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

You slither your way around the arguments to avoid the principle point here, which is how is it that women are now running times in the marathon that the best men were only able to run until relatively recently. You have no answer to that. I'm not surprised, because to doping apologists nothing is impossible and everything can be justified. Women cannot physically match men at the elite level in any athletic competition, yet we are seeing this now in the marathon, when the top men's runners of circa 1960, that included Bikila, who were endurance-trained, as runners are today, were essentially no faster than a bunch of Kenyan women runners today - some of whom have already been busted for doping. Their closing the gap on male performances of the past has not been achieved in any other running event. You also have nothing to explain that. Oh, yeah - "they are different events". So, how are they different, and why haven't women similarly caught up with Snell as they have done with Bikila and his contemporaries?

+1

"Doping apologists" always seem to slither around principle points. I'm not sure if they do it for the sake of argument (i.e., keep the thread going), or if they really have no idea what they're talking about.

Except these points were already answered: - The principle point is based on a false premise: women in the marathon today are not running as fast as Bikila - The analogy to 800m is fundamentally flawed: the 800m is different in 3 ways: 1) physiologically, with 2) different histories across 3) different timelines The flaw in the analogy, as well as the answer to your question, becomes obvious if you try (and fail) to answer: "How do you explain the men running 12%-15% worse in 1960 in the marathon, but only 3%-4% worse in the 800m in 1960?" Similarly, the men of 5000m and 10000m were only 5% slower than today. When you compare the men and women today, from 800m to the marathon, to the men of early 1960, it is not the marathon women today that are unusually fast, but the marathon men in 1960 which were unusually slow. Several reasons were given for this too.

Apart from his stand-out victory that came later in his career at Tokyo in '64, Bikila was consistently winning in times that were much slower than his career best of 2.12, in the high 2.20's. But you don't know that. Your claim that women are not matching his kind of performances is shown to be as factually empty as the rest of your arguments.

No convincing reason can be given for why men's marathon times around 1960 might be considered "slow", since they were consistently faster than in the decade before that, and so on.

Women have made no progress in reducing their 800 times since the doped world-record of the 1980's, which remains frozen at 1.53xx. Schoolboys today regularly run faster. 1.53-4 wouldn't have won a men's major championship since the beginning of the 20th century, when no one really trained. But the progress in women's marathon times has continued at such a rate that they are now running faster than the great Bikila did in the early '60's with many of his victories. Because you are only a blowhard, you don't know that. And because you are also a doping apologist, you will do anything to avoid conceding the most likely explanation.

Today's men's marathon times are equally suspect as the women's, equally fuelled by the EPO-led performances that are now all too typical of East African endurance athletes. As the WADA investigation into Kenyan doping acknowledged, doping doesn't have to be institutionalised through the systems of the state to be endemic. It is part of the culture. It is only a few weeks since one of their world record-holders has been busted.

Ethiopia has 4 women sub-2:19, and 5 more faster than Lonah Salpeter's 2:19:46, and 2 more sub-2:20. Do you even follow the sport?

Armstronglivs wrote:

The best male marathon runner in 1960 was Ethiopian. The best female marathon runners today are Kenyan, running similar times to that male Ethiopian in 1960. So what do Kenyans have that Ethiopians didn't - or don't - have?

Armstronglivs:

buffoon noun

buf·​foon | \ (ˌ)bə-ˈfün \

Definition of buffoon

1 : a ludicrous figure : CLOWN

2 : a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person

acting like a ridiculous buffoon

just to correct you, she stopped early in the five and it was celebrating for silver but came 4th. No way she would have beaten Hassan in that last lap.

Basic fact checking wrote:

Ethiopia has 4 women sub-2:19, and 5 more faster than Lonah Salpeter's 2:19:46, and 2 more sub-2:20.

Do you even follow the sport?

Armstronglivs wrote:

The best male marathon runner in 1960 was Ethiopian. The best female marathon runners today are Kenyan, running similar times to that male Ethiopian in 1960. So what do Kenyans have that Ethiopians didn't - or don't - have?

