of the 70s and 80s.

Or use a history book to read about East Africa in the 70s...

Again misleading, because Schumacher compares EPO to clean times, and you compare Barrios (whose national record is 29 years old!) with Rupp ("likely doping", testo spike while in marathon training, testo medication as teenager, likely prohibited method user etc.). Is your point now that Barrios was clean and Rupp an EPO user?

That old unbroken records - from such a dirty times - are extremely suspicious, as is Rupp. It would only be consequent to assume that either both were clean (then your 24 s are a consequence of better technology + training and maybe more talent) or that both were dirty (then your 24 s are a consequence of better technology including doping + training and maybe more talent). Neither would disprove Schumacher's claim.

Finally, Barrios' record is from 1989 not 1981, so he might already have used EPO.

rekrunner wrote:

Still, within the same body type, the best non-Africans tend to be heavier. Compare Ryan Hall 127 pounds, Galen Rupp 134 pounds, Chris Solinsky, first sub-27:00 10K, weighing a hefty 160 pounds, Sondre Moen 136 pounds to Wanjiru, 115 pounds, Geb 120 pounds, Bekele 123 pounds, Meb 125 pounds. Runners like Tergat (136 pounds) would be the large exceptions which weigh as much as some of the lightest non-Africans.

Ryan Hall struggled for many years, (lacking strength with low T), and when he stopped running, buffed up with some 20-30 pounds of muscle.

Hall, Rupp & Moen are 5-10...shrink them down in height to the 5-5/5-6 frames of Wanjiru, Geb, Bekele, etc. and they would be similar in bodyweight. Solinsky may be a "hefty 160 pounds" but he's also over 6-1. If he carried 160 lbs on a 5-5 frame of the Bekele frames and still ran that fast...that would be miraculous!

OTOH, a couple of fast cats built identical to some E. Africans are Iguider (5-7,115) & Manzano (5-5, 125). And the two fastest Japanese marathoners are Yuta Shitara (5-6, 104) & Suguru Osako (5-7, 115).

It's important to include the height of distance runners and not just the weight when you're comparing body mass.

But you really tries to climb on the glass for supporting all your conclusions.

So, if the athletes I named competed clean, for you it's not possible they achieved those results for their talent and their training, but they NEEDED TO USE SOME DOPING OFF SEASON.

You are really sick, obsessed by one idea only, without considering the possibility that there is also some other way for running at the top.

I was explain to you (also if probably useless) : I was for 350 days per year, in the period 2003-2010, with the athletes I coached, because Qatar had training camp FOR ALL THE SEASONS, and I was ALWAYS with them.

So, or you decide I'm a liar, or, if you think I'm honest and correct, you have to consider the possibility to run WR with training only.

After this, you have to tell me if I can suppose possible to have advantages of 7" in 3000m, 30" in 5000m, 1' in 10000m, 2' in HM and 4' in full marathon, knowing what I know about the FACT that is possible running at the top without any doping, and without any legal supplement too.

Show me if you are able to use your brain, or your belly only.

rekrunner wrote:

It doesn't take me long to find quotes like "Kenyan runners improved their 3000-meter times by an average of 5% after taking EPO, which is the same improvement seen in Scottish runners", in the press.

Are you now critical of journalists reporting the outcomes of a scientific studies? If you read the conclusion from the abstract of the Haile et al study on Kenyans & EPO, they're simply reporting word for word the outcome of the study. Are you advocating for censorship on studies that show a positive effect of EPO with athletes?

100% detection rate is not necessary. Even at 50% or 33% or 25% doped athlete detection rate, the point still stands. (Don't be confused by WADA statistics concerning positive samples rather than athletes). Looking at the 1500m, we have Kiprop and Ramzi at the top, it is premature and prejudicial to say anything about the remaining top-10 or top-20, based on so few known examples.

Think This One Through wrote:

Corny post again...rekrunner. On the bolded it sounds like you're suggesting a 100% detection rate with anti-doping when you say very few elite runners are caught as you listed those six speedsters there. It's my understanding that very few dopers get caught in the grand scheme of things. Wasn't it a WADA official who once said that "only the dopey dopers get caught?" I think you're smart enough to know that otherwise you're insulting your own intelligence, which I don't think you would risk doing in front of the LRC crowd. ?