Yo Sara ian wrote:
Wait, he was nearly 39 but he'd also improved steadily through his 30s despite running for decades.
Now you are aware.
Not an American runner, as I asked, but he was already the best in the world in his events in his 20's - indeed, one of the all-time greats on those accomplishments alone. Unlike Sara - who we would never have known of until her sudden and recent achievements in her late 30's.
BTW, his best marathon time was at 35, not 39.
Meb developed as a runner completely in America. He was a great racer but his times were not modern day fast.
He was two weeks short of 39 when he ran his fastest time at Boston in 2014.
You're probably having an elder moment and thinking of Geb.
This wasn't a grainy video of sasquatch. I have a crystal clear video of her running the race.
And her best marathon was at 37. She is a stud. We can tell that it kills you that a squeaky clean 37 year old woman can kick your butt.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Meb developed as a runner completely in America. He was a great racer but his times were not modern day fast.
He was two weeks short of 39 when he ran his fastest time at Boston in 2014.
You're probably having an elder moment and thinking of Geb.
You're right - I was thinking of Geb. But while I'm in that subject I think his example is instructive. His fastest marathon at age 35 was 2.08x. That is about the same as Derek Clayton was running nearly 40 years earlier. By contrast his best 5k time, in his 20's was 12 39x. He was the best 5-10k runner in the world at his peak and while a successful marathon runner in his 30's he wasn't the same level at that event. The fact is he turned to the roads as he slowed on the track. If he had become an even better marathon runner late in his career, as Hall has done, clocking something like 2.02 at 37, I would say he was doped without a doubt. For that reason I don't have complete confidence in the example you give of Meb running his best ever time at 39, as I have my doubts about Sara Hall. It's too easy for runners late in their career to use a means for improving that doesn't just include talent and training.
Faster than ever wrote:
And her best marathon was at 37. She is a stud. We can tell that it kills you that a squeaky clean 37 year old woman can kick your butt.
You aren't intellectually equipped to enter this discussion.
Geb kind of was at the same level. He set a WR at the distance more than once. His best time at 35 was another WR, not a 2:08. Sure we think a 12:39 is worth more now but the times were what they were for the era. Did you expect him to run a 2:01?
Naturally you are going to suspect Meb of doping. Why didn't you say so at the time?
I realize that it is difficult for people like you who don't like to be confused with facts. You are an opinion guy.
I predict a very clean 2:19 before she is done.
Talent beats training wrote:
I predict a very clean 2:19 before she is done.
Yes, but her shoes will be dirty. That's legal though.
If slow Joanie can flirt with 2:20 nearly 40 years ago, surely Hall can now.
Talent beats training wrote:
I predict a very clean 2:19 before she is done.
Or she strains something and never really gets back to this level of fitness in the short window she has left. I know some people have had the 2 pretty quick marathons in a short period but few seem to do it for long. In a lot of the post 35 crowd, they seem to do well as long as they can keep the ball rolling. That injury that sidelines for a month always seems like it is fatal.
I hope she makes it through a couple more cycles and we get some great races. But it is easy to forgot how much has to go right for them to happen and it is often hard for them to repeat. I remember after Ritz ran 12:56/60:00 how I excited I was that he was about to take the next step. Never really happened. Sometime things just never line up again.
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
Talent beats training wrote:
I predict a very clean 2:19 before she is done.
Or she strains something and never really gets back to this level of fitness in the short window she has left. I know some people have had the 2 pretty quick marathons in a short period but few seem to do it for long. In a lot of the post 35 crowd, they seem to do well as long as they can keep the ball rolling. That injury that sidelines for a month always seems like it is fatal.
I hope she makes it through a couple more cycles and we get some great races. But it is easy to forgot how much has to go right for them to happen and it is often hard for them to repeat. I remember after Ritz ran 12:56/60:00 how I excited I was that he was about to take the next step. Never really happened. Sometime things just never line up again.
Exactly. The pattern also holds pretty true for most runners at any distance and any age during peak years.
Jager should have just been able to jump in another race and get his sub 8 that he was cruising to.
"peak years" Which is apparently from 20-40.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Exactly. The pattern also holds pretty true for most runners at any distance and any age during peak years.
Jager should have just been able to jump in another race and get his sub 8 that he was cruising to.
