For me, it's really not whether athletes in NOP were doping, but whether the athletes had personal knowledge that they were doping, or whether they really were innocently going along with whatever AlSal was telling them.
Doping has developed more than anything else in the sport - more than training and more than shoes - because science, medicine and pharmaceuticals are constantly evolving, whereas the principles of training have changed little in decades and shoes are technologically rudimentary compared to drugs. But until the early seventies doping wasn't known to be a significant feature in distance running because the drugs before that era were not known to enhance stamina - as blood doping and, later, EPO were found to do. The drugs that were available were mainly in the nature of steroids, that aided strength, and stimulants, like amphetamines, and were used chiefly by athletes in speed, strength and field events.
But once the genie was let out of the bottle athletes would use whatever would give them an edge, and so doping became endemic in sport and big business. The result is that it is now impossible to separate doping from the sport, whereas in Elliott's era you would have been pressed to find it.
What this means is that in the more distant past it was likely the best in the sport weren't doped, whereas now the reverse probably applies. It is hard to imagine athletes today making championship finals if they aren't doped, let alone winning or medalling. The reason is simple; they are going to be better if they dope - sometimes much better - and when the differences in ability at the top are so small the gains from drugs will make all the difference in outcome.
I do agree in most of what you are saying here. But do you really mean that Elliot couldn’t have been competitive (clean) even against the athletes we’ve got nowadays..?
I don't think Elliott could beat today's best dopers. Only other dopers could. Only in clean competition would he be able to succeed. We are no longer in that era.
For me, it's really not whether athletes in NOP were doping, but whether the athletes had personal knowledge that they were doping, or whether they really were innocently going along with whatever AlSal was telling them.
No one in NOP doped. I do think they all operated in the gray area.
Now, BTC has at least one convicted doper. So now it’s whether the BTC members had ordinal knowledge….
I don't think Elliott could beat today's best dopers. Only other dopers could. Only in clean competition would he be able to succeed. We are no longer in that era.
Well let me rephrase my question then: Do you think El Guerrouj could have been an Elliot type of athlete (and clean) -ca 3 sec better than most of his fierce competitors (because of training, few injuries, talent), minus a few very talented athletes / and a few dopers who all came closer than these 3 seconds..?
I write could have been (not meaning if you think him being clean is the most likely possibility) -meaning do you think he theoretically could have been clean? Because I do; whether he was or not in reality I don’t have a clue…
And of course the best (f.ex Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo) may very well be clean (or f.ex only one of them doped) if the bulk / everyone of the dopers had a 12.50 / 12.55 natural ceiling (but now being 12.45ers because of the dope)… An unlikely and “to good to be true” example?
Unlikely and too good to be true.
First, you are assuming only a 5 - 10 second gain over 5000 m, while back then the Sunday Times experts estimated 15 - 30 seconds over 5,000 m, in line with Schumacher's 60 seconds over 10,000 m.
Second, why would the best clean athlete have a higher natural ceiling than the best doped athlete? Does doping depend strongly on talent?
Third, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, why would none of them start doping to dominate the others?
Fourth, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, what could they run doped? 12:10 and 25:20?
I don't think Elliott could beat today's best dopers. Only other dopers could. Only in clean competition would he be able to succeed. We are no longer in that era.
Some math (for you to commentate): Elliott 3.35.6 on dirt, no pacers / lights, old shoes, little competition -what if I cut 5 sec for the track, 1.5 sec for the shoes, 1 sec for no pacers, 1 sec for no lights, 0,5 sec for lack of competition on the home straights..? -Quite close to the supposed doped times of our area don’t you think…?
First, you are assuming only a 5 - 10 second gain over 5000 m, while back then the Sunday Times experts estimated 15 - 30 seconds over 5,000 m, in line with Schumacher's 60 seconds over 10,000 m.
Second, why would the best clean athlete have a higher natural ceiling than the best doped athlete? Does doping depend strongly on talent?
Third, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, why would none of them start doping to dominate the others?
Fourth, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, what could they run doped? 12:10 and 25:20?
First, you are using times based on gain estimates from a long gone period (with supposedly full throttle EPO / steroids), whereas I speak about nowadays… (You write Schumacher -do you mean Dieter Baumann..?)
Second, I don’t say the best clean athlete necessarily has a higher ceiling than the best doped, I just am saying what if he (by accident) had…. Meaning this could be a possibility (just like the opposite could, depending on the athletes).
Third, I didn’t make a premise that all of the four mentioned athletes are clean, but I said what if most of them are -meaning: Is there a law or something automatically that says that all of these athletes have to dope (doesn’t discard a lot of reasons to dope / a lot of reasons not to dope).
