I liked the article and thought he had one interesting intellectual point near the end.
For those of you who say, "It's obvious she must be doping." Ok, I get it but are you saying she just started doping for this race? SO she was clean before this race and then just did it for this race? What explains the huge jump for this race?
Yes that could be true but why would she risk it if she was already making hundreds of thousands a year and was already one of the very best runners on planet earth without doping.
One word.
Ego.
People get arrogant when they don't get caught and constantly need the dopamine drive for the next big thing they can get away with. If you look at criminals, this is exactly what they do.
Yep, the RF King has advised that Ruth is as good as a criminal with her blatant egomaniacal doping to the extent of 2:08 (adjusted for uneven pacing). Imagine what she runs with a negative split? She could go 1:05/1:03, days the RF King….
It's becoming a risible if not downright pathetic spectacle to see even informed followers of the sport trying to do the equivalent of "sane-washing" athletics' daily advertising of its doping excesses, as though a switch of shoe brands can explain this away. The sport has become what pro wrestling long ago succumbed to. Doping is the modus operandi and with the incentives to continue it there's now no stopping it.
RF Kong wants me to relay message to you as he is on short vacation to detox from RF to keep fit and strongz. He says you are right that a switch to alphafly3 doesn’t explain a 5 minute drop in PB from more than 4-5 seasons ago during mid or early twenties. Ruth didn’t come from the track with a established track career before switching to marathons in 30s, so she does not have an excuse to be running wildly fast at 30 after almost a decade of specializing in marathons.
The level of copium that is following this year's Chicago is astonishing. Toni Reavis has had to write two columns already to try and sane-wash this run by Ruth. Every single damn person that follows this sport knows that this is an insanely, off-the-charts, rocket fuelled run that is not even remotely natural. No amount of "well, she switched shoes", "she was paced the whole way" blather will ever mask that. But it has done one thing:
Taken the spotlight off of Aseffa's WR run in Berlin.
Let the former "800m specialist" completely off the hook for the insane 2:11. Ruth at least has had a long history of marathons and half marathons to give us a base level to compare, and to have data to question why, at the age of 30, this insane 2:09 came from knowhere.
The article does reveal she recently switched from the Vaporfly to Alphafly - could that explain the big jump?
“Of course not, no never, never ever”—-says the RF King.
implied that changing what is already an amazing super shoe that led to sub 2 and multiple marathon WRs to another slightly better supershoe doesn’t explain away a 5 min improvement in marathon PB after 5 years of lull and inactivity and at 30 years old.
It's becoming a risible if not downright pathetic spectacle to see even informed followers of the sport trying to do the equivalent of "sane-washing" athletics' daily advertising of its doping excesses, as though a switch of shoe brands can explain this away. The sport has become what pro wrestling long ago succumbed to. Doping is the modus operandi and with the incentives to continue it there's now no stopping it.
But what is interesting is that many of have sort of assumed we know this for years and we don’t repeat it like a broken record.
Gault obviously doesn't agree with you or he wouldn't be trying to come up with strained justifications for her performance. Despite what you say "we" know it doesn't stop the pretence that these sorts of performances are clean - which is exactly my point.
The level of copium that is following this year's Chicago is astonishing. Toni Reavis has had to write two columns already to try and sane-wash this run by Ruth. Every single damn person that follows this sport knows that this is an insanely, off-the-charts, rocket fuelled run that is not even remotely natural. No amount of "well, she switched shoes", "she was paced the whole way" blather will ever mask that. But it has done one thing:
Taken the spotlight off of Aseffa's WR run in Berlin.
Let the former "800m specialist" completely off the hook for the insane 2:11. Ruth at least has had a long history of marathons and half marathons to give us a base level to compare, and to have data to question why, at the age of 30, this insane 2:09 came from knowhere.
Aseffa? Crickets.
My personal opinion, not the RF King’s, is that assefa is clean while Ruth is dirty. I prefer that assefa has not had a long history of marathons and half to compare because I like the newbie effect meaning I like that first timers have on occasion demonstrated unusual skill in their events that could even break world records.
I liked the article and thought he had one interesting intellectual point near the end.
For those of you who say, "It's obvious she must be doping." Ok, I get it but are you saying she just started doping for this race? SO she was clean before this race and then just did it for this race? What explains the huge jump for this race?
Yes that could be true but why would she risk it if she was already making hundreds of thousands a year and was already one of the very best runners on planet earth without doping.
To entrap LR cofounders into getting reprimanded by the Kenyan parliament.
"For now, 2:09:56 is on the books. Believe it, embrace it, decry it, ignore it. The choice is yours. We all have to live with it." - Jonathan Gault
Wait, what??
We all "have to" live with a world record? Odd turn of phrase.
