889 wrote:
37-38 seems to be a good age for some runners.
https://www.worldathletics.org/news/feature/lopes-historical-sub-208-marathon
Riiiiight.
889 wrote:
37-38 seems to be a good age for some runners.
https://www.worldathletics.org/news/feature/lopes-historical-sub-208-marathon
Riiiiight.
She is clean. Armstronglivs is jealous. She is it all. Great life. Great family. Awesome runner. Beautiful. And super clean athlete.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I would be suspicious is Hall set a WR.
"Suspicious"? But not sure. So any time up to 2.14 is clean for her? At 37.
I could only be sure if I had concrete evidence. She would need to test positive and admit to it freely.
Lopes was 38 when he ran his record. He also ran World Junior CC in '66 and was well down the field and got a bit better later on at the Senior level.[/quote]
If any of you actually believe that Carlos Lopes was clean, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Spain and Portugal have a long history of doping in endurance sports and Lopes was almost certainly blood doping. That said, I don’t think blood doping became officially illegal until the mid-80s. Read books by Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, etc. and it’s plain as day why for years so many international cyclists based their operations out of that part of the world, despite more of the major competitions being held in France, Italy, And Belgium.
On another note, I have no reason to believe that Sara Hall isn’t clean, but what would we be discussing if it were a female East African runner who suddenly improved from pretty good to world class? I know that Hall had some success in college but being a top runner in college is like being a top ball player in the minor leagues, when you compare it to the international level. As an adult, Hall’s results pre-early to mid 30s don’t really point to the level at which she’s running. As much as we now know about doping in sports, it’s unfair to other pro runners and irrational to not have an open discussion about her recent successes without people getting defensive and offended...as long as people aren’t making straight up unfounded or offensive accusations.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
This is fair and I’ve read those statistics from the surveys. But as a professional athlete, I’d like to provide an alternative perspective: I’m irrationally fearful of drug tests. The reason is- when it’s all said and done, I care more about my reputation as a human being than my performances as an athlete. When I read stories about Brenda Martinez or other athletes that had positives from contaminated medicine, meat, or supplements, it freaks me out. I understand the odds are very, very low- especially when you exercise due diligence. I completely agree my fears of a positive test are irrational, but I still have them. My mind concocts this worst-case scenario that I’ll test positive for something and everyone will forever believe I’m a drug-cheat. Then I’ll never be able to have credibility as a coach and my life will essentially be meaningless because everyone will believe I’m a scumbag. Even my own wife and kids will forever question if I truly cheated or not. Again, I know that sounds dramatic and ridiculous... I completely agree and you don’t need to tell me lol. (And I don’t think about this every day... just a few times a year when my brain is being silly). Anyways, the point is- yes, some athletes (or many) may be willing to cheat, but there’s also many athletes who are just normal people-just like you all- that value their reputations and don’t feel the risk is anywhere near the reward.
I say all this because I’m pretty dang sure Sara (and Ryan’s) reputations as human beings- and Christians- is important to them. I guess it could all be a front to reduce the suspicion of doping, but I just don’t think that’s likely given the evidence of how they live their lives. So I find it unlikely Sara would risk her reputation (and Ryan’s) this late in her career. It just doesn’t make sense. They have money and enough popularity to be set for life. A positive test would ruin most of their future opportunities. Then again, people don’t always act rationally, but all things considered, I just find it incredibly unlikely she is doping.
c7runner7 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
This is fair and I’ve read those statistics from the surveys. But as a professional athlete, I’d like to provide an alternative perspective: I’m irrationally fearful of drug tests. The reason is- when it’s all said and done, I care more about my reputation as a human being than my performances as an athlete. When I read stories about Brenda Martinez or other athletes that had positives from contaminated medicine, meat, or supplements, it freaks me out. I understand the odds are very, very low- especially when you exercise due diligence. I completely agree my fears of a positive test are irrational, but I still have them. My mind concocts this worst-case scenario that I’ll test positive for something and everyone will forever believe I’m a drug-cheat. Then I’ll never be able to have credibility as a coach and my life will essentially be meaningless because everyone will believe I’m a scumbag. Even my own wife and kids will forever question if I truly cheated or not. Again, I know that sounds dramatic and ridiculous... I completely agree and you don’t need to tell me lol. (And I don’t think about this every day... just a few times a year when my brain is being silly). Anyways, the point is- yes, some athletes (or many) may be willing to cheat, but there’s also many athletes who are just normal people-just like you all- that value their reputations and don’t feel the risk is anywhere near the reward.
I say all this because I’m pretty dang sure Sara (and Ryan’s) reputations as human beings- and Christians- is important to them. I guess it could all be a front to reduce the suspicion of doping, but I just don’t think that’s likely given the evidence of how they live their lives. So I find it unlikely Sara would risk her reputation (and Ryan’s) this late in her career. It just doesn’t make sense. They have money and enough popularity to be set for life. A positive test would ruin most of their future opportunities. Then again, people don’t always act rationally, but all things considered, I just find it incredibly unlikely she is doping.
