I must say, as I go, that it isn't a good sign for anyone who could be suspected of doping that rekrunner is on their side. Salazar, Houlihan etc - he's so determined to be on the right side of history in these things.
Wait -- is someone actually suspected of doping? Is that real or imaginary?
I thought you could use the help with math, because you are more "law background" (sic) than math.
The "math" can come from confidential athlete surveys that have shown up to 1 in 2 championship athletes are likely doping. But you will do your usual of trying to explain it away by saying they didn't really understand the question they were asked. Very complicated question, "have you been doping?"
Again, where is your science, man? It's not enough to "think" somebody is doping, such public claims are called defamation of character.
Just for once in the history of your presence on letsrun provide a substantial source that could prove any of your doping claims.
Unlike you, I myself was a sub-elite 1500m runner and can tell you that there are different types of runners. The speedy ones sucked in long distance (like me) and the others where killing in in 3000m, 5000m and XC, but sucked in sprints and anything under 1000m.
We had a guy on our team that ran 47s 400m, 1:46 800m and 3:57 1500m. Another guy was a 13:45 5000m guy, who ran a 3:56 1500m. Was fun competing against these two in 1500m, as that was the only distance I could beat them in.
You won't ever get the science or any substantial source from Armstronglivs, just allegations, readings from his own gospels, occasional advice to do your own research, combined with arrogance, and condescencion.
The fact is that good science showing doping improving elite performance is pretty scarce. I would love to see the best examples.
Says someone whose confident statements about what Jakob can run are entirely his own invention. But that fits in with the rest of the thread.
Wait -- is someone actually suspected of doping? Is that real or imaginary?
I thought you could use the help with math, because you are more "law background" (sic) than math.
The "math" can come from confidential athlete surveys that have shown up to 1 in 2 championship athletes are likely doping. But you will do your usual of trying to explain it away by saying they didn't really understand the question they were asked. Very complicated question, "have you been doping?"
They did use a lot of math. Good for you.
Note that Jakob did not participate in the 2011 World Championship Games or the 2011 Pan Arab Games.
Like the researchers, I wondered if many athletes even read the instructions, rather than doubted their ability to understand a simple question.
You may want to blame me for trying to provide information, but I was simply the messenger, providing the information that was already publicly available, but often conveniently ignored. Any doubts I expressed about the accuracy of the survey results comes directly from the researchers themselves, in their peer reviewed paper that gave a range of estimated doping from as little as 31.4%, to the uncorrected 43.6%. (In subsequent papers, even these estimates are doubted by one of the researchers, who calls "UQM" survey results "potentially inflated" after a similar study arrived at 60%, while three other competing methods arrived at 20%.)
The researchers understood that anonymity doesn't guarantee compliance to the survey instructions, or address survey apathy. They used math to build a bunch of models to calculate, as a function of degree of survey non-compliance, up to 30% for each scenario. The only problem is knowing the degrees of all forms of non-compliance.
To mitigate the errors from one significant form of non-compliance ("automatic yes"), they measured survey response times, and recommended an exercise of discarding 30% of the fastest answers speculating that these athletes didn't even read the questions, let alone understand them. This is what reduced the estimate from 43.6% to 31.4%. They made no effort to estimate the errors in the remaining 70%, but guessed it must be small, and also guessed (hoped) it would likely be in the positive direction.
You won't ever get the science or any substantial source from Armstronglivs, just allegations, readings from his own gospels, occasional advice to do your own research, combined with arrogance, and condescencion.
The fact is that good science showing doping improving elite performance is pretty scarce. I would love to see the best examples.
Says someone whose confident statements about what Jakob can run are entirely his own invention. But that fits in with the rest of the thread.
Entirely my invention? I don't feel like I can accept any of the credit. As I explained it was Frank Horwill who told us (in a 1991 book) "the pace of an athlete slows by about 4 seconds per 400m for faster athletes and 5 seconds for slower athletes, as the race distance increases from 400m to the marathon". I can't be the first one to work out that faster athletes with stronger endurance should slow less then 4 seconds, or to use high school math to work out the logarithmic relation between increasing time over increasing distance implied by such a rule. For example, "Hadd" was a prolific poster here some 10-15 years ago, who used this rule as a measure of endurance when getting back into shape.
You might remember Frank Horwill from your youth -- he was a famous and internationally respected British coach from the '60s and '70s, praised by Peter Coe (father and coach of world records holder Sebastien Coe), and responsible for many world class successes like Tim Hutchings.
He was one of the first ones to improve on the Lydiard training of the '60s, by focusing on economy and increasing the amount of high quality running.
