Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

Killeriotttt wrote:

Do really think Renato Canova is a serious person on this topic? To me he sounds like Donald Trump asserting that he has followed the IRS rules on his taxes, and that cheating on one’s taxes has not been proven to improve one’s finances. However you do strike me as being overly gullible.

It is enlightening that you think the right path is choosing who to believe on this topic, by assessing some personal notion of seriousness. This is the strategy of the uninformed follower.

I do not form my ideas by choosing who to believe, but by independent assessment of all that is known on the topic, through many decades of historical performances, decades of doping and altitude studies, and known prevalence estimates.

I think that is the best approach to a topic you consider serious, rather than preaching faith, and following cult-like behavior.

I do not gullibly believe or gullibly follow those who can produce no relevant facts. This includes accusations of calling those with first-hand experience "chartlatans", just because it contradicts your pre-judged beliefs with no basis in fact.

I have already seen how you interpret an off-season 3:37, and a poorly designed set of performance trials where scientists were only able to achieve 85% performance with EPO and training. Knowing that, what things "sounds like" to you, are shaped by strong beliefs lacking factual basis, and cannot persuade anyone who does not share these unfounded beliefs.

Killeriotttt wrote:

Do really think Renato Canova is a serious person on this topic? To me he sounds like Donald Trump asserting that he has followed the IRS rules on his taxes, and that cheating on one’s taxes has not been proven to improve one’s finances. However you do strike me as being overly gullible.

You and Asslivs are completely ignorant of what elite training entails.

ImpaIa31 wrote:

Killeriotttt wrote:

Do really think Renato Canova is a serious person on this topic? To me he sounds like Donald Trump asserting that he has followed the IRS rules on his taxes, and that cheating on one’s taxes has not been proven to improve one’s finances. However you do strike me as being overly gullible.

You and Asslivs are completely ignorant of what elite training entails.

OK you may think this but I suppose I could play my trump card here as an athlete but it shouldn’t matter. Impala you have offered nothing. I know what it takes to train as an elite and it is not rocket science. Most coaches are not super bright.

Endless paragraphs preaching your self-attributed virtues. I am sure you are chaste, as well. They only prove the emptiness of your arguments.

You will not understand what is different, by emphasizing what is the same. Key differences are event specialization, event specificity, and non-linear versus linear periodization, which change how we define and build these basics "conditioning, strength, and speed work" during the different phases of training. Lydiard-trained athletes before modern training could be considered a "jack of all trades, but a master of none".(quote)

----

Snell was a "jack of all trades but master of none", despite winning the Olympic 800m (twice) as well as the 1500m and being the world record-holder over the 800m, half and mile, and Halberg was a jack of all trades also - despite being the Olympic 5k champion and world 2 mile and 3 mile record holder? You are an utter and vacuous ass.

So what is "linear and non-linear periodisation" translated into actual training - and how does it make all the difference in today's performances? You are the king of empty jargon.

As for your insistence that you see no correlation between doping and training - that of course is a given for a denier like yourself - it requires maintaining that drugs will have no effect on human physiology. Clearly you have never taken anything for even a headache, or used anti-inflammatories, and modern medicine has yet to reach you in your cave - but that there is an unending range of substances available that will add to strength and stamina, as well as simply acting as a stimulant, has yet to penetrate the concrete pillbox of your mind.

ImpaIa31 wrote:

Killeriotttt wrote:

Do really think Renato Canova is a serious person on this topic? To me he sounds like Donald Trump asserting that he has followed the IRS rules on his taxes, and that cheating on one’s taxes has not been proven to improve one’s finances. However you do strike me as being overly gullible.

You and Asslivs are completely ignorant of what elite training entails.

Tell us about your elite career.

Killeriotttt wrote:

ImpaIa31 wrote:

You and Asslivs are completely ignorant of what elite training entails.

OK you may think this but I suppose I could play my trump card here as an athlete but it shouldn’t matter. Impala you have offered nothing. I know what it takes to train as an elite and it is not rocket science. Most coaches are not super bright.

One of the unfortunate features of elite and championship athletes today is that many of them - nearly one in two, according to surveys - see the need to supplement their training with doping.

