5000m World Record Splits: A Progression

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

All World Records & Area records are going to be replaced on January 1st 2018, only records where the athlete's sample is stored for retesting will survive, they only began storing samples for retesting in 2005 so all pre-2005 records are going to the guillotine. Wake up.

Actually Jan 1st is probably no longer happening (it was the original proposal) pbut they will be scrapped in 2018.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

All World Records & Area records are going to be replaced on January 1st 2018, only records where the athlete's sample is stored for retesting will survive, they only began storing samples for retesting in 2005 so all pre-2005 records are going to the guillotine. Wake up.

Actually Jan 1st is probably no longer happening (it was the original proposal) but they will be scrapped in 2018.

Actually I had it right the first time:

"Recommendations

1) European Athletics (and IAAF) should amend their record ratification rules and procedures with criteria that contribute to credibility of records with effect from 1 January 2018"

calculo wrote:

epo helps Kenyans but to lesser degree as already huge genetic hemoglobins, so same dose effect as on a westerner is much smaller

And even with those "huge genetic hemoglobins" they no longer have that hematological advantage at sea level. Ashenden et al shows that the hematological values of top Kenyan elites drop significantly over a 7 - 14 day acclimatization period at sea level:

Me too. I was too short, thus black and white in that post, but I pretty much wrote the same as LM before here:

+1

+1

My first problem with that approach is though that people see such talent-of-the-century everywhere, preferably in athletes of their country - more than a dozen were named on the last few pages. I wrote this in the Desalegn thread on Nov-10:

My 2nd problem is that such runners are all extremely ambitious, and would then want to run 3:40. Image a clean 9.75 runner: he would be extremely tempted to join the doper club and go down to a 9.55 for example.

+1

This was proven wrong, which is why she was also disqualified for the earlier Boston marathon, where she ran the course record.

And this is as likely as your assumption that only 5% dope.

Sorry for the late response, but since you made it personal, I feel it is necessary to clarify and correct some inaccuracies. 2) I don't focus much on doping prevalence, but performance trends. Doping prevalence is a measure of belief, not of benefit. Whether prevalence is 1% or 91%, there is no room for discussion when performances remain largely flat over decades. I may have said that the best athletes wouldn't dope when they are already winning, arguing that it is the second and third tier athletes who are more likely to look for external help. Unless the best athletes are forced to dope, e.g. by their coaches, or their state. 4) "talent-of-the-century" doesn't sound like an expression I would ever use. It sounds like words you would put in my mouth, and then ridicule. I may have used some other superlatives to describe top talents like Geb, Komen, Tergat, Bekele, Lagat, and El G. I would not put Farah in that category, as his personal best times are too slow, compared to these all time greats. I'm not even sure I would put Paula in this category. Instead I would have hesitated to make such a rash judgement, arguing that women's distance events are still immature, with the top talents yet to develop distance events to a high level, pointing to rising stars like Genzebe Dibaba, Ayana, Jopkesgei, and proven talents like Defar, Tirunesh Dibaba, Keitany, recently attacking records long thought unbeatable. 6) I don't recall ever giving an estimate of general doping prevalence. If I ever gave hard figures as a conclusion, they were surely real figures from studies, or articles, like the statistics compiled by the Sunday Times. I recall discussing an IAAF study of high blood values, where they recorded 14% of blood samples with high blood values. This is not the same as prevalence for blood doping, but some kind of substitute proxy. I have argued that 14% could be high for several reasons: blood samples were not collected uniformly -- targeted testing would bias the rate towards over-estimation, and legal methods, like altitude training can produce high values. It can also be low, failing to detect micro-dosing, and unfairly including athletes like sprinters and field events, which would be less likely, as a percentage, to "blood dope". In all cases, the IAAF prevalence study, and the long discussion about the IAAF leaked values, are about "blood doping", which is a subset of "doping" plus "prohibited methods", which was the subject of the Tuebingen surveys. "Blood doping" would include EPO and blood transfusions, but not steroids, testosterone, and HGH, substances highly abused in sprints and field events. It is not inconsistent to say that "blood doping" is 10-15% in athletics, while total doping prevalence is at least 29% in Daegu (World Championship), and at least 45% in Doha (Pan Arab Games).

casual obsever wrote:

...