Do you even follow the thread? The response was to Canova's claim that Kenyan women have made all the difference to distance running. He left out Ethiopians. Despite the fact that Kenyans have won many major championships over the years and the last Olympic champion - since busted, like so many Kenyan runners now - I am well aware that the Ethiopians, with their virtually non-existent anti-doping, now cheat just as much as the Kenyans.

yuy wrote:

Armstronglivs:

buffoon noun

buf·​foon | \ (ˌ)bə-ˈfün \

Definition of buffoon

1 : a ludicrous figure : CLOWN

2 : a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person

acting like a ridiculous buffoon

Repartee not exactly your strong point, is it? The dinner guests yawn as you thumb laboriously through your dog-eared thesaurus.

So none of the doping apologists here can offer a convincing explanation as to why women runners of no particular pedigree like Salpeter have now run faster than Bikila did in winning 7 of his 16 marathons, and why they haven't caught up with previous men's best in any other running event. The sound of slithering has become deafening.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Basic fact checking wrote:

Ethiopia has 4 women sub-2:19, and 5 more faster than Lonah Salpeter's 2:19:46, and 2 more sub-2:20.

Do you even follow the sport?

Do you even follow the thread? The response was to Canova's claim that Kenyan women have made all the difference to distance running. He left out Ethiopians. Despite the fact that Kenyans have won many major championships over the years and the last Olympic champion - since busted, like so many Kenyan runners now - I am well aware that the Ethiopians, with their virtually non-existent anti-doping, now cheat just as much as the Kenyans.

I re-read Renato's post. Looks like you missed the point.

You said "The best female marathon runners today are Kenyan", clearly leaving out the Ethiopians, even noting the "strangeness" that Ethiopians don't have "it" in the marathon, compared to the 1500m to 10000m.

Armstronglivs does make a good point, in 1960 men could run 10.1, 20.4, 45, 1:45, 3:35, 13:40, 28 and 2:14/15. The longer the event the closer women are to catching up. There is clearly some massive drug abuse going on in the women's marathon at the moment, and the spate elite doping busts of 2:18-2:21 category suggests the obvious.

It's frankly ridiculous to read all the comments coming from people NEVER directly involved in the personal knowledge of the best athletes. These people have already their ideas, and that idea excludes the possibility of ANY CLEAN TOP PERFORMANCE.

Since I consider everybody who speaks about any argument without having the right knowledge as a CLOWN, I don't want anymore to explain what I write now for the last time :

1- DOPING exists, and the kind of it depends on the historical period.

2- Several athletes, including top, used doping. However, the higher percentage of athletes looking at doping consists in athletes of second or worse level, since they think possible to fill the gap using external aids.

3- The most part of top athletes are CLEAN. It's not true that, without doping (in long distances), is not possible to achieve the best results. I personally had several athletes bettering some WR, and training without using any external aid. This means I know that THIS IS POSSIBLE (something people here think NOT possible).

4- Blood doping is more important in SHORT DISTANCES (800 - 1500m) than in long distances. This because the increase in AEROBIC POWER is higher than the collateral effect of REDUCTION OF THE VELOCITY OF THE CIRCULATION, and also because the athletes of middle distances normally don't agree (and don't like) to train in proper way for increasing, with training, thaier aerobic power. Longer is the distance, smaller is the percentage of Aerobic Power the athletes have to use, and for a race of 2 hours the negative effects are superior of the positive effects.

5- The training for marathon deeply changed. To compare the training in 1960 with the training in 1980 with the training in 2000 with the training of today for Marathon clearly shows the TOTAL IGNORANCE ABOUT what the athletes did in 1960, in 1980, in 2000 and today.

6- Who speaks without knowing the evolution of training is a presumptuos and arrogant person, with very little intelligence and a lot of haughtiness (perfect portrait of an idiot).

Good luck for all your stupid believes.

Basic fact checking wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Do you even follow the thread? The response was to Canova's claim that Kenyan women have made all the difference to distance running. He left out Ethiopians. Despite the fact that Kenyans have won many major championships over the years and the last Olympic champion - since busted, like so many Kenyan runners now - I am well aware that the Ethiopians, with their virtually non-existent anti-doping, now cheat just as much as the Kenyans.

I re-read Renato's post. Looks like you missed the point.

