Lesson: To run fast, chase a fast pace. Don't hesitate.
Are you really saying that the only reason Hull didn't run this fast in the past is that she didn't get in the right race? Or that she didn't have the "courage" to run to her potential?
Maybe you could explain to us how it is that even though you think Hull has been the the 5th fastest at the 1500 for years but never got in the right race, Hull has never won a DL.
Then you might explain to us how Muir, who you seem to think was never as fast as Hull, managed to win 8 DL races by the time she wa
Hate to be agreeing with Armstronglivs but he's 100% right here. Look at the list of sub-3:53 women:
Kipyegon (Kenyan during the height of Kenyan doping busts)
Dibaba (coach a known supplier)
Yunxia (Ma's Army)
Hull (former NOP, now trains alone)
Bo (Ma's Army)
Yinglai (Ma's Army)
Junxia (Ma's Army)
Hassan (former NOP, now trains alone)
Kazankina (Soviet bloc)
Heck, even the 3:53s and 3:54s are suspicious. Everyone except Muir is either Ethiopian, Ma's Army, Soviet Bloc, or Shelby Houlihan. I'm willing to believe the East Africans have some amazing genetics, and Muir has been consistent at a high level for a very long time, so I could believe there are some clean times in that group. But the sub-3:53 list is pretty damning evidence.
If Ma had been given modern footwear and wavelight pacing, I reckon his women would have bested Roger Bannister.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that those two factors are rendering meaningless any comparisons with the past.
Yet you exclude doping as a factor, when we know it is present throughout the sport and has long been so and continues to develop. Why? Too disillusioning?
Are you really saying that the only reason Hull didn't run this fast in the past is that she didn't get in the right race? Or that she didn't have the "courage" to run to her potential?
Maybe you could explain to us how it is that even though you think Hull has been the the 5th fastest at the 1500 for years but never got in the right race, Hull has never won a DL.
Then you might explain to us how Muir, who you seem to think was never as fast as Hull, managed to win 8 DL races by the time she wa
That 3:55.97 was from just over a month ago. She’s dropped 6.xx from her best time prior to this year.
It truly can't be this difficult to understand. Hull placed second at Pre in a race that went 3:08 at 1200, running 3:55. She placed second in Paris in a race that went 3:04, running 4+ seconds faster than she did in the 3:55 race. She was unable to fully sustain that pace, but she extended herself as long as she could hold on and was rewarded for that bravery.
Sinclaire Johnson ran 4:00.43 at Pre in a race that went out in 3:08 (which she didn't follow). The USA OT race hit 3:08 (which she did follow) and she improved to 3:56. Tackling the leader can lead to fast times. Tackling the leader in a swiftly-run race can lead to even faster times.
Let's look at the 3:55.28 that Muir ran in Eugene at the 2022 World Athletics Championships. She attacked the race with Kipyegon and Tsegay early, from the start, before that trio seriously gapped the chase pack. I bring this to mind not because of Muir's outright time, but because she only had a 4:02 SB prior to that final (due to a number of challenges). Why did she improve seven seconds in her first sub-four of the season? She went with the 3:07 carved out by Tsegay with Kipyegon a stride ahead of herself. Hull and Johnson? Timidly behind in 3:13. They'd never close that gap on Muir, who finished six seconds ahead of them both.
Lesson: To run fast, chase a fast pace. Don't hesitate.
Well reasoned out. Muir, with more confidence, should have gone with it as well. ESP would hopefully have gone with it and she too would have been rewarded. It isn't rocket science that people who take a risk, may benefit - with the right mindset. Nuguse went with Ingebrigtsen in the Pre Mile last year and got a huge PB as well. Easier said than done of course. Too many don't take risks and so run to mediocrity. Tsegay has often gone out on her own, and faded, but it also got her the 5000m record. Chebet can thank her for the 10000m record, just as Kipyegon before that can thank Gidey for her 5000m record (since broken by Tsegay). What is surprising (and shouldn't be) is Hull going after it - so instead of automatically throwing down the doping card, maybe appreciate that this IS possible and hope our women can develop the same go-for-broke mindset.
Anyone who holds this position has no connection to top level athletics at all.
I suppose it is a genuine shame that experts such as yourself weren’t around to comment when Ruth Wysocki lowered her lifetime best by about 13 seconds to win the American Trials in 4:00 in 1984, or when Mills lowered his PB by some 50 seconds to win in Tokyo.
Unless something further comes to light, Hull was able to draft her way to the race of her life yesterday. I also contend that, beyond these new advancements in footwear, the wavelight pacing is a phenomenal factor that can’t be understated in these current performances.
Performance is one, not insignificant, indicator of doping in sport. Then you also need to look at the circumstances around the performance and the coaches, management and possible quality of federation involved with the athlete as well.