Again, read what I wrote.

...

2) I never said that "Africans are the only group who don't dope", I never even said that "Africans ... don't dope". I am quite sure no one in this thread did, but I may have overlooked something in rekrunner's long responses.

...

4) The talent-of-the-century argument is too overused. ... rekrunner for Radcliffe and Farah, ... The list goes on, including Armstrong and Ullrich in the cycling world.

...

6) Canova estimated only 5% dopers, and rekrunner 10 - 15%, in writing on letsrun. I always remember that when they accuse others of stupidity.

Sure...maybe at altitude there in Kenyan land, but they no longer have that hematological advantage at sea level. Ashenden et al shows that the hematological values of Kenyan elites drop significantly over a 7 - 14 day acclimatization period at sea level:

Huh? ? But since there are dozens & dozens of elites who have tested positive for EPO or sanctioned for ABP hematological anomalies, some of whom ran very fast and won a lot of medals, we can say, anecdotally, that O2-vector doping did improve their performance above & beyond what they were capable of accomplishing clean. Too many dopers caught to think they all could have achieved their success without the aid of PEDs.

Mindweak, I want to be your friend but literally leave Renato alone. He is far from prefect, but he has a heart of gold. He knows how to run. I want someday to be the next Renato, and be liked and respected by people. My goal is someday to literally be one of the people running letsrun. I hope to meat Renato(and also the brojo's) someday, and be friends/training partners with them. But I also want you to be there friends to.

Renato,

If the values of Gebrselassie and Bekele and Kipchoge are due in part to their altitude training, then what are their values without ever training at altitude? 13:00? 27:00? 2:05?

Likewise how does Tadese set the WR for HM if he always trains at sea level?

High Octane, the research you posted is dated in 2003, and was at the beginning of the road for understanding the EPO doping.

When Ashenden writes about “Elite athletes”, he NEVER really tested any REAL Elite, and they were not in a period of hard training.

The first problem is to agree about what means ELITE.

If we speak about the possibility the WR are clean or not, we need to investigate around a number of athletes who were able to run times close to the WR, in percentage.

Here you can see the difference, in percentage, among the WR and the time of the number 100 all-time (men only) :

800m : 1’40”91 (WR) – 1’43”81 (-2,87%)

1500m : 3’26”00 (WR) – 3’31”94 (-2.88%)

5000m : 12’37”35 (WR) – 13’00”41 (-3.04%)

10000m : 26’17”53 (WR) – 27’12”37 (-3.48%)

3000m Steeple : 7’53”63 (WR) – 8’11”80 (-3.84%)

Marathon : 2:02:57 (WR) – 2:06:16 (- 2.70%)

Now, we go to see how many athletes, in top 100, were caught doped for EPO :

800m : Nobody

1500m :

Ramzi (BRN – Mar) (3’29”14 – 16th all time)

Laalou (Mar) (3’29”53 – 24th all time)

Chouki (Fra) (3’30”83 – 52nd all-time)

Khaouch (Mar) (3’31”10 – 63rd all-time)

Shahween (KSA) (3’31”82 – 93rd all-time) Biological Passport

5000m :

Mourhit (Bel – Mar) (12’49”71 – 15th all-time)

Goumri (Mar) (12’50”25 – 18th all-time) Biological Passport

Bezabeh (Esp – Mar) (12’57”25 – 68th all-time) Biological Passport

Al-Outaibi (KSA) (12’58”58 – 79th all-time)

10000m :

Mourhit (Bel – Mar) (26’52”30 – 34th all-time)

Goumri (Mar) (27’02”62 – 62nd all-time) Biological Passport

Steeple :

Brahim Boulami (Mar) (7’55”28 – 4th all-time)

Chatbi (Mar) (8’08”86 – 60th all-time) CERA

Hamid Ezzine (Mar) (8’09”72 – 74th all-time) Refusal to do the test

Jimenez (Esp) (8’11”52 – 97th all-time) Possession EPO

Marathon :

Erupe (Ken) (2:05:13 – 40th all-time) and several times I explained he received EPO in the hospital when he had REAL malaria

Goumri (Mar) (2:05:30 – 54th all-time) Biological Passport

There were also other doped athletes in top 100 all-time, but not for EPO :

800m :