Applying Horwill's observed relation of slowing down when doubling the distance, to the best results of athletes like Bekele give us a 2.5 second rule, and to Fernando Mamede, a 2.27 second rule, and to Carlos Lopes, a 1.8 second rule.
Even if we put reason and experience aside, and accepted that Jakob's 1:46.44 is comparable, this still gives a slow down of between 2.6 and 3.1 seconds (for 1500m and 5000m respectively). This is very good, but not unusually high, and not better than elite athletes like Bekele or Lopes or Mamede. But reason and experience would tell us that events like the 800m (and 10000m) were not his focus, and therefore he likely has not shown his true potential in these rarely run events.
Using the same rule for Coe and Snell, the more obvious question that arises is not how Jakob's endurance (at 3.41 seconds in his main events) is so good, but why predecessors like Coe (with 5.6 second slowdown) and Snell (with 6.0 second slowdown) had such poor endurance between their half-mile and mile world records, compared to Horwill's 4-second rule, and 5-second rule for slower athletes.
You may be a "student" of Lydiard but you are poorly-informed. Lydiard said that Snell's 1.44 on grass was worth up to 2 seconds on modern tracks. (Snell carved 1.4 secs off the then 800m world record and 1.6secs off the then 880y record). It has somehow escaped you that in 1962 Snell wasn't running on modern tracks. If grass was as fast as modern tracks we would still be running on them. We aren't.
So why don't you apply the same logic to their 1500m times? Herb Elliot would run close to sub 3:30 if he was in last years Tokyo Olympic final, even without supershoes or any modern training refinements.
In todays DL with supershoes, I'd say
Snell 1:41/3:28
Elliott 1:43/3:26
Walker 1:43/3:29
Jakob, unlike them a 1500/5000 runner, is probably 1:45/3:27
Think that's a bit ambitious. Snell wasn't as good over the 1500 as he was the 800. And a synthetic track and modern spikes wouldn't make Elliott 9 secs faster.
So why don't you apply the same logic to their 1500m times? Herb Elliot would run close to sub 3:30 if he was in last years Tokyo Olympic final, even without supershoes or any modern training refinements.
In todays DL with supershoes, I'd say
Snell 1:41/3:28
Elliott 1:43/3:26
Walker 1:43/3:29
Jakob, unlike them a 1500/5000 runner, is probably 1:45/3:27
Think that's a bit ambitious. Snell wasn't as good over the 1500 as he was the 800. And a synthetic track and modern spikes wouldn't make Elliott 9 secs faster.
IMO I'd give more like:
Snell - 1:42/ 3:31
Elliott - 1:43 high/ 3:30
Walker - 1:44 flat/ 3:29
Snell only ran the 1500 at one event, the Tokyo Olympics. You may recall that in the final he destroyed the best in the world with absolute ease. He wasn't running for time but to win. It would be like saying Walker wasn't a great 1500 runner if he never ran the event outside the Montreal Olympics, which he happened to win in "only" 3.39.
Snell dominated the mile in his era, never losing a major race. (I don't count his last tour in '65, when he lacked training and became ill). In setting his records - in any distance - he was never pushed. He only went for the record in the mile - then his own - once, at the end of '64, when he was coming down from his Tokyo peak. His potential far exceeded his achievements.
Elliott typically ran a different race from Snell (though they never competed against each other over the mile), with a more sustained finishing drive off a generally quicker earlier pace. He did not have Snell's explosive kick. No one did in that era. Snell has said that a mile race didn't start for him until the last lap; before that it was about relaxation and positioning. Time didn't matter. At his peak no one had an answer to his power.
Walker has always conceded Snell was the better runner.
Says someone whose confident statements about what Jakob can run are entirely his own invention. But that fits in with the rest of the thread.
Entirely my invention? I don't feel like I can accept any of the credit. As I explained it was Frank Horwill who told us (in a 1991 book) "the pace of an athlete slows by about 4 seconds per 400m for faster athletes and 5 seconds for slower athletes, as the race distance increases from 400m to the marathon". I can't be the first one to work out that faster athletes with stronger endurance should slow less then 4 seconds, or to use high school math to work out the logarithmic relation between increasing time over increasing distance implied by such a rule. For example, "Hadd" was a prolific poster here some 10-15 years ago, who used this rule as a measure of endurance when getting back into shape.
You might remember Frank Horwill from your youth -- he was a famous and internationally respected British coach from the '60s and '70s, praised by Peter Coe (father and coach of world records holder Sebastien Coe), and responsible for many world class successes like Tim Hutchings.
He was one of the first ones to improve on the Lydiard training of the '60s, by focusing on economy and increasing the amount of high quality running.