To date, I haven’t heard a single unfavourable word from anyone with respect to Hull. Contrast that with someone like Katir, for whom many of his competitors and even countrymen were scoffing at once the cameras were switched off.
I do agree with the vast majority of this - especially the impact of WL. I also agree with the point you made about the coaches, management etc. I too have only heard nice things about Hull.
This is really all that is keeping me personally on the positive side of the benefit of the doubt.
But let's stay grounded. I think it's already been discussed about performance jumps in/at certain plateaus and bubbles and how 10 seconds from 4.10 to 4.00 might numerically be the same as 10 seconds from 4.00 to 3.50 - but it's exponentially harder as you approach the end of the bell-curve of current human performance ceiling (which is 3.49.04 for the womens 1500m). Wysocki is a cool name to pull up but again, the comparison just isn't really there. Yes she lopped a massive amount off her PR in 1984 but that was more of a situation with a really talented 800m runner (she of course famously beat Decker in 78 over 800m at the US Champs) stepping up to an event she had little experience in and so was massively untapped in it. Was she really just a 4.13 runner going into those trials? Unlikely. We don't have those questions with JH. The womens WR in 1984 was also 3.52 (hard to say what it was naturally), but either way 4min00 was not close to it.
I hear you re. Katir but this is where I think we need to be really careful with our stereotyping and biases. Now it turns out almost everyone was right about it - but the reality is those opinions were originally formed on the basis of stuff other than the data we had (which were the epic performance leaps to the rare air of sub 3.29.0 1500m running). Put it is this way, let's imagine Shelby hadn't messed up and taken way too much of her precursor nandrolone supplement and ended up 3 times over the acceptable limit - we would put her in the same category of circumstances of performance and the coaches, management and possible quality of federation. In that respect I don't really think there is that much difference between the US and Australia in the year 2024 - even though it is easy to rag on the Nike sponsored groups and the USATF.
Regarding being a nice person? I'd love to think this matters but I don't think it does. I know guys that were caught that were no less "nice" than anyone else on the circuit. Bernhard Lagat was/is one of the nicest humans you could ever meet and yet hey, one of his samples tested positive and the guy ran 3.26.34 for 1500m slap bang in the middle of arguably the most doped era in middle distance running. This can't be a determining factor.
But I'm on your side here - I don't simply believe that all top athletes are cheating and I still want to give the BOTD to her even though the numbers point to this being historically staggering.
This post was edited 20 seconds after it was posted.
Ciara missed the national champs, stated that she has not had 100% energy levels since the Europeans.
I think she is just coming into form, that time is pretty good for her 1month our from the olympic rounds.
Great run by Sarah Healy though for her age. Only Ethiopia has runners that young running that sort of time. Credit to Jenny Meadows.
Thank you - that explains it. She should definitely be in contention at the Olympics. She ran well in the Euros. Incidentally lots of athletes were ill at the Euros. Hopefully all recovered and that’s it now and they can stay well for the Olympics.
Agree about Sarah Healy - the Jenny Meadows/Trevor Painter coaching team is a strong one.
Someone asked how long Jess Hull was at altitude (can’t find the post). Her instagram says she did a 5 week stint up there. And she’s fresh down - so we can hope that wasn’t her peaking and she’ll be good for the Olympics. What an amazing 1500m women’s final it will be..
It will be like the 2012 final. We saw how that turned out ...
The other time drop we have all been recently calling out has been Nikki Hiltz (4:04.12 --> 3:59.61 --> 3:55.33) at 29 years old. Always suspicious when a runner over 25 has a massive performance jump. PRs in the late 20s/early 30s can and do happen, but they are typically at very small margins (example: Laura Muir. While she did just PR, she had run as fast as within 1.43 seconds of this time 8 years ago and within 1.5 seconds each of the last 2 years).
I also think it should be pointed out that 4 seconds from 3:59 to 3:55 and 7 seconds from 3:57 to 3:50 are not even close to equivalent. In 2023, Hull was marginally better than Hiltz (slightly ahead in both their head-to-head meetings, slightly faster PB). In 2024, Hiltz has completely leveled up, running a big PB at USAs and winning a world indoor medal. Despite that, Hull has massively opened the gap, and has jumped from competing with runners like Hiltz and Hall to competing with the GOAT of the event. If people think Hiltz's 2024 has been suspicious...then WTAF is this?
Hiltz dropped 6 seconds from age 24 to 29. 4:01 to 3:55. Flags are flying over that, too.
Lesson: To run fast, chase a fast pace. Don't hesitate.
This is true, except you still have to be able to do it. Hull never ran 3:50 before because she was simply incapable of running 61s for a 1500. The same is true of Muir, and no matter what you say, Muir would never have run 3:50 in Paris if she went out in 3:04, because she was simply incapable of doing so.