How about we all get to?
Your bias is showing.
Unfortunately the RF King would have disagreed with you. Good Bias is crucial to living the good life because it’s called moral values and principles which are what holds societies together. Jonathan thus showed that he values morality with his ‘bias’ which is a good thing
Kelvin Kiptum sure as heck didn't have a draft his second half and Eliud couldn't have done the 2 hour "demo" without a draft level that would be illegal in a race. So the "it's only 7% difference" cries are a silly comparison. Not the same thing.
Agreed that this advantage of hers compared to the top guys hasn't gotten enough attention. Coverage of both of Kipchoge's sub-2:00 attempts included really detailed info on the advantages of having pacers the whole way. But then some of the same people have just decided not to talk about it here.
You are the draft king? Well let me tell you what my RF King would have said about drafting.
If Kipchoge were 3 years younger in 2022, or at the age when he ran his sub 2 in 2019, he would also have ran the same identical sub 2 on his own with lesser drafting or drafting up to 30km and not the entire journey of the race. Kelvin Kiptum showed in his younger 20s that it’s possible to be that good or doped to be able to lead from 15km till the end rather than from 30km. Thus as you can see, your failure to control the age factor when making a remark from drafting distorts the true effect of drafting which is not as significant as you think. Kipchoge was just older and slower in 2022, that’s was why.
It seems like you glossed over the fueling change. Did the change lead to her consuming significantly more carbohydrates? Was she underfueling previously? That could be a reasonable explanation for her blowing up the last few times she's tried for a WR (beyond simply going too hard).
On the other hand, simply switching brands but taking essentially the same carbs is meaningless.
Not possible for fueling change to cause such extravagant obscenity to the extent of 2:09.
I know of a ton of semi fast elite age groupers who hardly improved by tens of seconds in the marathon after using maurten hydrogel, and improved more using the combination of maurten and super shoes.
I liked the article and thought he had one interesting intellectual point near the end.
For those of you who say, "It's obvious she must be doping." Ok, I get it but are you saying she just started doping for this race? SO she was clean before this race and then just did it for this race? What explains the huge jump for this race?
Yes that could be true but why would she risk it if she was already making hundreds of thousands a year and was already one of the very best runners on planet earth without doping.
Knew she wouldn’t be tested for months. So went full throttle.
Her contract will have a bonus for a world record. Why risk it? She was already doping before. This was just calculated additional very small risk because they knew she wouldn’t be tested. I’d also guess those “consulting” with her probably don’t care if she is caught or not. They will just move on to the next runner.
Training is obviously compounding. Doping allows more and faster training. Training results in improvements over time. Doping and training results in better results over time. It is not like taking a pill on race day and you get x time. This is a compounding system over years.
How would she know that she wouldn’t be tested for months? Genuine question.
But what is interesting is that many of have sort of assumed we know this for years and we don’t repeat it like a broken record.
Gault obviously doesn't agree with you or he wouldn't be trying to come up with strained justifications for her performance. Despite what you say "we" know it doesn't stop the pretence that these sorts of performances are clean - which is exactly my point.
I still haven’t read the article but Gault could engage in hypotheticals without showing his cards. Do you think you have convinced many people? I am largely in agreement with you on doping EXCEPT you may assume a bit too much. But in principle you are likely correct.
The article does reveal she recently switched from the Vaporfly to Alphafly - could that explain the big jump?
It's not one factor alone, that's for sure.
A woman running 2:09:56 needs
Pacing - This mark should be compared to Kipchoge's 1:59:40. That performance by a 34-year-old Kipchoge (most believe him to be actually 36 at the time) would undoubtedly been bettered by Kiptum (and in general an outlier at their absolute prime) under the same conditions. So possibly a male could run 1:58-something with pacing the whole way. An 11-minute gap seems about right. Shoes - I think we're finding out that the improvements have kept coming since 2022-3. Adidas' EVO and Nike's Alphafly 3, and competitor brands too appear to be adding a 1-2% boost after some stagnation (by Nike/Adidas) or just catching up (everyone else) from 2019-2022. There's now a bit of a gap between potential from athletes who resisted or didn't have access to the best supershoes (Ruth apparently, Sisson, Tola, Lemma, John Korir) and what they can achieve . That's why suddenly it seems to me there's a lot of 1-3 minute PBs all over the place from athletes who were somewhere in the 2:03-2:05/2:15-2:18 range who are more seasoned but made the switch to a faster shoe. It's frustrating to see some athletes resistant to just wearing the fastest shoes according to the science, period.
