yes
and we also had the huge influx of new spanish and moroccan talent around that time
I wonder why lol?
yes
and we also had the huge influx of new spanish and moroccan talent around that time
I wonder why lol?
And the east Europeans if you want to include women.
vo2 cycling wrote:
yes
and we also had the huge influx of new spanish and moroccan talent around that time
I wonder why lol?
Neither Spanish nor Moroccan talent showed a huge influx in the 90's. Both produced world class runners before and after.
yes epo had no effect on track distance
track was an anomaly
the epo boom coincided with the influx of clean east african talent
epo ushered in the new clean era of distance running where dopers were finally put to the sword
that's what happened...
vo2 cycling wrote:
yes epo had no effect on track distance
track was an anomaly
the epo boom coincided with the influx of clean east african talent
epo ushered in the new clean era of distance running where dopers were finally put to the sword
that's what happened...
And yet the "new clean era" has just as much depth as the "EPO era," and far superior depth at the marathon?
I suppose the end of the EPO era also just happened to coincide with the road race boom (in which total prize money doubled in 5 years), and with the decline of 5k/10ks on the European track circuit?
Wait, you said the marathon is too long for EPO. Never mind that it was used for a 3000 km bike race.
LOL!! wrote:How significant? How many seconds per 10 km does EPO help an elite athlete?
tergat dropped about 30 sec for 10,000 in 1997 when he went on epo
drivel
he was in
26'20/26'30
shape in
atlanta
he lost because he coudn't get his boyz to hammer out fast 5k
ventolin^3 wrote:
drivel
he was in
26'20/26'30
shape in
atlanta
he lost because he coudn't get his boyz to hammer out fast 5k
Ventolin, have you ever analyzed the fitness of David Moorcroft? Others in another thread have speculated he would have surely been under 12:55 if he didn't have so many freak injuries, probably better if he had a strong pacer. That would certainly negate the "unnatural" progression of world records.
aduck2022 wrote:
THE BEST KENYAN AND ETHIOPIAN IN LONG DISTANCES ARE ALL CLEAN"
i think this statement sums it all up for you RENATO ,
like the best of dopers , absolute two faced
lie and deny till the end , no matter what .
know protocal ,ask lance , all about protecting
ones legacy ,be it trainer, athlete ,physican .
^^^THIS^^^
To the jerk-off upthread who said that Canova deserves respect because he is a successful coach, what a bunch of bullshxt.
26:20? Based on what? the perfect 10000 race (perfect wheater, excellent rabbit's job, best shape of the athlete at a certain point, good money and good competition as incentive)...it's simply a dream.
Which claim?
antalayara wrote:
Why not come with an argument against the claims of the article, pinpointing the errors (if such exists), rather that obsessing about rethorics.
Ben L Wrong wrote:26:20? Based on what? the perfect 10000 race (perfect wheater, excellent rabbit's job, best shape of the athlete at a certain point, good money and good competition as incentive)...it's simply a dream.
yes
he was likely close to 26'20 shape in atlanta if he'd run a 10k in oslo with perfect pacing to 5k
that's how you assess shape : estimate what their shape is in perfect conditions
tergat looked a shadow of his atlanta form when running 26'54 fading badly against hissou who ran 26'38wr later in brussels
beforehand, most observers were expecting tergat to smash the wr in brussels
the same hissou, presumably in season peak shape in atlanta got hammered by tergat & all that in space of last 3k !!!
geb - 27'07
tergat - 27'08
hissou - 27'24 !!!
