Laura MF Muir 3:55

good idea wrote:

Have you maybe just thought that she is the clean world record holder, it has to be somebody and yes although she wasn't an insanely quick junior, she was involved in the sport and has shown steady progression. I do however agree that the 'Lance' effect has now killed any belief within our sport so thanks Lance.

You are right. Someone has to be the clean record holder. You are also right that given what we know, that person will undoubtedly be suspect.

The problem isn't really Lance. Look at the women's records. Many were set around the same time. For the longest while, they seemed untouchable, but not any more. Now they are all under attack, often by prodigies like G Dibaba, who threaten several records at a time.

It is obviously possible that this is just co-incidence. It could be that all of the experimentation with training regimens has paid off, and we finally know how get doper results without doping. It is also possible that we once again know how to dope without getting caught.

This really sucks for clean runners. I hope Muir is one of them.

someone asked:

1. Who above Muir in the all-time list do you think was clean?

2. If you can't name anyone, then you effectively accept that Muir now holds the "clean" world record. Would you not describe that as pretty extraordinary for someone who just a few years ago was a minor medallist in the scottish schools champs?

1. No idea.

2. No.

I am very confident Moorcroft* wasn't cheating nor Ovett* and they both held world records. So although I wouldn't chuck that silly title around, someone has to hold it and no reason why it shouldn't be her.

* yes I know they were English not Scottish!

SimpleQuestion wrote:

Simple questions to the rah-rah Brits who think Muirs time is not extraordinary:

1. Who above Muir in the all-time list do you think was clean?

2. If you can't name anyone, then you effectively accept that Muir now holds the "clean" world record. Would you not describe that as pretty extraordinary for someone who just a few years ago was a minor medallist in the scottish schools champs?

You should also ask:

1a) Who behind Muir in the all-time list do you think was dirty?

2a) Don't you think it's extraordinary for someone to run faster than dopers without doping?

Murphy ran a 45.4 relay split in 2014 or 2015 already, so hardly unreasonable to see him running 1:42.93 this year. For Muir to have that kind of talent as a woman, she'd have a pr around 51-52 instead of 55. Or she'd have 14:40s or better, instead of 15:40s.

StickyBottle:

"Working in conjunction with German TV channel ARD/WDR – with which it has previously cooperated on doping stories including its athletics exposé of last year – The Sunday Times said it sent a German runner to meet with Dr Bonar.

And during that meeting, which was secretly recorded, the newspaper said Dr Bonar prescribed EPO to the aspiring runner, warning him it was banned and to micro dose.

The doctor allegedly said he was recommending the drugs to right the runner’s low hematocrit.

The reports claim the runner desisted efforts by Bonar to administer EPO at one of their appointments but that he left the surgery with prescriptions from the doctor for the human growth hormone Genotropin and DHEA, which the newspaper described as a steroid hormone.

When the revelations emerged yesterday the UK Government responded by ordering an inquiry into the allegations of inaction by UKAD.

An element of that inquiry is that the agency allegedly failed to pass on the substance of the claims to the General Medical Council which has jurisdiction over doctors in Britain."

Before anyone says anything, I'm fully aware that this isn't proof of anything, or anywhere close to it. But having met Laura Muir on a few occasions, I'd put her right up there at the top of my "least likely people ever to take drugs" list.

As I said, not proof of anything but if these things were 100% proveable then I'd be willing to bet substantial amounts that she's clean.

Now I'll just sit back while all those twattish "we have the monopoly on all the world's talented white folk" Americans take their potshots.

Letsrun:

"And while British Athletics has stated that they have not used Aden in any capacity this year, Aden’s Facebook page shows him in Africa this February coaching right next to UK Director of Endurance, Barry Fudge."

I was following the eye wrote:

Now I'll just sit back while all those twattish "we have the monopoly on all the world's talented white folk" Americans take their potshots.

But no American white people are running "clean WR" times. The fastest US white person is Galen Rupp, who is subject to exponentially more suspicion than Muir (this is the only Muir doping thread!)--he is over 25 seconds off the 10k WR. If Galen were to bust out a 26:28, maybe 2% of the running world would not be suspicious.

My main problem with the Muir situation is G. Dibaba and the eye test. Look at the two, and watch the two run. Genzebe has gorgeous, effortless form, comes from possibly the greatest running family, was a junior prodigy, has obviously better speed (naturally). In my eyes, Genzebe Dibaba makes sense as a WR holder--her associations have put her cleanliness in doubt, but clean, I would expect her to be...probably five seconds faster than Muir. Three seconds and change, if you want. So if Genzebe is an almost lock as a doper due to the Aden business, and Muir just ran five seconds slower than Genzebe's doped time...doesn't look good for Muir, OR Genzebe is clean.

Yep, it's the multi-faceted approach why ther're running faster.

The Scot wrote:

someone asked:

1. Who above Muir in the all-time list do you think was clean?

2. If you can't name anyone, then you effectively accept that Muir now holds the "clean" world record. Would you not describe that as pretty extraordinary for someone who just a few years ago was a minor medallist in the scottish schools champs?

1. No idea.

2. No.

I am very confident Moorcroft* wasn't cheating nor Ovett* and they both held world records. So although I wouldn't chuck that silly title around, someone has to hold it and no reason why it shouldn't be her.

* yes I know they were English not Scottish!