Fourth: I think you overestimate the effect of nowadays doping…
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
And of course the best (f.ex Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo) may very well be clean (or f.ex only one of them doped) if the bulk / everyone of the dopers had a 12.50 / 12.55 natural ceiling (but now being 12.45ers because of the dope)… An unlikely and “to good to be true” example?
Unlikely and too good to be true.
First, you are assuming only a 5 - 10 second gain over 5000 m, while back then the Sunday Times experts estimated 15 - 30 seconds over 5,000 m, in line with Schumacher's 60 seconds over 10,000 m.
Second, why would the best clean athlete have a higher natural ceiling than the best doped athlete? Does doping depend strongly on talent?
Third, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, why would none of them start doping to dominate the others?
Fourth, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, what could they run doped? 12:10 and 25:20?
First: The Sunday Times "experts" and "Schumacher" are the wrong kind of "expert" to offer opinions about elite performance. Their research and expertise is in detecting doping, rather than understanding what causes elite performance. Their guesstimates come from observing lesser talented non-elite athletes.
Second: To some degree, yes. The best clean athletes have less motivation to dope if they are already winning, compared to less talented athletes consistently falling short of the podium, looking to break into the next level. Some of the best athletes do get caught doping at the tail end of their career, after their performances start decreasing, which increases their motivation to dope.
I don't think Elliott could beat today's best dopers. Only other dopers could. Only in clean competition would he be able to succeed. We are no longer in that era.
Well let me rephrase my question then: Do you think El Guerrouj could have been an Elliot type of athlete (and clean) -ca 3 sec better than most of his fierce competitors (because of training, few injuries, talent), minus a few very talented athletes / and a few dopers who all came closer than these 3 seconds..?
I write could have been (not meaning if you think him being clean is the most likely possibility) -meaning do you think he theoretically could have been clean? Because I do; whether he was or not in reality I don’t have a clue…
To answer your question - no, I don't think El G could have been clean to run the times he did and yet also better than the best in his era, who I believe were similarly doped - such as Morceli, Ngeny and Lagat. The entire field in his era was improved through doping - he was the best doper in a doped field (which isn't a "level playing field" but a drugs "arms-race" - the best "gear"/best responder wins). 25 years later El G's records are still untouchable in a doped sport. That cannot be a clean athlete.
I don't think Elliott could beat today's best dopers. Only other dopers could. Only in clean competition would he be able to succeed. We are no longer in that era.
Some math (for you to commentate): Elliott 3.35.6 on dirt, no pacers / lights, old shoes, little competition -what if I cut 5 sec for the track, 1.5 sec for the shoes, 1 sec for no pacers, 1 sec for no lights, 0,5 sec for lack of competition on the home straights..? -Quite close to the supposed doped times of our area don’t you think…?
I don't think the changes in the sport account for the improvements we have seen. In essence, I think Elliott today - but still clean - would probably be about a 3.30 runner - maybe 3.29. Which would still easily be the world's best if the sport were clean.
First, you are assuming only a 5 - 10 second gain over 5000 m, while back then the Sunday Times experts estimated 15 - 30 seconds over 5,000 m, in line with Schumacher's 60 seconds over 10,000 m.
Second, why would the best clean athlete have a higher natural ceiling than the best doped athlete? Does doping depend strongly on talent?
Third, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, why would none of them start doping to dominate the others?
Fourth, if Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo were clean, what could they run doped? 12:10 and 25:20?
First: The Sunday Times "experts" and "Schumacher" are the wrong kind of "expert" to offer opinions about elite performance. Their research and expertise is in detecting doping, rather than understanding what causes elite performance. Their guesstimates come from observing lesser talented non-elite athletes.
Second: To some degree, yes. The best clean athletes have less motivation to dope if they are already winning, compared to less talented athletes consistently falling short of the podium, looking to break into the next level. Some of the best athletes do get caught doping at the tail end of their career, after their performances start decreasing, which increases their motivation to dope.
You are wrong on motivation - you don't really understand what drives achievement of any kind. The best are the most highly-motivated - they have to be; no one gets to the top less motivated than those behind them. If there is anything that increases the chances of success the highly-motivated, i.e. the best, will use it. That is why drugs are throughout sport today. Like many idealistic followers of sport you imagine the most driven and motivated of athletes compete as though they are participating in a "village green" contest, with its antiquated and largely "Anglo" notions of amateur sportsmanship. That disappeared decades ago. A few years ago a top football coach was asked if it was "life and death" out there on the pitch. He famously replied, "it's more important than that". That is where we are with sport. More important than life and death means drugs also.
I don't think the changes in the sport account for the improvements we have seen. In essence, I think Elliott today - but still clean - would probably be about a 3.30 runner - maybe 3.29. Which would still easily be the world's best if the sport were clean.