Sepeng (RSA) 1’42”69 (20th) Nandrolone - Laalou (Mar) 1’43”25 (52nd) Furosemide

1500m :

Saidi-Sief (Alg) 3’29”51 (23rd) but he could demonstrate he used a supplement containing steroids without information, and won the trial against the Company, that had to refund the money he didn’t win during the period of ban

Kipkurui (KEN) 3’30”67 (48th all-time) for methamphetamine, and received 3 months ban

5000m :

Saidi-Sief (Alg) 12’50”86 (22nd all-time) see above

Baumann (Ger) 12’54”70 (45th all-time) Nandrolone

Kisorio (Ken) 12’57”83 (71st all-time) Nandrolone

10000m :

Kisorio (26’54”25) 41st all-time (see above)

Steeple :

Vroemen (Ned) 8’04”95 (25th all-time) Metandienone. He went to CAS showing it was a medicament for asthma, and was cleared after two years. His test came after running the new European Record, and himself was the one asking for the antidoping, in order to validate his AR.

Musa Amer Obaid (Qat) 8’07”18 (43rd all-time) Testosterone

Hachlaf (Mar) 8’08”78 (57th all-time) Nandrolone

Marathon : Nobody

These numbers means that the percentage of athletes DOPED FOR EPO or similar VECTORS, in top 100 (that can be already a WIDE idea of Elite, if referred to the WR) is as follows :

800m : 0%

1500m : 5%

5000m : 4%

10000m : 2%

Steeple : 4%

Marathon : 2%

With these numbers, to speak about WIDESPREAD doping for blood manipulation is something out of the reality, and is not possible to think that, with all the tests in competition, and out of competition, that the athletes do (I can assure that Kenyans were the most controlled athletes also in the past, for example with specific tests paid by the Major Marathons with ALL the best athletes running their marathons, BEFORE the competition, in Kenya : Rita Jeptoo and Jemima Sumgong were tested in Kenya, OOC, for example), only marathon runners are so smart to dope, but able to avoid to be caught.

Coming back to the research of Ashenden, that didn’t regard Elite athletes well trained, and the final result doesn’t respect the reality.

ATHLETES LIVING AND TRAINING AT MAX LEVEL IN ALTITUDE ARE ABLE TO RUN AT THEIR BEST LEVEL ALSO AFTER 3 MONTHS OF STAY AT SEA LEVEL, if their training can change according to the new situation.

For example, Paul Kosgei bettered the WR of 25 km in 2004 after 3 months of stay in Torino, where I rent a house for the African athletes training in Italy for long periods, although if his blood values changed, becoming similar the values of Italian athletes.

The big mistake some physiologists do (and posters in LR normally do) is to consider as FINAL GOAL for the performance the level of Hb or Hct.

How I already explained several times, the WR for who has the higher Hct doesn’t exist : instead, exist the WR for who is able running faster, and top athletes frequently have low Hct, and, under individual data, are able running faster when their Hct is in the right range (frequently lower than when they have higher values).

This clearly shows how ALL the researches of physiologists (for themselves in some University, or as specialists of antidoping) NEVER look at the real subjects, and how the same physiologists don’t have any experience, and any clue, about training : how much is the volume, how much is the intensity, how much is the modulation, how much is the supercompensation, and of course which type of modification can INDUCE in the physiology of the users.

Finally : where are the "lot of elite Kenyan athletes" caught for EPO (or also other type of doping) ?

Again, what is ELITE for you ? And, when we speak about the Kenyan number 30 in Kenya in Half marathon or Marathon (this year, till now when the season is not still over, with times of 60:24 and 2:07:25), do you think there is some Country in the world going to test OOC some athlete number 30, in any event, in the seasonal national lists ?

So, KENYAN ARE GUILTY TO BE TOO MANY, STRONGER THAN RUNNERS OF OTHER COUNTRIES.

Is it a big fault ? Yes, if the other athletes are no more able to run like 30 or 40 years ago. But this doesn't depend on EPO, and doesn't depend on the value of Kenyan and Ethiopian athletes : depends on the type of western Society we created during the last 15 years, where the final goal is to improve the QUALITY OF LIFE (that, translated, means to cancel the idea of fatigue, delegating every hard physical work to some machine, and this is not exactly the best way for finding athletes able running fast, needing high level of facing pain and sufferance during their training and their competitions).