When Ovett was 17 he was European junior champion, Muir was third in the scottish schools.

When Ovett was 18 he was second in European (senior) Champs and broke the European junior record. Muir was running around in 30th place in European junior x-country.

Yep, you'd definitely call them equally likely WR holders.

The Scot wrote:

someone asked:

1. Who above Muir in the all-time list do you think was clean?

2. If you can't name anyone, then you effectively accept that Muir now holds the "clean" world record. Would you not describe that as pretty extraordinary for someone who just a few years ago was a minor medallist in the scottish schools champs?

1. No idea.

2. No.

I am very confident Moorcroft* wasn't cheating nor Ovett* and they both held world records. So although I wouldn't chuck that silly title around, someone has to hold it and no reason why it shouldn't be her.

* yes I know they were English not Scottish!

Your 100% clean hero Moorcroft was chief executive of UK Athletics when UKA exonerated Linford, Dougie Walker and Mark Richardson despite all of them testing positive to nandrolone.

Clearly the man has the strongest of anti-doping credentials.

Muir is not anywhere near Steve Ovett.

"Steve Ovett: Personal Records

200m-21.7

400m-47.0r/ 47.5

800-1:44.09

1500-3:30.77

5000m-13:20.06

fred wrote:

Muir is not anywhere near Steve Ovett.

"Steve Ovett: Personal Records

200m-21.7

400m-47.0r/ 47.5

800-1:44.09

1500-3:30.77

5000m-13:20.06

Which is why 3:55 is so unpalatable, as I make it equal to 3:27, from an athlete without equivalent 400/5000 ability to Ovett.

In other words it's in Mo 3:28 la-la land territory.

Maybe Barry Fudge can explain it to me. Marginal gains?

Algonquin wrote:

Awesome question. I don't know.

What was the first Olympics with a synthetic track?

What was faster dirt or cinders? What was the difference?

I really just meant non-Tartan.

Just reading David Epstein who claims that there is a 1.5% differential between cinders and modern synthetic tracks. Don't know about dirt, but John Landy raced in Helsinki in 1956 because they had a synthetic track, so presumably a decade later Stockholm would have a synthetic track.

1968 was the first Olympics with a synthetic track, I think.

Anybody know any more?

Another state sponsored brit doper.

Drug cheats out Laura Muir.

This article goes into a bit more detail about the new, more "scientific" approach to coaching in the UK.

Training is athlete specific: Dr. Matt long spends time with Dr. Barry Fudge in exploring his role in supporting double Olympic champion Mo Farah.

https://www.brianmac.co.uk/articles/article142.htm

Interestingly Fudge's PhD supervisor, Yannis Pitsiladis has gotten a lot of research support from WADA to develop better tests, including some for micro-dosing.

jjjjjj wrote:

Murphy ran a 45.4 relay split in 2014 or 2015 already, so hardly unreasonable to see him running 1:42.93 this year. For Muir to have that kind of talent as a woman, she'd have a pr around 51-52 instead of 55. Or she'd have 14:40s or better, instead of 15:40s.

That's not a very helpful comparison.

For a start 800m is a lot closer to 400 than 1500.

Secondly, a woman running 3:55 does not have to be able to run 51 or 52 for a 400m! Where did you get that figure from?

What's Semenya's 400 pb? Around 50.8? And she's probably capable of 1:53 for 800m. Doesn't mean she's going to be faster than Muir over 1500!

How do you know what sort of 400m speed Muir shows in training? She might have run a 53.5, which is probably a more realistic time for someone with her 1500 ability.

Cram's best ever 400 tt in 85 was 48.1, and he ran faster than Murphy. By your reasoning. Murphy, at 45 mid, should be running sub 1:40!

I remember reading a thread about Murphy running a 45 mid 400 split, which in itself means more like 46 low in an open 400, but I also seem to recall that their wasn't conclusive evidence or video documentation, and many posters remained unconvinced!?

Even if he did run a 45 mid split last season, his progression has been incredibly rapid. What was his 800 pb 2 seasons ago?

Laura Muir front ran a 4:00 in Oslo last year and everyone commended her for a great front running performance. Similar sentiments followed her 3:57 in London earlier this summer.

But now she has dared to run faster than Simpson or Rowbury, with a 3:55, and now everyone is calling her a doper.

I think the fact that she was out of the medals in Rio and got caught up following a ridiculous mid race surge by Dibaba, is evidence enough for me that she is likely not a doper. She crumpled at the end and finished down the field. Had she been able to follow that pace and medal, then perhaps there would be something of a case.

Karma Police wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Determined from what test and when? Or are you just talking shit.

Niyonsaba is no more a dude than Dafne Schippers or Chanelle Price.

Does Niyonsaba have a Y chromosome or internal testes?

The Moron Miler wrote:

Sharp deserves a medal as top 3 in the women's 800m in Rio.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Niyonsaba is no dude, muscles or not. Doped, maybe.

A dude is a dude. wrote:

Any guy with a T level of 30 is a dude.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Determined from what test and when? Or are you just talking shit.

Niyonsaba is no more a dude than Dafne Schippers or Chanelle Price.

Just admit it wrote:

You like dudes, and would like to have sex with him.

Bad Wigins wrote:

See? You're willing to trash Niyonsaba's reputation, just to troll me. You made a nasty little shit of yourself and it didn't even work.

Totally wrong. Nice attempt to cover your homosexuality though.