"peak years" Which is apparently from 20-40.
Probably more like 37-38:) You have plenty of runners who move up and do fine at some what advanced ages. See Lagat for a guy who set 5000m PR (and AR) just before turning 37 and still ran pretty well at 38 and 39. Nobody is arguing that father time doesn't come for everyone but the exact year seems to vary by a half a decade with some people done at around 32 and others hanging around until close to 40. How much of that is desire (i.e. do you really want to spend another year grinding) and how much is aging is hard to say. Some people also just seem to lose it (see Webb or Hall for a prime example) for reasons that aren't age related.
it could be the shoes,also could be EPO,or it could be that she's actually a truly great marathoner,who is better suited to marathons,than track running.If shes wearing those shoes,itll help turn a 2.28 marathoner into a 2.20.Now if she ran 2.28 without the shoes,no one would bat an eyelid.That would tie in well with her track times.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Geb kind of was at the same level. He set a WR at the distance more than once. His best time at 35 was another WR, not a 2:08. Sure we think a 12:39 is worth more now but the times were what they were for the era. Did you expect him to run a 2:01?
Naturally you are going to suspect Meb of doping. Why didn't you say so at the time?
Sorry, I misread Geb's marathon figure - he was a 2.04 guy. That is indeed impressive - especially for a 35 year old - but doesn't quite match his track world records, which were set in his 20's. Kipchoge has faster marathon times but wasn't the same level as Geb on the track. If Geb had run 2.01-2 in his mid-30's I would certainly suspect him if doping, even though he was a faster track runner than Kipchoge.
When you reminded me you were talking about Meb and not Geb - my mistake - I said I have my doubts about his performance at 39, too.
The point for me is not especially and only about Sara Hall. She is just an example in this debate. It is about sudden and dramatic improvement by athletes late in an already lengthy career and especially in their late 30's. It defies everything I understand about physiological aging, amongst elites as well as the rest of us more humble mortals. In the context of increasingly sophisticated and widespread doping in the sport I see ped's as the "most rational explanation" for such achievements rather than simply talent/training. In the case of any individual athlete I could be wrong - I could be wrong about Sara Hall - indeed we are all speculating here - but I think the balance of probabilities in most cases, like hers, is that such performances are likely doped.
Faster than ever wrote:
I realize that it is difficult for people like you who don't like to be confused with facts. You are an opinion guy.
Speaking of opinions.
jeff tallon wrote:
it could be the shoes,also could be EPO,or it could be that she's actually a truly great marathoner,who is better suited to marathons,than track running.If shes wearing those shoes,itll help turn a 2.28 marathoner into a 2.20.Now if she ran 2.28 without the shoes,no one would bat an eyelid.That would tie in well with her track times.
How do you figure the shoes give her 8 minutes?
Does that mean the current world record holder at 2.14 could run 2.06 with the shoes if she hadn't run in them, or was really only a 2.22 runner if she did?
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Exactly. The pattern also holds pretty true for most runners at any distance and any age during peak years.
Jager should have just been able to jump in another race and get his sub 8 that he was cruising to.
"peak years" Which is apparently from 20-40.
Probably more like 37-38:) You have plenty of runners who move up and do fine at some what advanced ages. See Lagat for a guy who set 5000m PR (and AR) just before turning 37 and still ran pretty well at 38 and 39. Nobody is arguing that father time doesn't come for everyone but the exact year seems to vary by a half a decade with some people done at around 32 and others hanging around until close to 40. How much of that is desire (i.e. do you really want to spend another year grinding) and how much is aging is hard to say. Some people also just seem to lose it (see Webb or Hall for a prime example) for reasons that aren't age related.
Lagat may not be the example you are looking for of an athlete who was, or is, unquestionably clean.
What frequently puzzles me here is that when we know from confidential athlete surveys and investigations by antidoping experts that many more athletes are willing to dope than are caught, why is it hard to believe that any given athlete might do that?
The likely incidence of doping - estimated being anything from 1 in 10 athletes to even 1 in 2 championship level athletes - suggests that success at their sport overrides whatever ethical qualms many athletes would have of engaging in the practice. Their sport is everything for them. They aren't amateurs and mere hobbyists - as we might be. If they don't get caught it is a risk many are prepared to take for the rewards they may seek.