Katir stays HOT - 7:27.64 Spanish national record for 3000.

An improvement from 4:11 to 4:01 equals 0:11 to 0:01. It's both 10 seconds improvement. What part of the ten seconds improvement is different? You guys!

Not all 10s improvements are equal.

To PR down from 3:50 to 3:40 Is only an even-split change from 2:02.6 at 800m to 1:57.33 pace.

Jumping from 3:30 to 3:20 sees a man shift from running 1:52 to an implausible 1:46.66 and maintain that 700 additional meters.

Intriguing thread.

Has anyone noticed that no Spanish athletes have tested positive in the past two years in OOC tests?

Four Spanish athletes are on the January 2021 Sactions list. They'd all been banned in competition. Here's a bit of detail on two of them:

1) Josephine Onyia (Metenolone), had been acquitted by the The Real Federacion Espanola de Atletismo (RFEA) in 2008, which the IAAF appealed and won, upholding a two-year ban. The RFEA Committee maintained several reasons for her innocence, one of which included it being "unlikely she would have committed a doping offence given the probability of her being obliged to undergo a doping test."

On the balance of probabilities, each of the four arguments of logic and reason (including lab error, the banned substance levels due to potential ingestion of contaminated meat; one of the samples not expressly being identified as a prohibited substance on the WADA Prohibited List) were dismissed and Onyia was sanctioned.

Yet, here you find Onyia, so staunchly defended by the Spanish federation during an Olympic cycle, on another sanction list in an Olympic period.

2) Victor Castro Mateo (Clenbuterol & Metandienone

) is next on the list. Mateo is a Puertollano City Councillor for Education and Youth, hardly the beacon of light for up-and-coming youth in Spanish track and field. Mateo's defence: He did not "consciously" take those substances, stating they provide no "benefit" in his athletic discipline. "I practice sports for leisure and fun, I have appealed this case and I have made myself available to the competent bodies for whatever is necessary." He maintains that he does not have a "strict control" of his diet to detect or suspect when he could consume or know the origin of the prohibited substances, present in some meats, among other foods. In short, he blamed his tests on food he consumed during Christmas. The Popular Party of Puertollano had essentially requested he step down from this role. He didn't.

"The councilor has been praised and honored for his achievements by the mayor who presented him as an image and "Marca Puertollano", after learning of the disqualification for doping, how can he justify the unjustifiable in his latest statements in the press this morning? He makes a dirty attempt to normalize the situation, as he usually does on other issues."

Clearly, and at the top levels of local government and national track and field, Spanish authorities are not very inclined to stamp out the weed of doping.

no contest wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"The point which you are unable to accept (because of your narcisstic psychopathic personality): An 8 second improvement starting at 3:36 is not the same as an 8 second improvement starting at 3:32 (or 3:34 - 3:30 - 3:28). Nothing else was the point in question".

Which part of 8 seconds improvement from 3.36 isn't the same as 8 seconds from 3.34? As a rate of improvement it is tantamount to being exactly the same - to anyone who can follow the hands of a watch. 8 seconds is 8 seconds last time I looked. But then being able to tell the time apparently goes hand in hand with being a "narcissistic psychopath". By that measure, there are an awful lot of us - even if you aren't one of them.

Are you an physicist?

Since Armweak can follow the hands of a watch, we know for sure that improving from 3:50 to 3:40 in one year is the same than improving from 3:30 to 3:20 - 10 seconds are 10 seconds.

Good to have such intellectual giants in the discussion.[/quote]

Since you aren't an intellectual giant it has to be pointed out that your two examples are completely spurious - as they were previously - as one time is a 'B' level performance the other would be a physical impossibility. The example you keep ducking is why 3.36 to 3.28 is regarded as likely clean but 3.34 to 3.26 wouldn't be - when both performances are within the realm of the fastest athletes over the 1500 and show the same degree of improvement. I realise I am repeating myself here but there seems to be no apparent way to penetrate a cranium of concrete like yours.

Thrice wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Which part of 8 seconds improvement from 3.36 isn't the same as 8 seconds from 3.34? As a rate of improvement it is tantamount to being exactly the same - to anyone who can follow the hands of a watch. 8 seconds is 8 seconds last time I looked.

If any more evidence was needed that this poster is completely ignorant when it comes to all things running/racing.

From you, I take that as a compliment. All you have offered is the verbal equivalent of breaking wind.

Do any of the Pollyannas at T&FN ever post here? Their "head in the sand" rules keep any of the informed posters from stating the obvious on Katir. I would think that their heads would explode from having to refrain from incredulous speculation about the improbable improvements they are seeing.