Well, I think Elliott could have done 3.26, especially if his career had surpassed 22 years of age… (Modern shoes, tracks and so on).
And I do think somebody will “touch El Guerrouj’s times”, and they may very well be clean… -Cheruiyot could have done it at his best with better pacing, and Jakob will do it (my best guesses). And the last one isn’t even that talented (physiologically; as a whole he is of course) in the 1500m / mile… And of course people could be doped, but they might also not be. And my gut feeling is that Jakob is clean (based on the indications we have; very fluffy ones of course, but that’s what we have, in addition to Herb Elliott who isn’t fluffy at all.)
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I don't think the changes in the sport account for the improvements we have seen. In essence, I think Elliott today - but still clean - would probably be about a 3.30 runner - maybe 3.29. Which would still easily be the world's best if the sport were clean.
Well, I think Elliott could have done 3.26, especially if his career had surpassed 22 years of age… (Modern shoes, tracks and so on).
And I do think somebody will “touch El Guerrouj’s times”, and they may very well be clean… -Cheruiyot could have done it at his best with better pacing, and Jakob will do it (my best guesses). And the last one isn’t even that talented (physiologically; as a whole he is of course) in the 1500m / mile… And of course people could be doped, but they might also not be. And my gut feeling is that Jakob is clean (based on the indications we have; very fluffy ones of course, but that’s what we have, in addition to Herb Elliott who isn’t fluffy at all.)
You know that drugs like EPO were rife in EL G's era, and undetectable, and yet you think the best athletes weren't using them. Who were? And how could clean athletes beat them?
I wonder what you think a doped El G would have run. 3.23? I don't think you understand just how fast his records really are. After quarter of a century they are still untouchable. Yet a quarter of a century before then the 1500 record was 6 seconds slower and the mile record was 8 seconds slower. Same tracks, shoes and training.
Apparently Junxia signed a letter with other Ma's Army veterans admitting they were doped. Not that it took any great detective skills to figure it out. Sometimes doping is just blatantly obvious.
First, you are using times based on gain estimates from a long gone period (with supposedly full throttle EPO / steroids), whereas I speak about nowadays… (You write Schumacher -do you mean Dieter Baumann..?)
Second, I don’t say the best clean athlete necessarily has a higher ceiling than the best doped, I just am saying what if he (by accident) had…. Meaning this could be a possibility (just like the opposite could, depending on the athletes).
Third, I didn’t make a premise that all of the four mentioned athletes are clean, but I said what if most of them are -meaning: Is there a law or something automatically that says that all of these athletes have to dope (doesn’t discard a lot of reasons to dope / a lot of reasons not to dope).
Fourth: I think you overestimate the effect of nowadays doping…
1: no I am not using those old full throttle estimates. The Sunday Times was from 2015, and the experts therein specifically mentioned the 2012 final 5000 in London (just about blood doping). In 2012, the ABP was in full effect, not to mention the EPO test, and the full throttle stuff long gone. Schumacher (not Baumann, what did Baumann say?) said that in 2017 in a CAS hearing, about EPO alone. So one should add something to those two (quite similar) estimates for steroids and SARMS etc.
2 + 3: no disagreement there really; I just find those scenarios very unlikely.
4: Is there a significant difference between doping in 2012/2017 and nowadays? The Kenyans are more regularly tested, and that shows indeed, but other than that, globally? Are there any updated expert estimates since 2017?
Apparently Junxia signed a letter with other Ma's Army veterans admitting they were doped. Not that it took any great detective skills to figure it out. Sometimes doping is just blatantly obvious.
You are wrong on motivation - you don't really understand what drives achievement of any kind. The best are the most highly-motivated - they have to be; no one gets to the top less motivated than those behind them. If there is anything that increases the chances of success the highly-motivated, i.e. the best, will use it. That is why drugs are throughout sport today.
+1
I'd also add that there is more motivation (a lot more to gain) to dope to improve from place 3 to place 1 - and to WRs - than to dope to improve from place 15 to place 10.
You are wrong on motivation - you don't really understand what drives achievement of any kind. The best are the most highly-motivated - they have to be; no one gets to the top less motivated than those behind them. If there is anything that increases the chances of success the highly-motivated, i.e. the best, will use it. That is why drugs are throughout sport today. Like many idealistic followers of sport you imagine the most driven and motivated of athletes compete as though they are participating in a "village green" contest, with its antiquated and largely "Anglo" notions of amateur sportsmanship. That disappeared decades ago. A few years ago a top football coach was asked if it was "life and death" out there on the pitch. He famously replied, "it's more important than that". That is where we are with sport. More important than life and death means drugs also.
Maybe the genie we need is to tell us which of your beliefs are real.