Why is Sebastian Coe's technique considered the best?

Coevett wrote:

What exactly has 90s and 00s Jamaican British sprinters got to do with the likelihood of Coe, Ovett, and Cram doping in the 80s? 90s MidDistance Brits were clearly not doping. Can Rojo please ask anyone else slandering Coe etc to take an IQ test before they post?

It has nothing to do with your heros in the 80s. The point of the link was to show there was doping in British T&F. Aren't sprints part of the sport of T&F? I'm kind of tired of the British pretentious, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude that everyone else is doping and nothing is going on in British athletics. And you're always picking on the North Africans as if they were the only countries doping. For me personally, I happen to like Said Aouita and think he was the best mid-d/distance runner of the 80s. But you probably think he was doped based on your constant criticism & demeaning of N. African runners.

On Coe: This is an interesting thread that I found. Some on this thread seem to disagree with you that mid-d distance Brits weren't doping. I'm surprised you weren't one of the frontrunners debating this particular issue:

Deanouk wrote:

I'm glad some people can follow the points I tried to make as clearly as possible!?

Rainbows and unicorns...

It's not that your theory - that British mid-distance runners were especially clean, even in the 80s - is hard to understand. It is rather that it is absurd. Neither are Brits especially honest, nor do mid-distance not benefit from doping.

Back to the original topic, why don't we consider Nick Willis (NZL) as a candidate for best form? He ran faster than Coe, much more efficient and graceful. So much so, that he is able to carry his fitness into his mid-30s and still medal at the Olympics -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grf_62s_95w&t=321s

a;lj wrote:

Back to the original topic, why don't we consider Nick Willis (NZL) as a candidate for best form? He ran faster than Coe, much more efficient and graceful. So much so, that he is able to carry his fitness into his mid-30s and still medal at the Olympics -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grf_62s_95w&t=321s

Maybe because Coe was a world record breaker and a persistent winner and Willis isn’t?

Coe was the Nureyev, Borg, Cruyff of the track. In terms of grace, technique and style, Willis just doesn’t compare.

Yeah, and most of those posters jumping on rumours created by a known Finnish tabloid rag, are the same posters claiming middle distance Brits doped in the 80s on this thread. The gutter press came up with no evidence and didn’t even attach a journalist’s name to the article. That shows how confident they were it was true.

casual obsever wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

I'm glad some people can follow the points I tried to make as clearly as possible!?

Rainbows and unicorns...

It's not that your theory - that British mid-distance runners were especially clean, even in the 80s - is hard to understand. It is rather that it is absurd. Neither are Brits especially honest, nor do mid-distance not benefit from doping.

It's only absurd if you start with the far more absurd assumption that every athlete on Earth dopes, equally in all places in all times. All the arguments presented for that assumptions so far have been pathetic.

Brits are more honest than most, and certainly more honest than Moroccans or Kenyans. You have to have your a** in your head to think otherwise. Mid-distance events do not benefit as much from doping as other events, with 800m benefiting the least. Ventihole's argument that '400m guys benefit from steroids, 5000m guys benefit from EPO, therefore mid-distance benefits twice as much as either as it falls between the two is utterly absurd. It's a bit like arguing that because AfroAmericans dominate the sprints, and East Africans dominate long distance that white runners should be even less likely to be able to compete in the 800/1500 as these events fall between sprints and long distance and should therefore be dominated by BOTH AfroAmericans AND East Africans!

In a recent corruption index GB placed 10th and Morocco was 90th with Kenya 145th.

*That is 10th least most corrupt, with Kenya being 145th least corrupt.

BTW, the example often given of cycling is misleading. Cycling has always been a team sport with ludicrous amounts of money involved. Every cyclist did dope and so nobody regarded it as cheating. We know that there have been examples of state sponsored doping in athletics when national prestige and the 'proof' of superiority of political systems has been at stake such as the Eastern Bloc in the Cold War. We also know that there have been corrupt training camps and coaches such as with American and Jamaican (and yes British 90's sprinting). Coe, Ovett, Cram had three completely different coaches. All three would have had to have been doping isolated from the other. There is no reason to believe that the British middle-distance runners who came before them such as Brendan Foster or after them such as David Sharpe and Matthew Yates were doping, in fact all the evidence would suggest they were competing against dopers (Foster against Finns, Sharpe against EthEPOiyans).

