We like to have 1 thread per topic so we merged two threads together and kept the title of this thread. The other thread was entitled, "Assefa performance."
Honest question - why have you not believed it until now? Running is a premier sport in Ethiopia and Kenya and for them the money goes further than in most countries. So why would they not be doping?
It is uncanny how many posts revolve around this word "believe".
Off my head, I can think of several reasons not to "believe":
- Doping is against the rules, acting as a deterrent for most athletes. Even the most pessimistic "scientific" athlete survey data suggests most world championship athletes do not dope.
- No scientific evidence that any PED even exists for the marathon -- an event that does not require muscular strength, and is competed far below maximum aerobic capacity.
- No strong anecdotal evidence either from athletes/coaches that any PED exists for the marathon. There are no athlete/coach testimonies, and the little information provided by the few busts that do occur make it difficult to draw any strong correlations between performance and doping.
- No scientific nor anecdotal evidence of other mechanisms, like PEDs permitting quicker recovery allowing more training, that leads to faster performances.
- Lack of world class fast marathon peformances by most of the non-African world suggests most athletes don't believe in PEDs for the marathon, or alternatively, they do believe, but do not realize the benefits because their unfounded beliefs proved ineffective.
- East Africans (Kenya and Ethiopia) have been dominating world distance running with a demonstrated depth of top quality as far back as 1981 World Cross Country that non-Africans have failed to replicate ever since.
- With respect to EPO and blood doping and ABP suspicion, two esteemed anti-doping researchers reviewed 12 years of blood data and found Kenyan and Ethiopian "suspicion" to be below average and found the marathon to be the cleanest event they looked at, with only 1 in 9 (11%) World Championship and Olympic medals to be won by an athlete that was ever considered "suspicious or at the very least, abnormal" at least once in the database.
It's important to approach such claims with a critical and evidence-based perspective. Let's address each of these statements with specific examples:
No scientific evidence that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE PEDs may not provide the same immediate and dramatic benefits in marathon running as in some other sports, but they can still improve performance. One example is EPO to increase red blood cell production and oxygen-carrying capacity. Has EPO ever been used by some marathon runners to enhance endurance and performance? Yes.
No strong anecdotal evidence from athletes/coaches that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE Listen, here's what I want you to see: while athletes and coaches may not openly admit to PED use due to the stigma and consequences associated with doping, have there been no cases of marathon runners being implicated in doping scandals? Rita Jeptoo testing positive for EPO in 2014, demonstrates that some marathon athletes have been involved in doping.
No evidence of other mechanisms, like PEDs permitting quicker recovery for faster performances: FALSE PEDs improving recovery can indirectly lead to faster marathon performances. Take anabolic steroids for example. Look at how they can aid in muscle recovery and allow athletes to train more intensely and frequently. This improved training can lead to better marathon performances over time.
Lack of world-class fast marathon performances by most of the non-African world: DUBIOUS Listen, mate, your argument doesn't necessarily imply that PEDs are not used. Do athletes have different training methods? Different genetics? Different and various access to resources? Furthermore, some non-African athletes have achieved world-class marathon performances.
East Africans dominating world distance running: INACCURATE Yo, it's true that East Africans have had significant success in distance running, but it's wholly inaccurate to claim that non-Africans have "failed to replicate" their success. Athletes from various countries, including those in Europe and the Americas, have achieved competitive marathon results. The dominance of East Africans may be attributed to a combination of genetic factors, altitude training, and cultural emphasis on distance running.
Marathon being the cleanest event according to anti-doping researchers: Your claim that marathons are the cleanest events may be based on specific criteria and data analysis. However, I can't believe that not even you can acknowledge that it doesn't negate the fact that doping can still occur in marathon running, as demonstrated by doping cases in athletics.
Think about what you're communicating. I concede that marathon running may not be as synonymous with doping as some other sports. However, it would be incorrect to categorically dismiss the existence of PEDs in marathon running based on the evidence and examples provided above. Doping remains a concern in endurance sports, including marathons.
I believe she used PEDs to achieve this result. I’m not particularly interested in arguing about it though, I’m just contributing this factual tidbit:
The difference between the half marathon and marathon WRs for men/women is now very close. On the men’s side, 57:31 x 2 + 6:07 = 2:01:09; on the women’s, 62:52 x 2 + 6:09 = 2:11:53. In a way, this makes 2:11:53 for a woman seem more fathomable—though it’s very likely that all four WRs were achieved with the help of PEDs.
Your factual tidbit has an opinion in it but you're not interested in discussing it.
Hmmmm intelligent.
Let's say she doped, even though you have no basis to make that claim.
My question is- what time is it reasonable to expect a woman to run without drugs and without super shoes?
