There has never been a 14/29 woman. Those are two separate world records, by two separate women, one of which is a whole week old.
It's drugs. Every other explanation is a cope.
You are splitting hairs when you say there is no 14/29 women
Gidey is a 14:06/29:01 woman who ran a 62:52 half marathon, which is equivalent to a 2:12 full marathon. Also I'm pretty sure that if she was in that record race with Chebet and Tsegay, she would have got a 5k PB, but we will never know.
Tsegey has never ran a time-trialed 10k in peak form, but she is literally the 10k world champion, defeating a 29:01 and 29:06 woman to do it. So while she technically isn't a 29 runner, we'd be naive to think she can't run a 29 10,000m right now.
Hassan is a 14:13/29:06 woman who just ran a 2:18 marathon literally coming to a complete stop in the middle of the race to do a stretching routine - in her freaking debut marathon. She beat Chebet at the 5k at the world championships, who just ran 14:05. She also won the bronze in the freaking 1500m this year. There is no question that she is a 14:05 or faster 5k runner if she really went for it.
Paula Radcliffe was a 2:15 woman without any super shoes, with track PBs very far off the above women. The super shoes make a big difference in the marathon, likely more than in these track events.
Now did I expect one of the current all time greats to run a 2:11:53, never the less Assefa, no, but everyone who knows anything about distance running believed that the 2:14 marathon record was soft, given super shoes. I think anyone with a brain expected a 2:13/2:12 at a moments notice. But we probably though Hassan, Gidey, Beriso etc.
That said there is a good chance this is a doped record. First Beriso and now Assefa, same coach, similiarly not a ton of fast marathon experience. But both have plausible explanations, and Beriso's Mexico city marathon was worth a sub 2:20 for sure when factoring in altitude. All of this is a long way to say ...
yes there currently are 14/29 women, and yes there is a good chance this is doped, maybe a bit higher than some other records, but it certainly isn't gauranteed to be dirty. It is a plausible record, by an unlikely but plausible person.
This is the kind of post that should be bumped when a woman runs sub-2:10, and then 2:07, and so on. All previous bests are "soft", and everything is normal no matter how extreme.
She is a 1:59 runner over the 800. She has no distance running credentials except for this ludicrous marathon result on her third outing. It isn't possible clean.
Except, of course, for the 2:15 Berlin marathon record she ran last year. Maybe it just took her a few years to find her event. Then there were injuries and Covid in there.
What is she - in her late twenties? It takes that long to discover as an 800m runner that you're really a marathon runner? I'm surprised she didn't discover that she should probably be a gymnast or some such. The rationalisation of the implausible never ceases here.
If male 14:00/29:00 type runners can run 2:08:00-2:10:00, and multitudes have done so, it is perfectly logical for a woman to run 2:11:53, with the same under distance credentials.
What are her 5,000m and 10,000m times.
How about a half of 67xx at a slower pace than this record
If she was busted you would have some excuse as you are a supporter of doping athletes
LOLz. rekrunner is the type to believe clean athletes have beaten others who were later confirmed to be doped to the gills. Then of course he will believe anything, except the obvious.
If male 14:00/29:00 type runners can run 2:08:00-2:10:00, and multitudes have done so, it is perfectly logical for a woman to run 2:11:53, with the same under distance credentials.
What are her 5,000m and 10,000m times.
How about a half of 67xx at a slower pace than this record
If she was busted you would have some excuse as you are a supporter of doping athletes
But but but she was a 2min 800 runner! And she trained really hard as confirmed by her coach, lol.
You are splitting hairs when you say there is no 14/29 women
Gidey is a 14:06/29:01 woman who ran a 62:52 half marathon, which is equivalent to a 2:12 full marathon. Also I'm pretty sure that if she was in that record race with Chebet and Tsegay, she would have got a 5k PB, but we will never know.
Tsegey has never ran a time-trialed 10k in peak form, but she is literally the 10k world champion, defeating a 29:01 and 29:06 woman to do it. So while she technically isn't a 29 runner, we'd be naive to think she can't run a 29 10,000m right now.