I really don’t understand what seems to be the consensus view that Katir is or is close to the Olympic favorite. The 1,500 and 5k are both absolutely stacked and Katir has limited big-time racing experience. He has an outside chance at a medal in both events - maybe very slightly better in the 15 assuming Tim toes everyone along - but he’s less likely to medal than not.

Random question xyz wrote:

I really don’t understand what seems to be the consensus view that Katir is or is close to the Olympic favorite. The 1,500 and 5k are both absolutely stacked and Katir has limited big-time racing experience. He has an outside chance at a medal in both events - maybe very slightly better in the 15 assuming Tim toes everyone along - but he’s less likely to medal than not.

tows*

Armstronglivs wrote:

no contest wrote:

Which part of 8 seconds improvement from 3.36 isn't the same as 8 seconds from 3.34? As a rate of improvement it is tantamount to being exactly the same - to anyone who can follow the hands of a watch. 8 seconds is 8 seconds last time I looked. But then being able to tell the time apparently goes hand in hand with being a "narcissistic psychopath". By that measure, there are an awful lot of us - even if you aren't one of them.

Are you an physicist?

Since Armweak can follow the hands of a watch, we know for sure that improving from 3:50 to 3:40 in one year is the same than improving from 3:30 to 3:20 - 10 seconds are 10 seconds.

Good to have such intellectual giants in the discussion.

Since you aren't an intellectual giant it has to be pointed out that your two examples are completely spurious - as they were previously - as one time is a 'B' level performance the other would be a physical impossibility. The example you keep ducking is why 3.36 to 3.28 is regarded as likely clean but 3.34 to 3.26 wouldn't be - when both performances are within the realm of the fastest athletes over the 1500 and show the same degree of improvement. I realise I am repeating myself here but there seems to be no apparent way to penetrate a cranium of concrete like yours.[/quote]

Katir's improvement from 3:36 to 3:28 is extreme (as are his improvements over 3k and 5k) as I already have clarified (only for you - also it was clear before). And some improvement by the same absolute margin of 8 seconds starting by an better time (3:34, 3:32...) is getting even more extreme. This was were you have written nonsense, but someone like you will never just agree.

You also have completely falsely interpreted that I'm definding Katir, which I havn't. You are psychopathic and narcistic, that's definitely true. Terrible poster.

As a Spaniard, Viciosa is a racist POS. Pot black. He should never have even had the 3000m record.

fnhriel wrote:

As a Spaniard, Viciosa is a racist POS. Pot black. He should never have even had the 3000m record.

Yeah Katir is in fine company when it comes to Spanish national records.

American Records

Marathon, Khalid Khannouchi

1500m, Bernard Lagat

Random question xyz wrote:

I really don’t understand what seems to be the consensus view that Katir is or is close to the Olympic favorite. The 1,500 and 5k are both absolutely stacked and Katir has limited big-time racing experience. He has an outside chance at a medal in both events - maybe very slightly better in the 15 assuming Tim toes everyone along - but he’s less likely to medal than not.

That seems to be the case of everyone.

I have seen on twitter he get a lot of likes and shares.

Katir is racing just the 5,000 and I agree it will be tough but not impossible to medal. He is the fastest at 1,500 perhaps but Wale, Kiplimo, Cheptegei, even Jakob (if he runs) all have the potential to be in sub-12:40 fitness. Then there is a crowded group at around his level in Ahmed, Knight, Kimeli, Ethiopian/Kenyan second placers and so on. Katir does get a break in no Barega or Kejelcha to contend with.

Katir's improvement from 3:36 to 3:28 is extreme (as are his improvements over 3k and 5k) as I already have clarified (only for you - also it was clear before). And some improvement by the same absolute margin of 8 seconds starting by an better time (3:34, 3:32...) is getting even more extreme. This was were you have written nonsense, but someone like you will never just agree.

You also have completely falsely interpreted that I'm definding Katir, which I havn't. You are psychopathic and narcistic, that's definitely true. Terrible poster.[/quote]

So someone who disagrees with your take is a psychopathic narcissist. It seems you've just defined yourself.

I have nothing written someone can disagree with.

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

Jakob is too fat right now.

Katir is on fire. Too bad doubling isn't an option. He won't, but I wish he'd run the 1500 in Tokyo.

I heard he was busted for LSD, is that a joke or??

no contest wrote:

I have nothing written someone can disagree with.

Once you have written something - anything - it is capable of being disagreed with. Unless you are the "I am always right" narcissist you likely are.