Applying Horwill's observed relation of slowing down when doubling the distance, to the best results of athletes like Bekele give us a 2.5 second rule, and to Fernando Mamede, a 2.27 second rule, and to Carlos Lopes, a 1.8 second rule.
Even if we put reason and experience aside, and accepted that Jakob's 1:46.44 is comparable, this still gives a slow down of between 2.6 and 3.1 seconds (for 1500m and 5000m respectively). This is very good, but not unusually high, and not better than elite athletes like Bekele or Lopes or Mamede. But reason and experience would tell us that events like the 800m (and 10000m) were not his focus, and therefore he likely has not shown his true potential in these rarely run events.
Using the same rule for Coe and Snell, the more obvious question that arises is not how Jakob's endurance (at 3.41 seconds in his main events) is so good, but why predecessors like Coe (with 5.6 second slowdown) and Snell (with 6.0 second slowdown) had such poor endurance between their half-mile and mile world records, compared to Horwill's 4-second rule, and 5-second rule for slower athletes.
There is no "rule" that decrees how much a runner will slow down, only an observation of what appears typical amongst top runners. It will always depend on the runner. But what you assiduously avoid, as the others on this thread do, is that doping will enable athletes to slow less than if they are clean. When they slow much less than most of the very best in the event - past and present - it raises the reasonable question - what do they have that others have lacked and how have they obtained that superiority over other highly-trained equally talented athletes (Elliott, Snell, Coe, Cram etc)? At a time when athletes can and do dope with impunity the possibility they are doping easily explains it.
The "math" can come from confidential athlete surveys that have shown up to 1 in 2 championship athletes are likely doping. But you will do your usual of trying to explain it away by saying they didn't really understand the question they were asked. Very complicated question, "have you been doping?"
They did use a lot of math. Good for you.
Note that Jakob did not participate in the 2011 World Championship Games or the 2011 Pan Arab Games.
Like the researchers, I wondered if many athletes even read the instructions, rather than doubted their ability to understand a simple question.
You may want to blame me for trying to provide information, but I was simply the messenger, providing the information that was already publicly available, but often conveniently ignored. Any doubts I expressed about the accuracy of the survey results comes directly from the researchers themselves, in their peer reviewed paper that gave a range of estimated doping from as little as 31.4%, to the uncorrected 43.6%. (In subsequent papers, even these estimates are doubted by one of the researchers, who calls "UQM" survey results "potentially inflated" after a similar study arrived at 60%, while three other competing methods arrived at 20%.)
The researchers understood that anonymity doesn't guarantee compliance to the survey instructions, or address survey apathy. They used math to build a bunch of models to calculate, as a function of degree of survey non-compliance, up to 30% for each scenario. The only problem is knowing the degrees of all forms of non-compliance.
To mitigate the errors from one significant form of non-compliance ("automatic yes"), they measured survey response times, and recommended an exercise of discarding 30% of the fastest answers speculating that these athletes didn't even read the questions, let alone understand them. This is what reduced the estimate from 43.6% to 31.4%. They made no effort to estimate the errors in the remaining 70%, but guessed it must be small, and also guessed (hoped) it would likely be in the positive direction.
You have characteristically mis-stated the data but I expect "casualobsever" will turn up to correct you, as he typically does.
So why don't you apply the same logic to their 1500m times? Herb Elliot would run close to sub 3:30 if he was in last years Tokyo Olympic final, even without supershoes or any modern training refinements.
In todays DL with supershoes, I'd say
Snell 1:41/3:28
Elliott 1:43/3:26
Walker 1:43/3:29
Jakob, unlike them a 1500/5000 runner, is probably 1:45/3:27
Think that's a bit ambitious. Snell wasn't as good over the 1500 as he was the 800. And a synthetic track and modern spikes wouldn't make Elliott 9 secs faster.
IMO I'd give more like:
Snell - 1:42/ 3:31
Elliott - 1:43 high/ 3:30
Walker - 1:44 flat/ 3:29
Well how many paced races against sub 3:35 competition did Elliot have?
Lets just assume he had a regular European circuit with decent pacing (or at least the mainly awful pacing that Coe had).
I doubt if 3:35.6 was his limit (then). Everybody expected him to crush 3:50 for the mile, but he retired at 21. If Coe had largely been confined to Olympics and Commonwealth Games, he would have finished his career with a 3:32.5 pb, being pushed by another all-time great Steve Cram and in his second Olympic final. It wasn't even as if Elliott started young, so likely he was still 4 or 5 years away from his peak (although I guess it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Armstrong is Jakob doping discussion).