Hardloper wrote:Ventolin, have you ever analyzed the fitness of David Moorcroft? Others in another thread have speculated he would have surely been under 12:55 if he didn't have so many freak injuries, probably better if he had a strong pacer. That would certainly negate the "unnatural" progression of world records.
yes
although i have never seen full vid of dave's 5k ( it was not even shown in entirety at the time on following weekend's sports show ), i'm pretty sure he couda gone
~ 12'52/12'53
that day with perfect pacing to 3k & even pacing thruout
aouita wouda been too lazy to fetch that
( it wouda needed near 7'44 pacing & aouita going flat-out hard alone for last 2k, which he was loath to do - i can see him working hard enough to have got 12'55 but i don't see him putting in 12'52/12'53 committment ) & that wr woud probably have stood until '95 when geb went 12'44
aouita woudn't have got 12'52/12'53 in '85
i'm pretty sure he was capable of 1'43.5 based on chasing cram to line with a 52.8 in a 3'29.7
he can't have run a 1'42 guy so close without some great speed
his 10k was unknown at the time, but i figure 27'15 - 27'30 back then
1'43.5 with
27'30 -> 2'12.6 , 3'27.4 , 7'24.1 , 12'56.2
27'25 -> 2'12.5 , 3'27.2 , 7'23.3 , 12'54.3
27'20 -> 2'12.5 , 3'27.0 , 7'22.5 , 12'52.5
27'15 -> 2'12.4 , 3'26.8 , 7'21.7 , 12'50.7
he had much better chance of running 3'27 that year than breaking moorcroft's likely possible best !!!
above just indicates that aouita was basically same calibre of talent as morceli from 800 - 5k, just that morceli made a "religious" effort to chase times from long way out whereas aouita hoped to just snatch them with a fast last lap
how on earth can anyone offer any other explanation for his pathetic failure in '85 to break rono's p!ss-weak 7'32.1wr ???
he went 7'32.94, when shouda been capable of 10s faster
Peer Mediator wrote:More nonsense. Hardloper is correct in his analysis of the race.
There was nothing about Makhloufi's closing splits that suggests were particularly remarkable and certainly not indicative of a 3:27
utter drivel
you have not looked at maloofi's race with any analysis whatsover
he ran a wild race, running wide in every bend except last, running huge amount of extra distance, which in comparison, morceli in '93, when running 3'44.39 = ~ 3'27.7 shape & presumably at least as good in stuttgart, ran slightly wide 1st 2 bends but route 1 from then
You have no proof at all that he was 'coasting' the last 100m. It looked like someone who had mede his effort and was no longer able to maintain the same pace in the last 100.
His last 800 was 1:50.3 in a 3:34. Not as good as EL G's 1:46.9 in a 3:34 final or Coe's 1:49.8 in a 3:32 final.
His last lap was 52.8, which again doesn't compare to say Morceli's 50.6 last 400 in a 3:34.2 1993 WC final, or his 51.6 in a 3:32.8 1991 final.
His last 300m was 39.3, slower than Coe's 39.2 in LA off a faster pace.
His last 200 was 26.9, and 100m was 14.0. Both inferior to most championship finals in recent years. If all those splits mean 3:27 to you, then all I can say is that there have been many other guys in the past capable of 3:26 or faster.
The most impressive split for Mak in London was the 100m stretch from 300 out in 12.4, the same time that Morceli ran in his 3:34 WC win in 93. But Morceli's 100m stretch prior to that one had been 12.8, whereas Mak's had been only 13.5. Morceli then went on to run the next 100m in 12.4 as well, while Mak slowed to 12.9
now, some proper analysis, not just superficial drivel
- 1st bend he runs ~ 2.75m extra
- 2nd bend he runs initial part in lane 2 !! ~ 3.5m extra
- 3rd bend he has foot on line in parts ~ 3m extra
- 4th bend he runs just inside lane all the way ~ 3m
- 5th bend he runs again start in lane 2 !!! ~ 3.5m extra
- 6th bend he runs just inside line ~ 3m extra
that is a total of
~ 18.75m
extra & that may be ungenerous !!!
that means his final time of 3'34.08 shouda been for route 1
~ 3'31.4 !!!