How often do deeply experienced athletes take 7 seconds off their 1500 PR in one year at the age of 27?
Nike athlete. Who is her coach, and where is she based?
It's an Olympic year. She has for sure leveled up her training so that she could be at her best right about now. It does make sense to me that she is where she is. She has been getting faster over the past year in small increments. Over the indoor season she had some really good races. I think her progression is explained if you follow her race history over the past year. I think she has been working her butt off to be running the fastest she possibly can at this Olympics.
Everybody has been "working their butt off" to be running the fastest they can at the Olympics.
We don't simply need to be focusing on Hull's progression. Her time is in the company of outlier athletes known to have doped or suspected to have doped. Yet posters here still think it's possible for a clean athlete to match doped world marks.
Well reasoned out. Muir, with more confidence, should have gone with it as well. ESP would hopefully have gone with it and she too would have been rewarded. It isn't rocket science that people who take a risk, may benefit - with the right mindset...Too many don't take risks and so run to mediocrity...What is surprising (and shouldn't be) is Hull going after it - so instead of automatically throwing down the doping card, maybe appreciate that this IS possible and hope our women can develop the same go-for-broke mindset.
Suppose you are right, and it's all a matter of attitude. Can you explain why Hull suddenly developed the right attitude?
While you are at it, maybe you could explain why we shouldn't laugh when you say that Muir lacks confidence. Anyone who's watched her career knows that lack of confidence is not one of Muir's problems. If anything, her record has suffered from an excess of confidence, as she's gone out too fast and crashed.
It's an Olympic year. She has for sure leveled up her training so that she could be at her best right about now. It does make sense to me that she is where she is. She has been getting faster over the past year in small increments. Over the indoor season she had some really good races. I think her progression is explained if you follow her race history over the past year. I think she has been working her butt off to be running the fastest she possibly can at this Olympics.
Everybody has been "working their butt off" to be running the fastest they can at the Olympics.
Remember, dopers still have to work very hard to achieve the times that they do. Nobody trained harder than Lance Armstrong. It's just that the drugs enabled him to train like he did. The athletes not on drugs would train harder if they could, except they would get injured.
Lesson: To run fast, chase a fast pace. Don't hesitate.
This is true, except you still have to be able to do it. Hull never ran 3:50 before because she was simply incapable of running 61s for a 1500. The same is true of Muir, and no matter what you say, Muir would never have run 3:50 in Paris if she went out in 3:04, because she was simply incapable of doing so.
You're right about Muir, but mainly because she's not as strong. She got trounced in Kipyegon's 5,000m WR race in last year's Paris DL. While Muir may lack Kipyegon's strength, Hull has demonstrably improved (8:24 this year). This played a crucial role in achieving the 3:50 (actually hanging on to Kipyegon as long as possible), allowing her to maintain an aggressive pace.
This is true, except you still have to be able to do it. Hull never ran 3:50 before because she was simply incapable of running 61s for a 1500. The same is true of Muir, and no matter what you say, Muir would never have run 3:50 in Paris if she went out in 3:04, because she was simply incapable of doing so.
You're right about Muir, but mainly because she's not as strong. She got trounced in Kipyegon's 5,000m WR race in last year's Paris DL. While Muir may lack Kipyegon's strength, Hull has demonstrably improved (8:24 this year). This played a crucial role in achieving the 3:50 (actually hanging on to Kipyegon as long as possible), allowing her to maintain an aggressive pace.
Extreme strength, allowing her to hang with the aggressive
Pace that she couldn't have before.
Of course, that kind of effect can only be obtained naturally, right?
You're right about Muir, but mainly because she's not as strong. She got trounced in Kipyegon's 5,000m WR race in last year's Paris DL. While Muir may lack Kipyegon's strength, Hull has demonstrably improved (8:24 this year). This played a crucial role in achieving the 3:50 (actually hanging on to Kipyegon as long as possible), allowing her to maintain an aggressive pace.
Hull ran a very respectable 5,000 in 14:43 in 2020 when she could only run 4:00.42 losing to Laura Muir by 3 seconds. I feel like this strength improvement is being bandied about a bit too much. It’d be akin to saying Shelby could run 3:54.99 in the old spikes because she could run 14:23.92. I mean duh, she just got faster in every way. She has completely leveled up.
Anyone who holds this position has no connection to top level athletics at all.
I suppose it is a genuine shame that experts such as yourself weren’t around to comment when Ruth Wysocki lowered her lifetime best by about 13 seconds to win the American Trials in 4:00 in 1984, or when Mills lowered his PB by some 50 seconds to win in Tokyo.