Doping - Can't rule this one out of course, and it could be adding a couple minutes to the first 2 above
So if you're keeping track at home, there HAS to be a rewriting of the record books IMO. The American women should be topping out at more like 2:15-16. That means running more courageously, not resisting the shoes and a top talent in their prime attacking it. Monson has 2:15 capability, I have really no doubts about it. Sisson I think 2:16 definitely, but she has to wear faster shoes and listen to her fitness not arbitrary time barriers.
For the men, I mean I think we know Connor should be running 2:06 at minimum and probably 2:05. It doesn't feel like he's mastered the marathon and is overly impatient. If he had an individual pacer after a less rocky buildup than we've typically seen, watch out. Someone like Klecker could run a huge time if his frame can handle it.
The RF King wants me to tell you drafting is not so much the effect of wind cushioning and air resistance as it is about there being energy ( electromagnetic) in numbers in a pack. You are drafting off another runners electromagnetic bodily energy and not his slipstream breaking the wind for you. The larger the peloton the easier the effort becomes for a same wind conditions.
RF King concluded that kipchoge sub 2 cannot be wholly attributable to breaking the wind but rather due to electromagnetic momentum conserved and shared among the peloton. This means kipchoge would still have run Sub 2 positioned at the top of the V shape peloton as long as he is still accompanied by the same number of runners in the peloton thus the amount of electromagnetic momentum and energy shared and distributed!
Good and fair article. You guys are giving free speech a good name. You don't abuse it.
One factor--or rather question--that I haven't seen anybody talking about (and it's possible that I've simply missed it) is Ruth C.'s workouts. Apart from fueling during the race and different shoes, is there anything in her buildup to this particular race that could help account for her breakthrough. I can't help but think of "Once a Runner"--the endless miles and the breakthrough, near-death interval workout that led to a huge breakthrough.
Is there any data, any anecdotal evidence, suggesting that Chepngetich altered her training in any significant way this time around? Can she point to a specific workout or two in the 2-4 weeks leading up to the race that would lead any reasonable person on this board to say, "Jeez, she's ready to throw down something special here"?
I'd be interested to know this too. I mean, Kelvin Kiptum's coach said he was running 150-170 miles per week and sometimes 180+ in his buildup before London last year. If that was true (I have my doubts, but we'll never know for sure), he was doing significantly more mileage than pretty much any other elite marathoner. If his body could hold up to it, that might explain why he was so much faster than everyone else.
Gault obviously doesn't agree with you or he wouldn't be trying to come up with strained justifications for her performance. Despite what you say "we" know it doesn't stop the pretence that these sorts of performances are clean - which is exactly my point.
I still haven’t read the article but Gault could engage in hypotheticals without showing his cards. Do you think you have convinced many people? I am largely in agreement with you on doping EXCEPT you may assume a bit too much. But in principle you are likely correct.
RF King says he is defending Rojo and Gault as they, like him, have extremely precise instincts about distance running. They have seen it all.
RF King also says regarding doping matters only Armstrong and Coevett have enough moral integrity and courage to strike a balance. The rest of the LRCers are in la la land.
Regarding drafting the RF King emphasizes 100 times that Kipchoge would still have made sub 2 in 2019 sitting at the top of the V shape peloton breaking the wind for everybody as long as the peloton maintains its shape V with the same number of runners and thus same amount of electromagnetic potential energy and momentum shared and distributed to kipchoge. He says it’s all physics, nothing else.
Kiptum has shown it can be done virtually leading the whole way for all his 2:01 and 2:00 marathons
Chepngetich ran her second fastest half marathon the first half of Chicago and was only 16 seconds slower than her 1/2 pr. And her half pr IS THE THIRD FASTEST half marathon time for women. She then ran her fifth fastest half marathon the second half of Chicago. Her half marathon warm up race in August in Buenos Aries was slower than the second half of her marathon in Chicago. She PR-ed by over 4 minutes. She won by over six minutes. She was over a mile ahead of second place. Two miles ahead of fourth place. Three miles ahead of Emma Bates.
Switching shoes does not do this. Either she has some new and advanced training/recovery system that is a huge leap forward for the sport or she is doping.
For those of you who say, "It's obvious she must be doping." Ok, I get it but are you saying she just started doping for this race? SO she was clean before this race and then just did it for this race? What explains the huge jump for this race?
It's obvious, yes. And yes, it was obvious before.
What changed (aside from the shoes)? Well she won't tell us, but here are some options:
- more efficient doping, e.g. using a better doctor
- adjusting the Epo/Testo ratio
- adding HGH into the mix
- bolder doping, e.g. going closer to or even temporarily above the ABP thresholds.
More speculation to answer the first speculation. If this women is doping and if there are people in and outside the press that believe that she is, then it should not be to hard to go to Kenya and investigate. To just say that "some chest so they all cheat" is not good enough. If nobody wants to take the time expense to do this kind of reporting then leave the issue alone.