WTF SERIOUSLY: Lornah Salpeter just ran 2:19:46 Prague ein

65etujhe56 wrote:

Pharmacy for the UK wrote:

The captain of the 80s GB Olympic Team was a convicted 'roider.

+1000

More recently, a very well known British/Irish coach (coached many high profile Brits and Irish) took on a convicted drug cheat, after the drug cheat served his ban. The drug cheat, under the British/Irish coach, cleaned up locally, picked-a-pocket or two of clean and hardworking athletes, qualified for the Olympics, and then pulled out following the uproar from the Irish running community. The coach bragged about the greatness of 'his' runner. Since the drug cheat 'retired', the coach has taken to posting vitriolic nonsense on social media about, parkrun, UK athletics, Athletics Ireland, and Northern Ireland Athletics. Coevett, given the facts, why not look closer to home? Sort out your own house first; it's filthy. Glasshouses.

Hahahhaaha. This is the last time I ever reply to a non-registered poster here, but I have to admit that was quite funny.

Coevett wrote:

Hahahhaaha. This is the last time I ever reply to a non-registered poster here, but I have to admit that was quite funny.

;)

Great analysis ?Now...let's see how long it takes for Canova to come along and disagree with this. Lol.

Seriously Seriously wrote:

Really? 'Ped complainers'? That's your name for people who are anti-doping . . .

Everybody's "anti-doping," pal. But not everybody's a simple-minded, knee-jerk cynic.

Coevett wrote:

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Surely it's beyond dispute that the marathon will be affected far more by a widely available endurance drug like EPO than the 800m? The men's 800m WR has been improved by less than a second since the introduction of EPO, while the women's best 800m times have actually gone backwards (of course due to rampant doping from the Soviet Bloc athletes in the 70s/80s). Compare with the improvement in the longer distances, which have been increasingly crazy the longer the distance.

Beyond dispute? Based on what evidence? Your data can also be explained with the 800 more benefiting from roids, which is why the men's barely improved with fewer roids post 1990, and the women's went backwards. E.g., we still evidently have rampant doping in Russia, but they can't roid up as much anymore, and the same goes for EPO/blood transfusions.

In fact, the data from Seppelt (IAAF leak) - that you just cited earlier this week - show more suspicious blood values in the 800 vs. the marathon (30% of the medals vs. 11% of the medals), implying that either the 800 was dirtier, or that it benefits more from higher Hct than the marathon (or both).

Dan - thank you for your answers. It's interesting you said that strenght training is done directly after hard workouts. Some sources claim, when doing strenght training after endurance, you loose some endurance adaptations. How do you comment that and why did you decide to do it your way?

Ghost1 wrote:

dopers r us wrote:

If you are supporting her, that automatically makes me think it is likely she is doping as you are a consistent apologist for doping.

Hilarious that you use AlSal and Mo as examples, though, keep that up.

Sir, please do not include circumstantial evidence based on previous explanations of why many previous dopers had been manipulated by others to dope.

Let us focus on the present, and all the evidence points to L.S. being absolutely above board and clean.

Stop apologizing for dopes and I'll stop pointing out that you are a doping apologist.

There is no real evidence that she is clean, but that is not her burden to prove.

Wow!...what do you make of that? I would have guessed the other way around -- that's almost three times higher based on the medalists. There's a recent study that showed the 800 is 66% aerobic vs 34% anaerobic which might explain a more benefit from 02-vector doping than originally thought. But it might be the synergistic effects of roids & EPO/tranfusions as the best of both worlds and the winning combo for the dopers.

It was quite reasonable to question the assumption that the men's marathon marks today are clean, since you are using them as a benchmark to justify the women's times. It is also perfectly reasonable to ask why women's times in one running event - the marathon - approach those of the top men of a past era when no other women's running event gets close to male times of that or any subsequent era. And it is widely acknowledged that most of the women's records in those other events are doped performances. But yours is the rationale of a typical doping apologist, who will always find a reason - no matter how specious - to justify highly questionable performances in an increasingly questionable sport. (And look up Dunning-Kruger effect - it's you to a T. )

Coevett... Canova addressed this. The Olympic Marathon standard was more easily achievable (which she hit) than the track standards (which she was unable to hit).

Coevett wrote:

On that last point, has anybody questioned why Lonah decided to move up to the Marathon, where she had a pb of 2:40 just when she becomes an elite track star (and would have achieved the 5k/10k double at the Europeans if not stopping a lap early in the latter)?

Can you link me those sources?

In any case, the volume is very low and the type of training we are using is without any metabolic effect which might "disturb" any aerobic qualities.