Hassan is a 14:13/29:06 woman who just ran a 2:18 marathon literally coming to a complete stop in the middle of the race to do a stretching routine - in her freaking debut marathon. She beat Chebet at the 5k at the world championships, who just ran 14:05. She also won the bronze in the freaking 1500m this year. There is no question that she is a 14:05 or faster 5k runner if she really went for it.
Paula Radcliffe was a 2:15 woman without any super shoes, with track PBs very far off the above women. The super shoes make a big difference in the marathon, likely more than in these track events.
Now did I expect one of the current all time greats to run a 2:11:53, never the less Assefa, no, but everyone who knows anything about distance running believed that the 2:14 marathon record was soft, given super shoes. I think anyone with a brain expected a 2:13/2:12 at a moments notice. But we probably though Hassan, Gidey, Beriso etc.
That said there is a good chance this is a doped record. First Beriso and now Assefa, same coach, similiarly not a ton of fast marathon experience. But both have plausible explanations, and Beriso's Mexico city marathon was worth a sub 2:20 for sure when factoring in altitude. All of this is a long way to say ...
yes there currently are 14/29 women, and yes there is a good chance this is doped, maybe a bit higher than some other records, but it certainly isn't gauranteed to be dirty. It is a plausible record, by an unlikely but plausible person.
This is the kind of post that should be bumped when a woman runs sub-2:10, and then 2:07, and so on. All previous bests are "soft", and everything is normal no matter how extreme.
When she runs 2:08 next they will feel even more strongly about her talent and hard work... nothing to see here
This is the kind of post that should be bumped when a woman runs sub-2:10, and then 2:07, and so on. All previous bests are "soft", and everything is normal no matter how extreme.
When she runs 2:08 next they will feel even more strongly about her talent and hard work... nothing to see here
Yeah but according to the OP you can be like a 15:00 5k runner and run 2:08 so it's not that hard.
I read somewhere snell was on early steroids.I seriously dont know where i read it,so i cant prove it,unfortunatly.
That's bollocks. In 1960 these amateur athletes - as Snell was - in a relative backwater, would have had had no idea what steroids were. He was also big as a youngster - he didn't suddenly develop a muscled physique. He was a Lydiard protege. There has never been a whisper that any of Lydiard's Kiwi athletes doped. He was no Salazar or Francis. (Incidentally, in all the years since only 2 NZ distance runners have been busted - one in the early 2000's while in Mexico, and the other was Robertson while in Kenya.)
It might be bollocks to you,but i know for a fact that i read it.Im not making it up,but i cant prove that i read it,or where i read it.Maybe i just read an unfounded rumour.Im sure some new zealanders have doped,just as aussies do.I remember a decathlete in the late 80s who looked totally roided out of his skull,but he trained in america.And ive seen some top nz women in various events who have looked a bit manly,or way too muscled.I think they trained in australia.
She is a 1:59 runner over the 800. She has no distance running credentials except for this ludicrous marathon result on her third outing. It isn't possible clean.
Except, of course, for the 2:15 Berlin marathon record she ran last year. Maybe it just took her a few years to find her event. Then there were injuries and Covid in there.
This is what I mean.. when she runs 2:08 you will say that it makes sense because it's taken her a few tries to figure out the marathon.
Except, of course, for the 2:15 Berlin marathon record she ran last year. Maybe it just took her a few years to find her event. Then there were injuries and Covid in there.
This is what I mean.. when she runs 2:08 you will say that it makes sense because it's taken her a few tries to figure out the marathon.
More importantly argue away, somehow, that you need to be in sub-28:00 10k shape at that current time. Then they will bring up men who did it even though their 10k PR is like 5 years old. This site is laughable.
You don't have to, but then it carries no weight because you cannot connect it to the real world.
This broad claim is not your only claim. For example you claim that doping is more powerful than the new shoes, without any basis.
And without any basis, your umbrella statement is a rather meaningless claim, as "throughout the sport" is rather vague and pliable, leaving the interpretation to the reader, and it doesn't really indicate who is using what kind of doping when and how many. There is also no connection to improved performances linked to the doping throughout the sport. It would gain more meaning if you could provide the specific data backing that up.
