Sure, but the focus of this thread is sports fan psychology. Do you ever take a position on anything, or do you just ask questions and assign troll ratings?
I know sports psychology inside out and back to front.
However, about your interest in sports science, how interested are you in Kipchoge's numbers?
If you're smart enough you might be able to grasp that I'm also testing your own psychology here.
Actually it looks like you’re just trolling. You are that which you despise. Fascinating, but off-topic.
Please engage directly in the topic by sharing the limits of what you would believe to be clean, or find another thread to hijack.
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
This is a completely legitimate question given the history of outlier endurance sport athletes. I honestly don't know why some people get so offended by it (concepts of wishful + fearful thinking perhaps?)
When you look at it pragmatically, there are clear and strong points to support both sides of the opinion ledger
Supporting a possibly clean Kipchoge
- He's one of only a handful of truly elite track talents that committed to the marathon
- Was fortunate to have his career coincide with an marked evolution of footwear innovation
- Irrespective of anything, has forged a great mindset/mental approach to the distance and running in general
- Is very professional in his preparation and race execution (for example I don't think I've ever seen an elite marathon runner drink as much as he does during running and that's obviously by design)
Supporting a dirty Kipchoge
- Is associated with an agent that within the sport has a reputation for "association" with doctors/practices that "could" be involved with doping
- Just ran a WR at age 38 (possibly older), 4 years after his last one (which is a really long period of time between performances at this level)
- Is sponsored by a brand that surely has known about doping practices from it's best athletes for decades but chooses to turn a blind eye in the interests of marketing and their own agenda.
Look I'm fine either way with anyones opinion on it. Could I say definitively he's doping? Absolutely not. Could I say definitely he's clean? Likewise. All of this just comes with the territory - if he failed a test tomorrow I wouldn't be shocked or surprised put it that way, just as I wouldn't be if he retired and rode off into the sunset without any implications at all.
I think it’s only fair you answer my question that started this thread before posing your own. Here it is, again:
If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
What you don't understand is that he runs faster using less energy, not more energy.
This is the definition of running economy. This is not new science. It's decades old, but most runners have no clue about it.
Thank you. So it sounds like you’ll accept any records Kipchoge breaks until he’s age 40.
To answer your question, I’m very interested to know how someone can cleanly not only smash world records at nearly age 38, but also how his level of performance at that age far surpasses anything he did in his 20s.
I would think that by now people who are inclined toward suspicion are already suspicious and people who are not may never be no matter how fast he goes. If that second group was to become suspicious it would likely be his age rather than his speed generating the suspicion.
That second group also includes the kind of people that defend dopers even after they test positive.
I would think that by now people who are inclined toward suspicion are already suspicious and people who are not may never be no matter how fast he goes. If that second group was to become suspicious it would likely be his age rather than his speed generating the suspicion.
That second group also includes the kind of people that defend dopers even after they test positive.
Definitely. Unless you've got someone like Jon here who really believes that PEDs do nothing to aid performance and seems frustrated that few share his opinion.
I would think that by now people who are inclined toward suspicion are already suspicious and people who are not may never be no matter how fast he goes. If that second group was to become suspicious it would? likely be his age rather than his speed generating the suspicion.
I agree. It’s the age thing that got me the most. It’s actually an interesting psychology case study. How much can someone defy the laws of aging and performance before people who were once believers start to become suspicious. What level of incredible can someone be before their fans become incredulous.
Anyone know the oldest athlete to set a WR in a distance event? I think Geb was around 35 and Tergat 34 when the set marathon WRs. Regina Jacobs ran a PR and WR at age 39 or 40 but it was an indoor 1500.
But Kipchoge didn't just break the record, he crushed it.
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
Sure, this is a fair question, but I think it misses the crux of the issue. For me the absolute level of Kipchoge is less important / astounding than the relative edge he has on all his competitors. Of course the idea that someone running 4:37 26 times in a row has pharmaceutical help is compelling, no matter who is doing it. Heck, I personally have no trouble believing that every performance under 2:10 is suspect, it's just not necessarily a tenable position.
Anyways, more to the point, we have to account for the fact that Eliud is nearly 2 minutes ahead of his competitors. And it's not as if they aren't doping - Cherono (2:03:04) was just popped. Many have had suspicions about Ekiru (2:02:57), and of course going back to Kimetto and others.
I'm not trying to argue one way of the other- only to point out that cheekily implying that Kipchoge is doping offers no real explanatory value for the depth and intensity of his achievements. You need to be alleging something more - like, say, "Kipchoge is doping, *and* at a completely unprecedented level, supported entirely by Nike (and World Athletics ?) with techniques that are unknown and/or unavailable to anyone else in the sport". This is what seems more far-fetched to me. It would have to be an intense international and local conspiracy, really. We know Kipchoge trains with many other athletes at Kaptagat under the tutelage of Sang. Are they all on the same doping regimen as well? If yes, where are the results? If no, what does this look like? Only Kipchoge gets the special treatment, and no one else on the team is any the wiser? Or they are, but none of the twenty or thirty athletes consistently around him have ever spoken up about it? Even though they're not allowed the special sauce that Nike has him on?
Kipchoge's competition record is essentially unaccountable, unexplainable, we've never seen anything quite like it. I'm open to different possibilities but I have to say that Occam's razor still leads me to the conclusion that he's just the greatest ever to do it, and this mostly ineffable explanation is the best we can get. If someone can explain how he has EPO that's so much better than everyone else's EPO, or whatever, I'm all ears, but I just don't see doping as being that much more tenable of an explanation... Heck, Kipsang was well on the decline when he tested positive for whatever he did, so it didn't seem to work for him.