Only rekrunner is confident it doesn't do them any good. But they won't listen to him.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Killeriotttt wrote:

OK you may think this but I suppose I could play my trump card here as an athlete but it shouldn’t matter. Impala you have offered nothing. I know what it takes to train as an elite and it is not rocket science. Most coaches are not super bright.

One of the unfortunate features of elite and championship athletes today is that many of them - nearly one in two, according to surveys - see the need to supplement their training with doping.

Only rekrunner is confident it doesn't do them any good. But they won't listen to him.

I guess you mean one survey, rather than plural surveys, which included sprinters, fielders, and walkers. And that was at a championship way back in 2011, before ABP enforcement started really ramping up. Before 2011, I was mainly talking about Lydiard training, and exercise physiology, and Lance Armstrong, so it's not likely any of those championship athletes would have heard me say anything about drugs and elite distance performance.

But even if they had, to paraphrase Killeriotttt, most athletes are not super bright. We could say the same about most reporters and fans too. And some politicians.

But lets say nearly 1 in 2 athletes are doping. Surely, that includes some of the best Americans, Europeans, Asians, and Oceanians over the course of the last three decades.

Can you give me the name of some of the very best examples of long distance male athletes from these countries and continents, that best demonstrate your notion of doping producing superior performances?

Thanks in advance.

The list would be too long. I would simply say that given the prevalence of drugs there wouldn't be an elite performance in the last 30 years, at least, that I would trust to be clean. But to you, whatever they were taking had no more effect on their performance than an aspirin.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Snell was a "jack of all trades but master of none", despite winning the Olympic 800m (twice) as well as the 1500m and being the world record-holder over the 800m, half and mile, and Halberg was a jack of all trades also - despite being the Olympic 5k champion and world 2 mile and 3 mile record holder? You are an utter and vacuous ass.

Winner of Olympics means you beat your competitors from that era. Even Lydiard said he didn't have the best runners, but just the best trained for that day.

In that era, no one yet followed a modern training. The quickest times from Snell and Halberg were beaten well before the end of the '60s.

Modern training has made a greater impact on longer distances, compared to the 800m and 1500m/mile.

I don't often pay attention to the 800m, but Snell's fastest 800m is now outside the top-1000 performances all time. This one did last a little longer though, until around 1973.

Snell's fastest 1500m is 3:37.6. Coincidentally, this is the exact time that Cheptegei ran, and now you call that slow, for an endurance type runner who masters longer distances.

Herb Elliot ran two seconds faster 2 years earlier, and Jim Ryun ran 4 seconds faster 3 years later.

Jim Ryun was also 3 seconds faster in the mile.

Unfortunately Halberg doesn't appear anywhere in my all metric analyses, but we know from you from this thread, he is also 3:38 and 13:35 runner, which places him around 8000th best performance. Ron Clarke ran 19 seconds faster in 1966.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Can you give me the name of some of the very best examples of long distance male athletes from these countries and continents, that best demonstrate your notion of doping producing superior performances?

Thanks in advance.

The list would be too long. I would simply say that given the prevalence of drugs there wouldn't be an elite performance in the last 30 years, at least, that I would trust to be clean. But to you, whatever they were taking had no more effect on their performance than an aspirin.

Now who's ducking what he cannot explain?

Currently the length of the list is ZERO.

I don't ask for a long list, but a short list of your best examples. Give me a short list of say FIVE non-Africans from the country or countries of your choice.

3:37 is slow for a 12:35 26:11 runner. How is this not obvious to you?

You can argue until you are blue in the face that it was a rust buster or whatever. Maybe so. Maybe we will see him run a 3:32 this summer/fall. Of course that will not happen. Cheptegei is suspicious as hell. That is fine. You cannot see it. That is fine too.

what a dummy you and others are. your obsession with data lacks context and appreciation for real world factors.

jabouko wrote:

what a dummy you and others are. your obsession with data lacks context and appreciation for real world factors.

I know way more about this than you do. Any argument you have I have anticipated. Next!

Armstronglivs wrote:

So what is "linear and non-linear periodisation" translated into actual training - and how does it make all the difference in today's performances? You are the king of empty jargon.

As for your insistence that you see no correlation between doping and training - that of course is a given for a denier like yourself - it requires maintaining that drugs will have no effect on human physiology. Clearly you have never taken anything for even a headache, or used anti-inflammatories, and modern medicine has yet to reach you in your cave - but that there is an unending range of substances available that will add to strength and stamina, as well as simply acting as a stimulant, has yet to penetrate the concrete pillbox of your mind.

