The shoes are new and improved. They are by Adidas and cost 500.00. Is easy to view and see on YouTube. They only can be worn one time .
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."
-
01
-
I am not sure why people are arguing that she is clean or not. Clearly, we do not know for sure. But, I am suspicious. If I could put down a bet at even odds that she will either get busted for doping, or decide to retire within 4 years, I would take the busted or retire side of the bet. What if I had to give 10 to 1 for the bet? Then I would want the clean side of the bet. It is, of course, very possible that she is clean. It is just given what we know now, I am suspicious.
10 -
Jared Ward is not doping.
30 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
So now we don\\\'t believe in magic wrote:
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.
You have said over and over that any woman who runs the 800 under 1:55 is doping. But now you say that under 1:55 doesn't actually mean under 1:55? You are a piece of work.
31 -
If the latest Addias are the best super shoes yet....If they are 5% faster: 2:12 + 5% is 2:18.
20 -
JFC I just watched the finish in Berlin. She was MOVING, and fresh at the finish. Ran through the tape. Surprised she didn’t lean.
It’s OVER. The marathon precedent has now been set.
This, along with 9.79 is the most mind-blowing running performances I have ever seen.
30 -
I am Sam wrote:
douglas burke wrote:
YEP Speed is important in any race against time
I know you are being sarcastic, but running 3:05's last 10 k's and a 3 flat last 1,000m ...
I just watched that last 1,000m
Incredible.
30 -
Sprintgeezer wrote:
JFC I just watched the finish in Berlin. She was MOVING, and fresh at the finish. Ran through the tape. Surprised she didn’t lean.
It’s OVER. The marathon precedent has now been set.
This, along with 9.79 is the most mind-blowing running performances I have ever seen.
Why is 9.79 more mind blowing than 9.58? That doesn’t make sense.
But yeah this woman looked good. She was like a machine
02 -
Bigtimebig wrote:
Sprintgeezer wrote:
JFC I just watched the finish in Berlin. She was MOVING, and fresh at the finish. Ran through the tape. Surprised she didn’t lean.
It’s OVER. The marathon precedent has now been set.
This, along with 9.79 is the most mind-blowing running performances I have ever seen.
Why is 9.79 more mind blowing than 9.58? That doesn’t make sense.
Why is 9.79 more mind blowing than 10.49?
11 -
Macdaddy ofog wrote:
Makes Paper wrote:
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.
Her coach said the 2:34 was a race she only jumped into because she desperately needed the paycheck and was 17 pounds overweight at the time
We've actually seen a few runners over the years who had DRAMATIC increases in performance after rapid weight loss, like their body initially retains the muscle needed to move around all the extra weight, maybe the extra hemoglobin too?
Anyone old enough to remember Almaz Ayana at 2016 Rio destroying the 10,000m WR (almost lapping Molly Huddle who destroyed the AR) People were freaking out exactly the same way around here and were 100% certain Ayana would be busted, almost 8 years later hasn't happened.
21 -
douglas burke wrote:
I really worry that in the near future, no one will be able to break a World Record without being suspected of Drugs, I hope I am wrong and most will see new World Records as solely because of Hard Work, Consistency and Dedication in Training, proper amount of sleep and a fairly Healthy Diet
I hiGhlY DouBt tHat
11 -
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I am Sam wrote:
I know you are being sarcastic, but running 3:05's last 10 k's and a 3 flat last 1,000m ...
I just watched that last 1,000m
Incredible.
THIS was the race that convinced me these shoes do matter. And I guess they matter a lot. Should probably be illegal.
30 -
Well, what he should've said is any athlete who makes a final of a major event has a very high probability they are either doping or manipulating the TUES system or both.
20 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
that an athlete's diet is largely a merely healthy diet and not a form is "super-fuel"
Sure diet is superfuel! Just ask Shelby for her burrito recipe!
10 -
With all the world records set in women’s running this year, if you all thought doping is bad now, wait until next year. 1000s of east Africans will now really start leaning into doping. And will continue to not get caught.
The clean athletes - none from East Africa or Jamaica - will be made to look like high schoolers getting destroyed. And some of you will continue to cry “racism” or “it’s the shoes”.
03 -
Macdaddy ofog wrote:
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.
This is good to know. For Scott Fauble. I have a theory that people have breakthroughs after blowing up.
00 -
What a fascinating choice of words.
00 -
Hardly brother with a raging clue wrote:
A 2.11:53 women's road marathon scores the same as (bold indicates better than current WR):
100m 10.47
200m 21.24
400m 47.25
400mH 50.47
800m 1:51.53
1500m 3:46.25
3000m 7:59.23
3000sc 8:31.51
5000m 13:42.33
10000m 28:44.30So what do we do?
1) Praise the best T&F WR of all time?
2) Revise the point system to account for.... new shoes?
3) Ask questions?00 -
Trollminator wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Case in point -- again no facts, just facetiousness.
I'm not buying doping myths nor rainbow unicorns, at least not without any relevant supporting facts.
How many 'several years after the fact' busts of athletes, coaches and other scandals do you need to see before you start using common sense? This isn't a court room. You've got to be extremely gullible.
But it is a court room -- a court of public opinion -- and many athletes are being convicted without any evidence. My opinion requires more facts if your goal is to persuade me to change it. Contrary to your suggestion, it would be gullible for me to change my opinion without such persuasive facts.
No amount of "'several years after the fact' busts of athletes, coaches and other scandals" supplies the minimum set of facts about unnaturally fast performance that would link the two variables of doping and elite performance.
00 -
JamaAden wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Case in point -- again no facts, just facetiousness.
I'm not buying doping myths nor rainbow unicorns, at least not without any relevant supporting facts.
Sometimes I can't figure out what is worse for the sport....these blatantly obvious doped performances or your EPO apologist/shill ramblings
I think what is bad for the sport is all the baseless doping accusations whenever an athlete succeeds to run a fast performance -- the goal of every athlete.
What is wrong with asking for "relevant facts to backup all these wild claims"?
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.