Joan Benoit set a world record of 2:21 in 1985, which was 38 years ago. Is it too much to accept a 9-minute improvement in 38 years?
it was 2:22 in 1983, but close enough.
Might also look at it this way: 7 minutes improvement in the 20 years after Benoit, and 4 minutes in the 20 years after that. Not too shocking.
I think people are having a visceral reaction to the number (2:11 for a female!) and the fact that Assefa ran 2:34 18 months ago, and got four minutes faster (from an already outrageous 2:15) in the last 12 months.
Correct, 2:21 set an American Record. But it proves our point: improving 9 minutes in 40 years is attainable. As for quick improvement, Lonah Chemtai Salpeter of Israel ran 2:40.16 and is now a 2:17 runner. She only started jogging when she moved to Israel to serve as a nanny to the Kenyan Ambassador.
Joan Benoit set a world record of 2:21 in 1985, which was 38 years ago. Is it too much to accept a 9-minute improvement in 38 years?
it was 2:22 in 1983, but close enough.
Might also look at it this way: 7 minutes improvement in the 20 years after Benoit, and 4 minutes in the 20 years after that. Not too shocking.
I think people are having a visceral reaction to the number (2:11 for a female!) and the fact that Assefa ran 2:34 18 months ago, and got four minutes faster (from an already outrageous 2:15) in the last 12 months.
Incorrect, the visceral reaction is to this being her 3rd marathon ever, and absolutely no training or performance trail suggesting she's capable of anything close to this. The 2:3x she ran makes total sense though.
The naive notion that persists on these boards and amongst running fans generally is that there must be a constant rate of improvement in the sport, typically based on unspecified improvements in "training, nutrition and technical advances". But the facts remain that human physiology has not evolved in the last 60 or so years, that the principles of effective training have been known for over half a century, that an athlete's diet is largely a merely healthy diet and not a form is "super-fuel", and technical advances such as modern tracks and new shoes have only a marginal effect on elite performance and not an order of magnitude like the modernisation of golf clubs and tennis racquets.
Horse racing may be an instructive comparison. Over decades, immense effort has gone into the breeding of the fastest possible animals, with the very best that science and knowledge of the sport also has to offer on training and nutrition. Yet - unlike human athletes - race-horses perform at much the same level as they have since Man O'War at the end of the First World War. No horse has run faster in the Triple Crown since Secretariat in 1973. So why does human achievement in the same sport - which is running - continue to show accelerated increases in performance when horse racing doesn't? The answer is obvious and regrettably banal - we are better at cheating than horses are.
You have set outstanding records for posting on the LR WFMB. No one has been able to post at a similar rate. So, its doping that has enabled this. Double entendre.
You mean "doping entendre". But WADA appears unconcerned about doping on a website - even if you are. I would however recommend it in your case; you are in need of performance enhancement.
Running shoes have a sole and an upper. They can't be too heavy. They have to be comfortable. Exactly what is it in that simple construction that takes an athlete into another universe of achievement? I suggest it is what they put in their body, not what they put on their feet, that greatly increases muscular strength, aerobic capacity and speed, and so transforms what they are capable of. We have just seen that yet again.
In this simple construction, it is the soles with new material which improves efficiency with each step.
Whatever you want to suggest is just your own suggestion based on no knowledge. It has no weight until you provide substantial facts -- which you cannot.
Unlike you I am not so stupid as to insist that doping be narrowed down to a couple of hundredths of a second, especially in a md race. When I suggest 1:55 is about the clean limit I don't mean 1:55.00. Only a drongo would assume that. It is a ball-park. But the ball-park is clearly established by 1:53.2.
Lol. You said specifically that is she goes below 1:55 she is doping. Big surprise that a potty mouth like yourself would not stick to your word.
You are the moron that insists a given figure must be read to hundredths of a second. I never indicated that. Since you haven't understood a simple point of that nature it shows everything else being discussed here is also out of your reach.
This post was edited 29 seconds after it was posted.
I think people are having a visceral reaction to the number (2:11 for a female!) and the fact that Assefa ran 2:34 18 months ago, and got four minutes faster (from an already outrageous 2:15) in the last 12 months.
I think it’s important to note that she was on ~2:22 pace through the half and then blew up.
The winner - Tadu Teshome - finished in 2:26. She had a 2:17 PB that year.
2nd place - Workenesh Edesa - finished in 2:26. She had a 2:18 PB that year.
On paper, 2:34 looks bad, but it wasn’t. It was an aggressive first marathon on a slow course.
Lol. You said specifically that is she goes below 1:55 she is doping. Big surprise that a potty mouth like yourself would not stick to your word.
You are the moron that insists a given figure must be read to hundredths of a second. I never indicated that. Since you haven't understood a simple point of that nature it shows everything else being discussed here is also out of your reach.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