Actual training:

The answers can be found in what you dismiss as empty jargon. I can point you in the right direction, but you need to do your homework too, rather than dismiss and ridicule what has been learned in the last 40-50 years.

Lydiard viewed training as aerobic or anaerobic. In a linear periodization, you develop one attribute at a time. These early phases are the same for all runners from 800m to the marathon, with no regard for the desired racing speed for the desired racing time of the desired event. Lydiard's idea of stamina was to mix endurance and speed together in the coordination phase -- the first time a Lydiard runner starts doing something that resembles their target event pace for the target race time. Furthermore, once Lydiard started "anaerobic" training, this was done carefully, as it would start to undo your "aerobic" development, leaving a limited time for coordinated development, and a small window for your peak performances, before you had to shut everything down and start the next season with a regenerative marathon conditioning phase.

Modern training describes training in terms of speed, relative to the racing speed of your desired event, and time spent at speed, relative to the time required for that event, using terms like specific, special, general, and regenerative to develop a spectrum of qualities richer than what Lydiard described simply as "aerobic" and "anaerobic". You don't spend much training time outside of general interest, unless you need regeneration (recovery). A non-linear periodization will combine speed and endurance together in all phases, in a way that works toward running your desired race pace for the desired race time, from general to specific, by developing the intensity, then extending that intensity to last for the desired time.

So the reason Halberg only ran 13:35 while Clarke ran 13:16 just a few short years later (and similarly Halberg's 3 mile WR of 13:10 versus Clarke's 12:50), is that Halberg ran too little volume at paces faster than 13:35, compared to Clarke. He didn't get enough intensity during the aerobic phases, because they were too slow, and didn't get enough volume during speed training, because they were too fast.

No Correlation:

I didn't say "no correlation between doping and training", but "no obvious correlation between nations who dope, and nations now producing superior performances". This is not a hypothetical prediction of the future that denies other hypothetical predictions, but an affirmation of the current state of what is historically known about both doping and performance. To give just one example, when the Sunday Times broke down the leaked 2001-2012 data, the top 4 "suspicious" countries were Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Greece. These are not countries producing superior performances in large numbers in distance events (some women but virtually no men). Looking further down the list, Kenyan (ranked 13th) and Ethiopian (ranked 20th) "suspicion" was below the global average. If the correlation was a strong one, countries with superior doping suspicion would also be the same countries producing superior performances. If the correlation was weak or non-existent, you would have the best performing countries with a below average "suspicion".

This is one, of many, facts, that form my opinions. Feel free to offer facts that support your opinion, or contradict mine.

You want to paint this as me denying what you believe to be the reality, but this simply ducks the question you cannot answer -- regardless of my opinions, what is the factual basis for your expressed beliefs? Why can't you explain with real word facts and real world examples, rather than resort to ad hominem?

Killeriotttt wrote:

3:37 is slow for a 12:35 26:11 runner. How is this not obvious to you?

You can argue until you are blue in the face that it was a rust buster or whatever. Maybe so. Maybe we will see him run a 3:32 this summer/fall. Of course that will not happen. Cheptegei is suspicious as hell. That is fine. You cannot see it. That is fine too.

But it is obvious to me. I said it was slow. 3:37.6 was comparatively slow as far back as the 1960s, when Snell ran his fastest, after Herb Elliot ran 3:35 and before Jim Ryun ran 3:33.

I also said it was slow for Cheptegei. Given the known conditions, it is too slow for any type of analysis that attempts to conclude suspicion.

You may still say Cheptegei is "suspicious", and that is your final opinion, and we agree to disagree, but what is lacking is the factual basis for your opinion. Without any factual basis, I feel no compulsion to change my opinion.

Your ignorance is bottomless. Snell's 3.37 was run during a mile race. The only time he raced the 1500 was at the Tokyo Olympics, where he beat the best in the world. Imperial distances were run more often in that era, and especially the mile - in which Snell was the world record-holder. But you know nothing of history - or anything else that I can see.

I always wondered if you grasped what Lydiard's training was about. You've resolved that question. You have no clue.

If you say that Lydiard's runners weren't the best athletes but were the best trained, that's the best example of an own goal I've seen yet on this thread.