So Elliot was more likely no more than 2 or 3 seconds slower than Coe. Give 1 or 2 seconds for the cinders track he ran on, and forget the shoes and there was probably little or no difference between them.
Personally, I think Coe would have ran 3:24 in modern shoes on the Tokyo track or new Monaco track with perfect pacing. So I'd say I'm being a bit conservative with Elliott to grant him only 3:26.
Entirely my invention? I don't feel like I can accept any of the credit. As I explained it was Frank Horwill who told us (in a 1991 book) "the pace of an athlete slows by about 4 seconds per 400m for faster athletes and 5 seconds for slower athletes, as the race distance increases from 400m to the marathon". I can't be the first one to work out that faster athletes with stronger endurance should slow less then 4 seconds, or to use high school math to work out the logarithmic relation between increasing time over increasing distance implied by such a rule. For example, "Hadd" was a prolific poster here some 10-15 years ago, who used this rule as a measure of endurance when getting back into shape.
You might remember Frank Horwill from your youth -- he was a famous and internationally respected British coach from the '60s and '70s, praised by Peter Coe (father and coach of world records holder Sebastien Coe), and responsible for many world class successes like Tim Hutchings.
He was one of the first ones to improve on the Lydiard training of the '60s, by focusing on economy and increasing the amount of high quality running.
Applying Horwill's observed relation of slowing down when doubling the distance, to the best results of athletes like Bekele give us a 2.5 second rule, and to Fernando Mamede, a 2.27 second rule, and to Carlos Lopes, a 1.8 second rule.
Even if we put reason and experience aside, and accepted that Jakob's 1:46.44 is comparable, this still gives a slow down of between 2.6 and 3.1 seconds (for 1500m and 5000m respectively). This is very good, but not unusually high, and not better than elite athletes like Bekele or Lopes or Mamede. But reason and experience would tell us that events like the 800m (and 10000m) were not his focus, and therefore he likely has not shown his true potential in these rarely run events.
Using the same rule for Coe and Snell, the more obvious question that arises is not how Jakob's endurance (at 3.41 seconds in his main events) is so good, but why predecessors like Coe (with 5.6 second slowdown) and Snell (with 6.0 second slowdown) had such poor endurance between their half-mile and mile world records, compared to Horwill's 4-second rule, and 5-second rule for slower athletes.
There is no "rule" that decrees how much a runner will slow down, only an observation of what appears typical amongst top runners. It will always depend on the runner. But what you assiduously avoid, as the others on this thread do, is that doping will enable athletes to slow less than if they are clean. When they slow much less than most of the very best in the event - past and present - it raises the reasonable question - what do they have that others have lacked and how have they obtained that superiority over other highly-trained equally talented athletes (Elliott, Snell, Coe, Cram etc)? At a time when athletes can and do dope with impunity the possibility they are doping easily explains it.
One the one hand, Horwill came up with a 4-second rule, and a 5-second rule for slower runners, and on the other, you say there is no rule. You are the clear loser of that particular exchange. Not only is there a rule, but it is precisely this kind of rule that allows us to gauge whether someone's endurance is good or bad. This is what would give a reason to any hypothetically reasonable questions.
Why would you say "doping will enable athletes to slow less than if they are clean"? Where is your science? Where is your data? Where are your "rules"? I don't assiduously avoid it, but wholeheartedly welcome this novel and original, yet so far unsupported and unproven hypothesis of yours.
As we can see by the numbers, it's not Jakob that is unusually "resistant" to slowing down, even when you consider his understandably "slow" 800m, but your greats of the past who have significantly poor endurance, between the 800m/880yd and the 1500m/mile, as gauged by Horwill's rules, rules based on his coaching experience and observations in the '60s and '70s.
All of these things say your question is not particularly reasonable, because your reasons don't really exist outside of your imagination.
There is no "rule" that decrees how much a runner will slow down, only an observation of what appears typical amongst top runners. It will always depend on the runner. But what you assiduously avoid, as the others on this thread do, is that doping will enable athletes to slow less than if they are clean. When they slow much less than most of the very best in the event - past and present - it raises the reasonable question - what do they have that others have lacked and how have they obtained that superiority over other highly-trained equally talented athletes (Elliott, Snell, Coe, Cram etc)? At a time when athletes can and do dope with impunity the possibility they are doping easily explains it.
One the one hand, Horwill came up with a 4-second rule, and a 5-second rule for slower runners, and on the other, you say there is no rule. You are the clear loser of that particular exchange. Not only is there a rule, but it is precisely this kind of rule that allows us to gauge whether someone's endurance is good or bad. This is what would give a reason to any hypothetically reasonable questions.