Coevett wrote:

Brits are more honest than most, and certainly more honest than Moroccans or Kenyans. You have to have your a** in your head to think otherwise. Mid-distance events do not benefit as much from doping as other events, with 800m benefiting the least. Ventihole's argument that '400m guys benefit from steroids, 5000m guys benefit from EPO, therefore mid-distance benefits twice as much as either as it falls between the two is utterly absurd. It's a bit like arguing that because AfroAmericans dominate the sprints, and East Africans dominate long distance that white runners should be even less likely to be able to compete in the 800/1500 as these events fall between sprints and long distance and should therefore be dominated by BOTH AfroAmericans AND East Africans!

How do you quantify "as much" when comparing a doping benefit in middle distance to other events? A fast PB vs individual improvement from baseline? And what other events? And what type of PEDs; Oxygen-vector? HGH? Steroids?

I'll highlight O2-vector doping with the 1500m event. An increase in total Hb increases VO2max independant of total blood volume. And VO2max is an important physiological variable of the 1500/mile.

Here's a few middle distance runners caught either using rHuEPO or sanctioned for hematological anomalies in their ABP. Some of these runners are medal winners in major competitions. Many have a significant performance jump(s) in a short period time (~1 yr) noted on their IAAF progression profile. A few ran their PBs within weeks/months of testing positive (rHuEPO cases). And the very few that returned to competition after their bans never ran times anywhere near their PBs.

Rashid Ramzi - EPO (3:29.14)

Fouad Chouki - EPO (3:30.83)

Adil Kaouch- EPO (3:31.10)

Mohammed Shaween - ABP (3:31.82)

Yassine Bensghir - ABP (3:33.04)

Hamza Driouch - ABP (3:33.69)

No one is arguing the benefit to middle distance runners of EPO, but this only became available in the early 90’s. Yes, once this drug was known to help endurance, firstly with cyclists, then of course some middle distance runners used it, at first, knowing there was no test for it. But many on here have made the valid point that no elite middle distance men were caught, either at the time or later uncovered, in the late 70’s and early 80’s, before EPO and HGH existed in a synthetic form. It was also widely acknowledged at that time that steroids were of no real benefit for half milers and milers.

EPO became available to athletes in the late 80s, which is one reason Dr. Rosa ran off to Kenya. He figured he could experiment without interference and he was right. Hermens followed suit, as did others. Even though testing has gotten better (where are all those sub 12:50 5k runners lol) the E. Africans and others are let dope off season / out of competition. It isn't only the E. Africans, as certain third world countries are allowed to do whatever out of season (Cuba for example) and nothing is said or done.

When you are not being bothered by tests you can find talented athletes and from them you find the best responders to drugs. Sure, some idiots lie and tell us that EPO "doesn't work" on Kenyans for example, when in fact Kenyans and their handlers have fouled up and been caught. Sure, politics has saved the day (Lagat for example, or the Kenyan fiasco in Rio with 'stand ins' lining up to take drug tests and most of the story being covered up) but some Kenyans and others have been caught using a drug that doesn't work for them. It's a side splitter.

Europeans became intimidated by the numbers of Africans (inflated by rampant drug use) and the ridiculous times (Geb running under 12:40 lol). The Americans have shown that non-Africans can in fact run well, and that's with the sport not being all that popular in America. The huge increases in the money that has been poured into soccer since the late 80s hasn't exactly helped middle and long distance running in Europe either.

The E. Africans have a huge number of talented people but the numbers we've seen since '87 (never mind most of the top performances) have been inflated and exaggerated by drug use. If the sport were totally cleaned up (and political forces do NOT want it to be cleaned up) and Europeans began competing in the numbers they did up through the mid 80s, the Africans would still have the highest percentage of top performers, but they wouldn't be nearly so dominant.