You said "The best female marathon runners today are Kenyan", clearly leaving out the Ethiopians, even noting the "strangeness" that Ethiopians don't have "it" in the marathon, compared to the 1500m to 10000m.

Renato's post only referred to Kenyan women as making all the difference in marathon achievement. He made no mention of Ethiopians, which is why I asked what did Kenyans have that Ethiopians didn't, when Bikila was Ethiopian and several women's world record-holders are also Ethiopian. You are also wrong about Bikila's times so it doesn't surprise me you can't understand the right end of an argument. Hair-splitting is your thing - even when it isn't actually part of the argument.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So none of the doping apologists here can offer a convincing explanation as to why women runners of no particular pedigree like Salpeter have now run faster than Bikila did in winning 7 of his 16 marathons, and why they haven't caught up with previous men's best in any other running event. The sound of slithering has become deafening.

This was already asked and answered a few times. The silence you heard was most likely the sound of apathy.

But, since you asked so nicely, ...

Recall you told us that women are typically 10-12% slower than the men, across the board.

These marathon times from the 1960s are 12-15% slower than times of men today, putting it well within reach of women of today.

This is not the case with 800m, where the times of Snell's 800m are 3% slower, far beyond the reach of women, even fully doped women from the 1980s.

Using your 10-12% factoid as the rule, no explanation is required. We should expect the sound of silence.

In case you still don't see it, this becomes even more crystal clear when using an accepted standard of equivalency, like IAAF scoring. Here in descending order of difficulty, we can assess the value of the different events:

Kipchoge's 2:01:39 is 1316 points.

Rudisha's 1:40.91 is 1301 points.

Snell's 1:44.3 is 1195 points, equivalent to a 2:08:10 marathon.

Bikila's 2:12:11 is 1123 points, equivalent to a 1:46.68 800m.

Bikila's 2:15:16 is 1070 points, equivalent to a 1:48.48 800m.

Salpeter's 2:19:46 is 994 points.

Ingrid Kristiansen's 2:21:06 from 1985 is 972 points.

We see once again, it requires no explanation how women can achieve the men's 994 point performances, especially in light of Ingrid Kristiansen's 972-point performance from 34 years ago, and yet fail to come anywhere near the 1195 point performance of Snell.

In case you still don't see it, here's yet another way to illustrate your failure:

Matt Centrowitz won 1500m Olympic gold with a 3:50:00 -- so does it make sense to ask how the women of today are "in the ballpark" competitive with men of today in the 1500m like no other event?

If you think that is a stupid comparison, then maybe you can begin to understand. If not, then you are beyond help.

@Canova

"5- The training for marathon deeply changed. To compare the training in 1960 with the training in 1980 with the training in 2000 with the training of today for Marathon clearly shows the TOTAL IGNORANCE ABOUT what the athletes did in 1960, in 1980, in 2000 and today."

Training for endurance events basically requires building endurance, and that means a lot of miles and a lot of hard work. Distance runners since Zatopek have been doing that since the early '50's, and the aerobic part increased with the high mileage programmes of later coaches like Lydiard. Bikila ran a lot of miles and a lot of hills. Some Lydiard acolytes even pushed it up to 200 miles per week - too much. But they all trained hard, and even top athletes can only train so hard before their bodies break down.

So what exactly have runners been doing different since the early '60's to carve up to 20 minutes off marathon times?

Anyone who refers to "factoids" instead of facts is disappearing up his own fundamental orifice. There is no "10-12% factoid" that actually requires, like a law of nature, that this differential apply as of necessity between men's and women's levels of achievement. The differential is merely an observed correlation, not a precondition for anything. It may be news to you, but that's what statistics often only do; they are indicators not requirements. And I have never stated they must apply; they simply provide a context for discussion.

Further, in explaining that men's marathon times have improved by 10-15% since 1960, that does not require that women ought to now fall in the 1960's ball-park, by virtue of the operation of your "factoid", since the same doesn't apply to other running events: and it also clearly depends on maintaining that today's records are clean - male and female. They are not - except to dopers and their "fact-checking" apologists.

But you are in a conversation with yourself not me; I daresay it is the only debate you can be confident of winning. You have become boring.