Mindweak, I'm sorry to inform you that your second point NEVER can happen.

Renato NEVER goes home devastated, because what he says is fruit of knowledge of what REALLY happens, while what you think is fruit of knowledge of what SOMEBODY SAID COULD HAPPEN.

You read books treating some other situation, I work in this situation PRACTICALLY and know what I'm speaking about.

Probably, if you had the courage to write with your name, the only going home DEVASTATED were you.

Your 0.1 second and 20 seconds has nothing to do with me. I do not assume "what is being disputed". Regardless if doping prevalance is 0%, or 57% is an under-estimate, the fact remains that for most of the world in 5 continents, "times really haven't improved much at all since the 80s", even during peak EPO-era years. You make several assumptions: - That EPO can produce the massive drop in times we saw in the '90s and '00s - That African doping was the reason for the massive drops in times - That there can be no other reasons for the massive drops in times - That sufficiently talented non-Africans from 5 continents did not dope Once you take these unproven assumptions for granted, this shapes the rest of your thinking. Dominance on the all time lists doesn't mean it was caused by EPO. I wouldn't expect times to get crazier in relation to longer distances from EPO. For slower paces below VO2max intensity, I expect any alleged effect to diminish. Sharp and Rob wouldn't be the first athletes expected to be the next great thing, only to fail to live up to the hype. And they wouldn't be the first to be wrong about other athletes doping. If you want to suggest that athletes from 5 nations did not dope for two decades, I'll let you discuss that with "casual obsever".

Those % are meaningless. How many times did Lance Armstrong test positive for EPO?

What about the Jama Aden hotel where they tested all the athletes and none failed a test. Someone must have been using the EPO! It just shows how hard it is to detect.

Further to this do you really think someone doping is not going to have a cover story?

I try another way for explaining the difference between training and EPO assumption, looking at the final results.

You need to remember that HEMATOCRIT is the relation between PLASMA and the corpuscular part of blood (mainly RBC or erythrocytes, but also WBC and PLT). We can calculate the HCT in very simple way : number of RBC x MCV (globular volume).

You need also remember that, with athletes at their maximal level of training in altitude, the best talented can increase the total blood volume till 25% (also if physiologists, investigating athletes of average level, arrive to appreciate an increase of 10% only).

This means that a top athlete, supposed to have 6 liters of blood when not in training, can arrive to have 7.5 liters when in full training, after a period of 3-5 months of intense and hard aerobic training (in the case of top athletes, volumes of about 180-240 km per week, with, during the last period, a percentage of 15%-20% of SPECIFIC intensity).

You have to remember, too, that a prolonged lactic training has the effect to DECREASE the total volume of blood, while a prolonged AEROBIC TRAINING at the level of the Lactic Threshold increases the total blood volume. This means that, about the best type of training, it's very important to maintain a balance between AEROBIC POWER and LACTIC CAPACITY, in order to maintain the shape for long time.

After this premise, I try to explain while with training we can have advantages vs. the EPO assumption.

Suppose to have a container with the capacity of 1 liter. We put in the container half liter of water, and we fill the container with 500 gr of sugar. After this, we go to shake the container, in the way that sugar and water can mix in perfect way, and after we put a very small quantity of the mixed substance in a small glass (that is the container of the mix we go to analyze).

When we go to analyze the substance in the small glass, we find exactly the percentage of sugar and water we have in the FULL container : 50% sugar and 50% water. This means that the relation is 50-50, and we can say that sugar is 50% of the total volume. If we suppose that sugar can have the role to transport some substance (for example Oxygen), we can say the ability to transport Oxygen of the body (looking at the NUMBER) is 50.

Now, we look at the athletes AFTER the period of preparation I spoke before, when they already have their 25% of total blood more.

We can figure this situation like to have a container no more of 1 liter, but of 1.25.

We put in this container no more 500 gr of sugar, but 550. This means that, for filling the container, we have to add 700 cl of water. If we go again to shake everything, the final proportion will be : (700/1250 ) = 56, and (550/1250) = 44.

According to these numbers, it seems that the ability to transport Oxygen in the first case was higher than in the second case (50 against 44). This is not true, because now we have 550 gr of sugar while before we had 500 only, so now we increased the ability to transport Oxygen of 10%, but the percent of sugar in the substance now is lower.