How about Sondre Nordstad Moen's 2:05:48 in Fukuoka?

Clean?

Yes, I was going to make this point on another thread comparing Rod Dixon to Galen Rupp. Apparently, comparing the two is like 'apples and oranges' because Dixon competed against mostly white runners, and Rupp has to compete against doped up East Africans. Leaving aside the vitamin c injections and the suspicious biological profile of Rupp, it can't be denied that the standard of white running has plummeted since the 70s and 80s, largely for the reasons you mentioned.

Demographics also have played a factor. The population of Kenya and Ethiopia has more than doubled since the 70s, as well as infrastructure and living standards improved, although not yet to the point where obesity is a factor and the kids sit around all day on Facebook or playing video games. Meanwhile, the young white population of Europe has actually been shrinking since the 70s, especially in countries like Germany and Italy. As has been pointed out, East Africans were producing amazing runners half a century ago. Running is the most simple sport on Earth, so it's not surprise East Africans flock to it in huge numbers, especially when their only real models of sporting success have been in running.

Anyway, I disagree with your handle - I think there's no question that Coe was the greatest middle-distance runner ever in terms of what he achieved.

The sport that most East Africans flock to is soccer. Very easy to do and with money that makes prize money in running look silly.

No, you're wrong there, we've been through this before. Kenyan attendances for even top clubs are abysmal. I think there are two Kenyan footballers playing in top league European clubs. Compare with Nigeria or Ghana. Kenyans might play soccer in school and dream of being Gareth Bale, but the difference as comparef with European schoolboys is they haven't a prayer. Gareth Bale was a talented 800m runner but he became,,, Gareth Bale.

Why would Chelsea or Barcelona send scouts to Kenya rather than Nigeria?

If Steve Cram was born 5 years later he would have been a footballer like his Uncle. Kiprop might have preferred to earn millions at Barcelona, he probably couldn't hack it as a non-league player with his typical East African frame. That's why rhere are no European Steve Crams running 3:26 today. All Kenyans can do is run. :) Then 'experts' here see all the top runners today looking like Kiprop and conclude he/they represent a superior running phenotype that Europeans can't match.

Did you read the Fancy bears report and the part about Kiprop?

Coevett wrote:

In a recent corruption index GB placed 10th and Morocco was 90th with Kenya 145th.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

That table is a perception of corruption which is a very different thing from actual corruption. You could almost say that countries at the top of that list are countries which manage to successfully market themselves as being less corrupt - seeing a country like Switerland (which has taken in ridiculous amounts of money with no questions asked over the years from rich individuals for tax avoidance purposes only) near the top of that list does bring a wry smile to my face.

Deanouk wrote:

It was also widely acknowledged at that time that steroids were of no real benefit for half milers and milers.

So please stop constantly downplaying Beyer and Straub's victories over Coe and Ovett - they were legitimate if you believe that.

details are important wrote:

Coevett wrote:

In a recent corruption index GB placed 10th and Morocco was 90th with Kenya 145th.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

That table is a perception of corruption which is a very different thing from actual corruption. You could almost say that countries at the top of that list are countries which manage to successfully market themselves as being less corrupt - seeing a country like Switerland (which has taken in ridiculous amounts of money with no questions asked over the years from rich individuals for tax avoidance purposes only) near the top of that list does bring a wry smile to my face.

No, it's about how often ordinary people reported that they had been invited to pay bribes to police etc. Switzerland might be immoral in allowing foreign individuals (often African politicians and such) to store their money there tax free, but that's not corruption so long as it's legal. You really must have your head up your behind if you don't think there is more day to day corruption at a basic level in Third World countries than Europe. Have you traveled in Third World countries?

Yeah, I did. I must say I like Kiprop, he is an elegant runner, and I hope he isn't doping. Same with Rudisha. It is strange how Kiprop has declined so fast.