LOLz. rekrunner is the type to believe clean athletes have beaten others who were later confirmed to be doped to the gills. Then of course he will believe anything, except the obvious.
What is sure that I cannot believe the wild claims about the kinds of performances doping promises to deliver, without better performance data.
The good lady Asseffah hasn't failed a dopping test .For as long as she hasn't, then she surely deserves to be given credit for her achievement .Several years ago,Paula Radcliffe was the only woman running 2.15s in the marathon whereas the rest of the women were atleast 2-3 minutes off her pace.I think at the time it was only Catherine Ndereba who had a 2.17xx. We just have to accept that this is something that happens once in awhile during a transition period.There is always one that leads the way far ahead of the rest of her peers but they will soon catch up.My focus is more on the 5000m where I can see Several women running sub 14 minutes very soon ,perhaps even before 2024 Olympics.
Please. Even if she was being tested, which she wasn't, that argument is obtuse.
The sport has been ruined because it is plagued by a culture of cheating and corruption from certain countries and grossly unequal enforcement. It is ashame the Chinese decided to hang it up.
Nor do you. The deflection was all yours, as you don't want to see that your baseless posts and wide-blanket doping allegations are offensive to clean athletes and your "they're all guilty" attitude only harms the sport.
I don’t know if Assefa is doping, but it is a suspect outlier performance. True, she could be in perfect condition and getting max benefit from the new shoes, but sub 2:12 is astounding.
Notice there are not a lot of prominent elite females stepping out to highlight the win. I think they are waiting to see if there is doping.
I don’t think Kipchoge’s sub 2 performance was that much of an outlier. It would be like Kipchoge running 4 minutes under his actual WR.
Not quite. Snell ran 1:44 on grass in '62. That's worth a much faster time on modern tracks with modern shoes. 1:42 today still has to be within a clean ballpark.
I read somewhere snell was on early steroids.I seriously dont know where i read it,so i cant prove it,unfortunatly.
Why do you think it's unfortunate that you can't prove Snell was on steroids?
I don’t know if Assefa is doping, but it is a suspect outlier performance. True, she could be in perfect condition and getting max benefit from the new shoes, but sub 2:12 is astounding.
Notice there are not a lot of prominent elite females stepping out to highlight the win. I think they are waiting to see if there is doping.
I don’t think Kipchoge’s sub 2 performance was that much of an outlier. It would be like Kipchoge running 4 minutes under his actual WR.
I hope she is clean for the good of the sport.
This performance for her is just plain and simple absurd. She is not clean and it's only a matter of how long this particular circus act will last... she may never get caught. Doping scandals are inconvenient and ugly for all involved and is terrible for the sport's reputation. Even the anti-doping bodies don't want to a scandal this big as it makes them look totally incompetent (like her 2:15 should have been a clear sign). Couple that with lack of resources and ineffective methods and controls and you have an invitation for doping across the sport.
You are splitting hairs when you say there is no 14/29 women
Gidey is a 14:06/29:01 woman who ran a 62:52 half marathon, which is equivalent to a 2:12 full marathon...
Tsegey is literally the 10k world champion, defeating a 29:01 and 29:06 woman to do it.
Hassan is a 14:13/29:06 woman who just ran a 2:18 marathon literally coming to a complete stop in the middle of the race to do a stretching routine ...
Paula Radcliffe was a 2:15 woman without any super shoes, with track PBs very far off the above women...
Now did I expect one of the current all time greats to run a 2:11:53, never the less Assefa, no, but everyone who knows anything about distance running believed that the 2:14 marathon record was soft, given super shoes...
This is the kind of post that should be bumped when a woman runs sub-2:10, and then 2:07, and so on. All previous bests are "soft", and everything is normal no matter how extreme.
Are you trying to say a 2:14 marathon is better than a 62:52 half-marathon and a 29:01 10k? The 2:14 was soft, relative to those other times, that's pretty much a fact. No, I would no longer say a 2:11:53 is soft, because it isn't. Just do your research if you are confused why true distance fans understood why the 2:14 was the softest of the long distance records.