Why would you say "doping will enable athletes to slow less than if they are clean"? Where is your science? Where is your data? Where are your "rules"? I don't assiduously avoid it, but wholeheartedly welcome this novel and original, yet so far unsupported and unproven hypothesis of yours.
As we can see by the numbers, it's not Jakob that is unusually "resistant" to slowing down, even when you consider his understandably "slow" 800m, but your greats of the past who have significantly poor endurance, between the 800m/880yd and the 1500m/mile, as gauged by Horwill's rules, rules based on his coaching experience and observations in the '60s and '70s.
All of these things say your question is not particularly reasonable, because your reasons don't really exist outside of your imagination.
So you still think runners performances are determined by "rules" regardless of their differences in individual physiology. You seem to have lost sight of the fact that rules are prescriptions and no one is making athletes conform to anything. You've been arguing the Houlihan/WADA case on so many threads you've become obsessed with rules and see them everywhere.
Of course you deny that drugs can enhance endurance - denying the performance enhancing effects of doping is your raison d'etre.
If athletes of the past have "poor endurance" it is because they didn't enjoy the benefits of the drugs athletes have access to today.
If I was a Jakob fan I would be very concerned you've turned up here, as you are only ever concerned to defend dopers.
Snell only ran the 1500 at one event, the Tokyo Olympics. You may recall that in the final he destroyed the best in the world with absolute ease. He wasn't running for time but to win. It would be like saying Walker wasn't a great 1500 runner if he never ran the event outside the Montreal Olympics, which he happened to win in "only" 3.39.
Snell dominated the mile in his era, never losing a major race. (I don't count his last tour in '65, when he lacked training and became ill). In setting his records - in any distance - he was never pushed. He only went for the record in the mile - then his own - once, at the end of '64, when he was coming down from his Tokyo peak. His potential far exceeded his achievements.
It's kind of funny to see you do all these backflips for Snell, attempting to rationalize why he failed to achieve his potential, after ignoring everyone telling you why Jakob has not achieved his 800m potential.
So you still think runners performances are determined by "rules" regardless of their differences in individual physiology. You seem to have lost sight of the fact that rules are prescriptions and no one is making athletes conform to anything. You've been arguing the Houlihan/WADA case on so many threads you've become obsessed with rules and see them everywhere.
Of course you deny that drugs can enhance endurance - denying the performance enhancing effects of doping is your raison d'etre.
If athletes of the past have "poor endurance" it is because they didn't enjoy the benefits of the drugs athletes have access to today.
If I was a Jakob fan I would be very concerned you've turned up here, as you are only ever concerned to defend dopers.
Yet you seem to think Jakob's performances break some physiological rules you have not specified, rather than being due to "differences in individual physiology".
I didn't deny that drugs can enhance endurance, but whole-heartedly welcomed all the science and data you rely on.
I did deny you have provided any reason to think that Jakob's endurance was enhanced.
Horwill invented his 4-second rule in 1980, apparently by observing "athletes of the past" in the '60s and '70s -- when Snell, Ryun, Coe, Ovett, Dixon and Walker were dominating the 1500m.
Snell only ran the 1500 at one event, the Tokyo Olympics. You may recall that in the final he destroyed the best in the world with absolute ease. He wasn't running for time but to win. It would be like saying Walker wasn't a great 1500 runner if he never ran the event outside the Montreal Olympics, which he happened to win in "only" 3.39.
Snell dominated the mile in his era, never losing a major race. (I don't count his last tour in '65, when he lacked training and became ill). In setting his records - in any distance - he was never pushed. He only went for the record in the mile - then his own - once, at the end of '64, when he was coming down from his Tokyo peak. His potential far exceeded his achievements.
It's kind of funny to see you do all these backflips for Snell, attempting to rationalize why he failed to achieve his potential, after ignoring everyone telling you why Jakob has not achieved his 800m potential.
Snell beat everyone over the mile in his era and lowered the wr twice. You don't grasp that he was likely even better than that, since he was never pushed - as contemporaries like Halberg said.
As for "Jakob being slow over the 800 since he rarely races it" - how many times did Jazy and Walker race the 2k before breaking the wr in that event?
It's kind of funny to see you do all these backflips for Snell, attempting to rationalize why he failed to achieve his potential, after ignoring everyone telling you why Jakob has not achieved his 800m potential.
Snell beat everyone over the mile in his era and lowered the wr twice. You don't grasp that he was likely even better than that, since he was never pushed - as contemporaries like Halberg said.
As for "Jakob being slow over the 800 since he rarely races it" - how many times did Jazy and Walker race the 2k before breaking the wr in that event?
The 2k is much closer to the 1500/mile than the 800 is. Is it possible for you to make an honest argument?