What you don't understand is that he runs faster using less energy, not more energy.
This is the definition of running economy. This is not new science. It's decades old, but most runners have no clue about it.
Thank you. So it sounds like you’ll accept any records Kipchoge breaks until he’s age 40.
To answer your question, I’m very interested to know how someone can cleanly not only smash world records at nearly age 38, but also how his level of performance at that age far surpasses anything he did in his 20s.
No, I never said he will stop improving at 40. I still ran PBs up to age 45. I'm not putting arbitrary limits on his physiology. As we get older, maximal oxygen uptake decreases only very slightly. It doesn't increase, he isn't using more energy to run faster he is using energy more efficiently.
The improvement is in the VO2 plateau. You can go for longer at a certain intensity with the right training. This stuff has been known for more than 50 years, but most posters here have no clue or willingness to learn.
His running economy was measured before the first sub 2 attempt where he ran 2.00.25 at Monza. He was capable of 21kmh at around 90% VO2max, which is sustainable for around 2 hours. Since then perhaps the shoe technology has improved.
His VO2 max isn't high compared to millions of other runners. It's a combination of basic speed and basic endurance. He's not even a genetic freak in that regard.
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
Sure, this is a fair question, but I think it misses the crux of the issue. For me the absolute level of Kipchoge is less important / astounding than the relative edge he has on all his competitors. Of course the idea that someone running 4:37 26 times in a row has pharmaceutical help is compelling, no matter who is doing it. Heck, I personally have no trouble believing that every performance under 2:10 is suspect, it's just not necessarily a tenable position.
Anyways, more to the point, we have to account for the fact that Eliud is nearly 2 minutes ahead of his competitors. And it's not as if they aren't doping - Cherono (2:03:04) was just popped. Many have had suspicions about Ekiru (2:02:57), and of course going back to Kimetto and others.
I'm not trying to argue one way of the other- only to point out that cheekily implying that Kipchoge is doping offers no real explanatory value for the depth and intensity of his achievements. You need to be alleging something more - like, say, "Kipchoge is doping, *and* at a completely unprecedented level, supported entirely by Nike (and World Athletics ?) with techniques that are unknown and/or unavailable to anyone else in the sport". This is what seems more far-fetched to me. It would have to be an intense international and local conspiracy, really. We know Kipchoge trains with many other athletes at Kaptagat under the tutelage of Sang. Are they all on the same doping regimen as well? If yes, where are the results? If no, what does this look like? Only Kipchoge gets the special treatment, and no one else on the team is any the wiser? Or they are, but none of the twenty or thirty athletes consistently around him have ever spoken up about it? Even though they're not allowed the special sauce that Nike has him on?
Kipchoge's competition record is essentially unaccountable, unexplainable, we've never seen anything quite like it. I'm open to different possibilities but I have to say that Occam's razor still leads me to the conclusion that he's just the greatest ever to do it, and this mostly ineffable explanation is the best we can get. If someone can explain how he has EPO that's so much better than everyone else's EPO, or whatever, I'm all ears, but I just don't see doping as being that much more tenable of an explanation... Heck, Kipsang was well on the decline when he tested positive for whatever he did, so it didn't seem to work for him.
The problem is this blind belief in EPO. You all believe that more red blood cells = more oxygen uptake. That's not how Bioenergetics works. It's not how metabolism works.
It's hopelessly naïve. Hopelessly ignorant.
There is no magic metabolism beyond human limits. It's a fantasy. We go faster by being more energy efficient. It's really not difficult to understand. But it doesn't suit the needs of sensational journalism. There's the real problem. rojo doesn't want to know.
That second group also includes the kind of people that defend dopers even after they test positive.
Definitely. Unless you've got someone like Jon here who really believes that PEDs do nothing to aid performance and seems frustrated that few share his opinion.
You more or less told me back in 2004 that you had no interest in learning. So what can I say to you?
I agree. It’s the age thing that got me the most. It’s actually an interesting psychology case study. How much can someone defy the laws of aging and performance before people who were once believers start to become suspicious. What level of incredible can someone be before their fans become incredulous.
Anyone know the oldest athlete to set a WR in a distance event? I think Geb was around 35 and Tergat 34 when the set marathon WRs. Regina Jacobs ran a PR and WR at age 39 or 40 but it was an indoor 1500.
But Kipchoge didn't just break the record, he crushed it.
If you are the greatest ever, when clean you're a couple minutes faster than your closest competition is when they're clean, and everyone in the group then takes EPO, theoretically you should see the same sized gap between you and your closest competition but at noticeably faster speeds. That's one possibility.
Another is that not everyone will respond to a performance aid with the same improvement. I've seen research about the new fast shoes claiming that some athletes might get as much as 6% improvement from the shoes, some might only get 2%, and there might be people who get none. This same sort of thing might happen with something like EPO, but that's just theorizing.
And who knows, maybe our pal Jon/Trollspotting has been right about this all along, the PEDs don't help, and you're just seeing what each athlete can do naturally, even if they are taking something unnatural in the belief it's making them faster.
Definitely. Unless you've got someone like Jon here who really believes that PEDs do nothing to aid performance and seems frustrated that few share his opinion.
You more or less told me back in 2004 that you had no interest in learning. So what can I say to you?
My gosh! You actually remember something I said eighteen years ago? I'm flattered. I probably don't remember saying that but I'd guess it was something along the lines of I'm not very interested in exercise physiology. But that really is a guess. I do believe that I told you too that if you managed to make a convincing point I could be convinced. But simply repeating the same thing on the board here at somewhat frequent intervals but largely irregular isn't really convincing.