with a finishing 52.4 accounting for extra distance
that compares very much with morceli's 3'34.24 with 50.6 finish
So, even the best part of Mak's race does not compare to a known 3:27 athlete, Morceli. Makhloufi was in 3:30 shape in London, which was all that was required to win a race in which no one else on the day looked in anything better than 3:32 shape
no
maloofi compares very much with morceli in '93 shape
ventolin^3 wrote:
- 1st bend he runs ~ 2.75m extra
- 2nd bend he runs initial part in lane 2 !! ~ 3.5m extra
- 3rd bend he has foot on line in parts ~ 3m extra
- 4th bend he runs just inside lane all the way ~ 3m
- 5th bend he runs again start in lane 2 !!! ~ 3.5m extra
- 6th bend he runs just inside line ~ 3m extra
that is a total of
~ 18.75m
You are over generous. You have to run the whole bend on the line with lane 2 to cover 3.1m. Your analysis is way off.
On the first ben for a start he is on the inside of lane 1 for the first half of the curve and then runs the second 50m just wide of the middle of the lane. That is c 1.5m extra. No way is that 2.75m
Running wide in lane 1 is not 3m. You have to run the entire bend on the line to get 3m. He does this on the 2nd bend, where you give 3.5m. It's nonsense.
He runs c 14m extra in total and only an extra 2m on the last lap. That's equivalent to a 52.5 in a 3:32.1 race.
Only someone delusional would give one athlete an extra 18+m in this race: -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry8GWJMpIVQAnd then 21m for another athlete in this race: -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA_rz-lzqIQCoe runs at least 10m further than Makhloufi did in London, yet Ventolin states only 3m difference, by giving 21m in this thread: -
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5070489&page=5There is no consistency in his so called analysis from one thread to another.
ventolin^3 wrote:
aouita woudn't have got 12'52/12'53 in '85
his 10k was unknown at the time, but i figure 27'15 - 27'30 back then
1'43.5 with
27'30 -> 2'12.6 , 3'27.4 , 7'24.1 , 12'56.2
27'25 -> 2'12.5 , 3'27.2 , 7'23.3 , 12'54.3
27'20 -> 2'12.5 , 3'27.0 , 7'22.5 , 12'52.5
27'15 -> 2'12.4 , 3'26.8 , 7'21.7 , 12'50.7
LOL. You say "his 10k was unknown at the time" but then give a figure of between 27:15 and 27:30! This is a contradiction in terms.
You are giving him a 10k ability that is equal or superior to his lifetime pb set in another year, when he was training specifically for a 10000m race. That makes no sense and is just another example of you plucking numbers from nowhere. In much the same way as you gave Aouita a 400 ability of 49 sec in 1984 in one thread and then said he had the leg speed to win the 1500 in LA in another.
This is what he wrote in April this year: -
'doubted it because i don't believe aouita had better than low-49 speed in '84
his line of fit for '84 was prelim ~
49.2 / 1'45.5 -> 3'29.9 , 7'26.4 , 12'56.7'
from here: -
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5070489&page=1No consistency in your fantasy world.
To the jerk-off upthread who said that Canova deserves respect because he is a successful coach, what a bunch of bullshxt.
if you're referring to me mr duce you need to go back and factcheck the thread
i certainly don't believe mr canovas claims in regard to the lack of effectiveness of blood transfusions and epo for recovery and performance
he's a successful coach ..i credit him for that however his theories on doping are far-fetched
I don't agree with his views on blood transfusions or EPO not being effective for elite athletes either!!
There were a few but not in the sheer NUMBERS we have today. Ethiopia was barely a blip on the running screen due to years of revolution there. That is why they disappeared in a large part of the 80s and then appeared en masse in the 90s and 00s when the country had stabilized. same thing with Kenya - there were a few great runners but no depth. Running and elite running was very disorganized back then but as more managers went down there looking for talent and more Kenyans saw they could make a name for themselves with their raw talent they came to the track in large numbers. Simply put, you're holding a pretty tunnel-vision argument if you think drugs has everything to do with the rate of change. Introducing a larger pool of talent into the running world (or any sport) is going to change things.
you think geb and bekele was clean?
they were beating a bunch of dopers
only way that happens is if you're also doped..