Are you guts fortetting steroids and such? Also the training programs for 800 meter runners were more in line with those we use today than many marathon programs were

Armstronglivs wrote:

And you are confident that men's marathon times today aren't doped? I wouldn't be so sure. But it is interesting that it is only in the marathon, and not any other running event, that women's times are drawing level with the best men's times of the past. I remember Bikila. I simply don't find it credible that women are now approaching his performances. The progress is in doping - as it is in most sports. It has nothing to do with math.

Only the weak minded with stupidity could think that EPO can make women run as fast as men. Bikila, he a natural talent, but lazy. With 18 hard track sessions a week, Bikila could have run sub 2 hours easily, but we didn't have the coaching wisdom as now. Lonah is a natural talent who only now is realizing her potential. Look at the pictures of her in 2016 and today, and you will see that it is 18 hard track sessions a week, plus 100 x hill repeats morning and night for two years.

Arthur Lydiard says you are talking bs. And Bikila did most of his running in the hills around Adis Abiba.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It was quite reasonable to question the assumption that the men's marathon marks today are clean, since you are using them as a benchmark to justify the women's times. It is also perfectly reasonable to ask why women's times in one running event - the marathon - approach those of the top men of a past era when no other women's running event gets close to male times of that or any subsequent era. And it is widely acknowledged that most of the women's records in those other events are doped performances. But yours is the rationale of a typical doping apologist, who will always find a reason - no matter how specious - to justify highly questionable performances in an increasingly questionable sport. (And look up Dunning-Kruger effect - it's you to a T. )

Quite reasonable?

- Lonah ran 2:19:46, which is not really all that competitive against the 2:15 of Bikila.

- Bikila ran 2:15 barefoot. 4 years later he ran 2:12, with shoes. I think the Puma 2%.

- By the end of the 1960's, Derek Clayton ran 2:08:33.

- The 2:15 of Bikila was not very competitive to the men of the 1960's.

Reasonable answer:

Even in the marathon, women like Salpeter are not competitive to the men in 1960.

Quite reasonable?

- The 800m is physiologically very different to the marathon.

- Consider the men's 800m world record in 1912 was 1:51.9, faster than the women's world record from 1983.

- In the marathon, in 1912, the men's record was 2:40.

- The history of 800m and marathon is very different.

More reasonable answers:

It is not reasonable to compare the women versus men in 800m to the women versus men in the marathon.

The women of 800m, are still slower than the men in 1912.

It is not reasonable to compare women of today to men in the 1960s, or to the men of 1912.

Bikila's 2.15 at Rome in '60 was a world best. Radcliffe has since run 2.15. A time of 2.19 in the early 60's was good enough to win many men's championship races. Women have never been able to run men's 800 times - 1.51 by the men (largely untrained) in 1912 is way better than the doped women's wr of 1.53.xx. There is no reason why women should be running marathon times that men were running in the early sixties, and yet are nowhere near men's middle distance times. Actually, there is a reason and it's called EPO and blood-doping; especially when you see an overweight female athlete of no particular achievement transformed overnight into a world beater who would have been competitive with men's marathon runners of the past.

Another reasonable response:

Even Paula ran slower than Bikila.

Excuse me, but you are completely out of every physiological and morphological knowledge.

Men (not trained) have very much more muscle strength, due to the hormonal and morphological differences.

This means that ALWAYS in the events where the muscle strength is the bsic quality, the average men are stronger than the average women, and the same happens at top athletic level. This means that never we can see top women jumping high or long like top men, never we can see a woman compete with a man in throwing, and never we can see the best women running fast like the best men.

Endurance is something different. The percentage of difference about the best performances in running, between men and women, decreases when the distance is longer. This fact is based on morphological differences : less weight, better natural aerobic level (compared with the muscle power they can develop), and, in many cases, better psychological focus.

Women are normally more elastic, and the cost of running is lower than men, at the same percentage of the personal maximal speed.

Your belief about doping (EPO) is simply ridiculous, and clearly show how you continue to speak about something you absolutely don't know. The main reason of the big improvement in Marathon is the professionalism in training, that years ago didn't exist for these distances (otherwise, never could happen that an athlete like Emiel Zatopek, already able running 5000m in 13'57" and 10000m under 29', performances still not reached by the best women, could win Olympic marathon in 2:24', a performance that now is absolutely common for about 100 women every year).

So, we can say that now there is SPECIFIC training for the marathon, and the marathon runners are SPECIALIST of the event, while 60-40 years ago there were top athletes RUNNING some marathon, with the preparation of shortest distances.

Specific, and not General Training, is the key for the improvements in every event, and you need to understand the big difference between RUNNING (that is what the most part of posters in LR do) and TRAINING, that is the answer to well determined and specific stimuli.