Unless something further comes to light, Hull was able to draft her way to the race of her life yesterday. I also contend that, beyond these new advancements in footwear, the wavelight pacing is a phenomenal factor that can’t be understated in these current performances.
Performance is one, not insignificant, indicator of doping in sport. Then you also need to look at the circumstances around the performance and the coaches, management and possible quality of federation involved with the athlete as well.
To date, I haven’t heard a single unfavourable word from anyone with respect to Hull. Contrast that with someone like Katir, for whom many of his competitors and even countrymen were scoffing at once the cameras were switched off.
I do agree with the vast majority of this - especially the impact of WL. I also agree with the point you made about the coaches, management etc. I too have only heard nice things about Hull.
This is really all that is keeping me personally on the positive side of the benefit of the doubt.
But let's stay grounded. I think it's already been discussed about performance jumps in/at certain plateaus and bubbles and how 10 seconds from 4.10 to 4.00 might numerically be the same as 10 seconds from 4.00 to 3.50 - but it's exponentially harder as you approach the end of the bell-curve of current human performance ceiling (which is 3.49.04 for the womens 1500m). Wysocki is a cool name to pull up but again, the comparison just isn't really there. Yes she lopped a massive amount off her PR in 1984 but that was more of a situation with a really talented 800m runner (she of course famously beat Decker in 78 over 800m at the US Champs) stepping up to an event she had little experience in and so was massively untapped in it. Was she really just a 4.13 runner going into those trials? Unlikely. We don't have those questions with JH. The womens WR in 1984 was also 3.52 (hard to say what it was naturally), but either way 4min00 was not close to it.
I hear you re. Katir but this is where I think we need to be really careful with our stereotyping and biases. Now it turns out almost everyone was right about it - but the reality is those opinions were originally formed on the basis of stuff other than the data we had (which were the epic performance leaps to the rare air of sub 3.29.0 1500m running). Put it is this way, let's imagine Shelby hadn't messed up and taken way too much of her precursor nandrolone supplement and ended up 3 times over the acceptable limit - we would put her in the same category of circumstances of performance and the coaches, management and possible quality of federation. In that respect I don't really think there is that much difference between the US and Australia in the year 2024 - even though it is easy to rag on the Nike sponsored groups and the USATF.
Regarding being a nice person? I'd love to think this matters but I don't think it does. I know guys that were caught that were no less "nice" than anyone else on the circuit. Bernhard Lagat was/is one of the nicest humans you could ever meet and yet hey, one of his samples tested positive and the guy ran 3.26.34 for 1500m slap bang in the middle of arguably the most doped era in middle distance running. This can't be a determining factor.
But I'm on your side here - I don't simply believe that all top athletes are cheating and I still want to give the BOTD to her even though the numbers point to this being historically staggering.
If you think it’s hard to stay undetected go watch Icarus again.
On the other hand, there was news that came out a few years ago that seemed to have gotten buried, rather than met with the appropriate alarm and rebuttal, possibly because it basically ‘shatters the sport’.
The news was that the test capability is so sensitive, and clandestine drug delivery by insidious means is so easy. The natural conclusion from such news is that absolutely anyone, should the vested interests of the ‘sport’ so desire, can be subject to a positive test, whether or not they knowingly doped.
A worldwide unique experiment by the ARD doping editorial team and the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Hospital of Cologne proves that even the briefest of touches can make athletes positive.
The researchers administered small amounts of various anabolic substances to 12 test persons via the skin using a carrier substance - by briefly touching the hand, neck or arm. The initial analysis of the samples by the renowned Cologne doping control laboratory revealed, in all 12 test persons, massive suspicion of doping. Traces were detectable in the laboratory up to 15 days after the administration of the extremely low doses of anabolic steroids.
"If the samples had come from athletes, we would have had suspicions that we would have investigated and would very likely have had to make a positive finding in many of the samples taken," said laboratory director Mario Thevis: "Then we would have had an anti-doping rule violation here, which would also have been sanctioned accordingly. The athlete would definitely be punished, possibly for up to four years."
Positive after the briefest of touches: An alarming experiment shocks athletes and challenges the global anti-doping system. A documentary by Hajo Seppelt and the ARD doping editorial team.
I just watched last night's W1500 and then watched Tokyo OG W1500 final. The suggestion that has recurred on this thread that Hull is 'at least 5lb' lighter seems not close to being accurate. Maybe 2lb if that. Maybe tiny reduction in body fat %.
Also people have pointed out her improved 'strength' at 3k/5k as underpinning the cred of her 3.50. But - and I'm not suggesting she's doped - of course people who dope in endurance reap the benefits across the distances immediately above and below the target race distance so the other PBs are imo irrelevant to comments on the authenticity of the 'staggering' PB last night