Now, think this is the Hct in the total blood volume. In the last situation, not only the athlete has MORE Hb able to transport Oxygen, but has also less viscosity, since the percentage of plasma (water in the previous example) is higher, and the peripheral resistances are reduced.

With the assumption of EPO, athletes DON'T INCREASE THE TOTAL VOLUME OF BLOOD, but only the ability to transport Oxygen increasing the viscosity.

This means that, looking at Hct, we look at a number, that can't explain anything, if not condoesn't wantnected with other parameters, able to explain the REAL ability to transport Oxygen.

Therefore, it's clear that, with little training (so, very little increase in the plasma), the assumption of EPO can produce some advantage. But, when we go to the training of TOP ATHLETES IN SHAPE (the situation they have when able to better a WR), with the assumption of EPO we increase the DISADVANTAGE, that at that level become SUPERIOR than the advantage, because we can achieve the SAME ABILITY TO TRANSPORT OXYGEN, with less viscosity.

This is what happens to ALL the best athletes of middle and especially long distances, if talented (if are not talented in that direction, NEVER can be at the top of the World). And they can achieve these physiological results training in high altitude and with continuity only, fact that excludes a lot of athletes from the specific subjects I'm speaking about.

Who wants to understand, has to think about all these variables.

Who, instead, starts with the idea that EVERYBODY IS DOPED (such as Mindweak, who supposes, looking at the number I wrote in the post before, that the clean human possibilities are at the level of the number 100 all-time, so the different percentage between WR and the level of number 100 for him can demonstrate that he has reason), doesn't want to try to think, since his idea is like a mantra, and nothing can change his supposition.

Of course, with these people is not possible to start a discussion on scientific basis : their contribution to a serious discussion is zero, their contribution to disturb every thread, to make everybody tired with the repetition of obsolete articles always saying the same thing, and with stupid long thread that they think to be ironic (warf, drivel, moron etc) while are only immature (like children when want to escape from something serious) is maximal, such as their attitude to insult myself in every way, with a lot of wrong accusations, without accepting a serious discussion (also because don't have the knowledge and the ability to do it).

Note : I say this because I had the opportunity to read the last attack Mindweak launched to me, before the moderator went to delete his post, that was a summary of idiotic world, without any logic connection.

Who is in the main circuit from more than 40 years, of course has some suspicion about athletes apparently clean, but really doped at 95%.

I don't want to name anybody without real proves, but we have clear ideas about some athlete of the period 1990-2000.

In 2002, in Tunis, I was there for the African Championships together Kenyan athletes I coached, who were the most part of the Kenyan team : Paul Kosgei, John Korir and Benjamin Maiyo in 10000m, Mark Bett in 5000m, Stephen Cherono and Wilson Boit Kipketer in steeple (plus Dorcus Inzikuru of Uganda in 5000m W).

We were on the track for warm-up before the steeple. Stephen and Wilson went to the dressing room for changing their uniform wearing the official one, and found the door locked. They knocked several times, and after some minute Brahim Boulami opened the door, and went out together with a Belgian doctor. Stephen and Wilson found syringes in the toilet, and told me there was something strange.

Boulami won the race behind Wilson and Stephen, and few days later destroyed the WR in Zurich with a "solo" that was amazing. At that time, there was no the must to have a blood test for validating a WR in endurance event, and Boulami supposed to be clean about EPO, because the last assumption was some day before (probably in Tunis). But what he could not suppose what that WADA tested him, the day before the meeting, taking blood, and in that way was possible to discover the assumption of EPO, that provoked his ban and the cancellation of his WR.

So, I agree with you that my number don't correspond to the reality. Forget Lance Armstrong, a lot of time we explained that to compare the doping organization of Lance with the doping in athletics for African runners is like to compare a rocket with a bike. However, we can increase the percentage of doped athletes, probably more for steroids than for EPO.

However, we continue to have a very high percentage of athletes who were able to run at their best, inside the top 100 all-time, completely clean (maybe more than 90% in short distances, while for marathon my numbers are real).

The fact is that it's not possible to have the thesis that EVERYBODY IS DOPED, without any hypothesis.

This type of mentality is like to think that everybody is a thief, and when you meet somebody on the road you ask him to demonstrate he is honest. In the normal world, nothing works in this way, and I continue not to understand why people think that the rule is represented by the 3 or 6 or 10% of acclarated doped, and not by the 90 or 94 or 97% of athletes who NEVER were positive BECAUSE NEVER USED ANY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.

I know this was possible, because I live every day that reality.

You follow emotional situations connected with your belly and not connected with any evidence, and this, nothing else, is the best way for destroying athletics.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

calculo wrote:

7'20.0 is worth 3'27-low

it's soft

7:20.67 is worth 1300 points = 3:26.19 for 1500m, 3:42.54 for the mile,

12:35.9 for 5,000m 26:14 & 26:14.9 for 10000m

Sorry man, but a calculator like vent's is a hell of a lot better than IAAF tables. The tables are based of what runners have run, not physiology. A good calculator can predict with a few watts (i.e. within 0.5%) how much power you can do at any duration from 30s up to an hour (fatigue resistance is a bit harder to deal with). Same principles apply to running.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

calculo wrote:

no

What??? Is this a joke???

Nope. But Vent's "no" is both partially true and false.

It's utterly false in that in terms of what actually get runs on the track, 3:26/3:27 are crazy fast and rare. It's been done what 15-20 times maybe? With half of those by El G probably.

However, this is calculo we are talking about...so you always have to think about what he means. He works not with what actually happens, but what is possible. The innate ability of the athlete, in a race with quality, even pacing to halfway (I think he uses 600/1000/3k/5k as the ideal pacing distances for the respective track races). In that context, 3:28 is not ridiculously fast. Like calculo, I believe there are a decent number of athletes that could run 3:28 or better if they had a set up race for it, i.e. Alan Webb's 3:46 AR mile type race.

I think the guys that calculo drives up a tree the most are the ones that don't find that sort of conversation worthwhile. I do. For instance, Rupp is, and always will be, a 26:44 and 12:58 guy. I think it's still interesting to speculate if he was 12:50 or 26:30 capable. Runner's do NOT always end their career with the best time they were physically capable of running. In fact they often don't run that. It takes many factors to coming together to run an ideal race.

In my mind, Farah is a 12:53 guy that probably could have run 12:40.

Discussions like these are nothing more than entertaining speculation when talking about a specific athlete, but when it comes to things like doping and comparing times between eras, it's almost essential because so few races go fast. My sense is still that you don't really agree on that point, judging by how you said you don't think we'll even see 12:45 for a long time. I wish I had $100k+ I could throw out there, with $20k for a pacer who would run 2:33, 5:06, and 7:39, splits and then $10k bonus for any runners hitting 4k in under 10:15. I'd bet my life you'd see at least 2 sub 12:45s and a host of other sub 12:50s.

Same thing for a 1500 paced at 55, 1:50, 2:18. Bet my life you get one or two 3:26s, and couple other guys 3:28 or better.

Renato,

you have previously claimed to have hundreds of data points of testing information to support your theory that EPO cannot work on athletes from altitude.

You have previously promised to post all of those data points, so that they can be analyzed and looked at. The most recent time, I believe, was in May of this year, when you said you were travelling but would post in a week or so when you returned to Italy.

So far there has been no treasure of data about HCT, HbG, and other blood factors which can support your theory. Although you have on occasion posted numbers for individuals athletes.

I have to conclude that you either do not have the data that you claim to have or that the data you have does not actually show what you assert it shows.

You seem to spend an awful lot of time propounding a theory on these message boards which you say you have strong data to back up that theory. Most people, if they really have data which supports an argument will simply provide that data so that other people can look at it. I wonder why you don't do that?

Are there any peer-reviewed journal articles that you can reference that demonstrate that hard aerobic training at altitude can increase blood volume by 25%? Or how are you making this estimation? Thank you.

Renato Canova wrote:

When Ashenden writes about “Elite athletes”, he NEVER really tested any REAL Elite, and they were not in a period of hard training.

FWIW, the Kenyan control group of six (6) runners that Ashenden used in the study "collectively won three Olympic medals, five World Championship medals and held numerous World Records."

Well snap.

Mindweak is clearly a marked man. I wrote a reply to some of his comments, and apparently that was also nuked. Slightly obnoxious.