I find your perspective interesting. But of course if it was typical no sport would have a doping problem - and they all do.
In a way, doping athletes care about their reputation as you do, but for them "reputation" is more about success than integrity. I respect yours. However it doesn't ensure anyone else's - regrettably.
hdhshshbsnsbsn wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
"Suspicious"? But not sure. So any time up to 2.14 is clean for her? At 37.
I could only be sure if I had concrete evidence. She would need to test positive and admit to it freely.
Lopes was 38 when he ran his record. He also ran World Junior CC in '66 and was well down the field and got a bit better later on at the Senior level.
If any of you actually believe that Carlos Lopes was clean, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Spain and Portugal have a long history of doping in endurance sports and Lopes was almost certainly blood doping. That said, I don’t think blood doping became officially illegal until the mid-80s. Read books by Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, etc. and it’s plain as day why for years so many international cyclists based their operations out of that part of the world, despite more of the major competitions being held in France, Italy, And Belgium.
On another note, I have no reason to believe that Sara Hall isn’t clean, but what would we be discussing if it were a female East African runner who suddenly improved from pretty good to world class? I know that Hall had some success in college but being a top runner in college is like being a top ball player in the minor leagues, when you compare it to the international level. As an adult, Hall’s results pre-early to mid 30s don’t really point to the level at which she’s running. As much as we now know about doping in sports, it’s unfair to other pro runners and irrational to not have an open discussion about her recent successes without people getting defensive and offended...as long as people aren’t making straight up unfounded or offensive accusations.[/quote]
You make some valuable points there. It is also true - re Lopes - that we can't rely on the example of one athlete to prove another is clean, because we can't guarantee anyone is. Spain has long had doping issues.
You further said:-
I know that Hall had some success in college but being a top runner in college is like being a top ball player in the minor leagues, when you compare it to the international level. As an adult, Hall’s results pre-early to mid 30s don’t really point to the level at which she’s running.
That's why I think the issue can be justifiably debated.
Talent beats training wrote:
She is clean. Armstronglivs is jealous. She is it all. Great life. Great family. Awesome runner. Beautiful. And super clean athlete.
You haven't really been following the arguments. But that's ok - you're probably not a very fast runner, either.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Campbell was a great masters runner who quit running for 15 years - unlike Hall - and his best was only 9 minutes faster than her. Imagine that.
Campbell ran at World Cross in '69 and '88 and moved from 69th to 36th. How could he improve so much despite being so old? He also ran sporadically in between including at the Marathon distance and was fat and unhealthy at times.
Of all the guys running at the same time, he was the guy who broke Foster's record. And they were from the same country! What are the chances? What could possibly have made a guy of his ability want to suddenly become really good? That's about like a high school prodigy plugging away for 15 years before coming to the realization that maybe they could really do something at a different distance.
He was also only about 4 minutes off the WR and not just a great Masters runner. He was a pretty fair open runner too.
He stands out a little too, no?
Probably a 2:05 guy in spring shoes at 28.
I would agree with your last comment. It is quite possible that both were naturally more talented than Hall, but didn't compete in their prime years of their 20's. If they had I would have expected them to be considerably faster than they later became. She however competed through all those years they didn't - and then suddenly got way faster.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I would be suspicious is Hall set a WR.
"Suspicious"? But not sure. So any time up to 2.14 is clean for her? At 37.
I could only be sure if I had concrete evidence. She would need to test positive and admit to it freely.
Lopes was 38 when he ran his record. He also ran World Junior CC in '66 and was well down the field and got a bit better later on at the Senior level.[/quote]
So 2.15 by Hall wouldn't worry you - even now?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
"Suspicious"? But not sure. So any time up to 2.14 is clean for her? At 37.
I could only be sure if I had concrete evidence. She would need to test positive and admit to it freely.
Lopes was 38 when he ran his record. He also ran World Junior CC in '66 and was well down the field and got a bit better later on at the Senior level.
So 2.15 by Hall wouldn't worry you - even now?[/quote]
Sure, if she tested positive. I don't believe she has the speed to run that fast either.
Regarding Campbell, if he really was more talented he would have made more of a mark as a younger athlete and probably kept going through the 70s. But he was B level.
Really, the chance of becoming the best in the world either overall or the type of Master Campbell was are both incredibly remote anyway. About as unlikely as Hall running 2:20.
Both still happened though.
I was pretty decent but very lazy and didn't like running. I ran 4:45 in 8th grade gym class never having run before. I ran 4:12 in high school on 25 MPW. I ran sub 14 in college on 50 MPW. I was always good at faking small injuries to get out of long runs and hard workouts. I probably would be somebody that you would call out as a doper if I trained hard now. I wonder what happen if I ran 120 MPW and trained for the 10k or marathon.
Talent beats training wrote:
I was pretty decent but very lazy and didn't like running. I ran 4:45 in 8th grade gym class never having run before. I ran 4:12 in high school on 25 MPW. I ran sub 14 in college on 50 MPW. I was always good at faking small injuries to get out of long runs and hard workouts. I probably would be somebody that you would call out as a doper if I trained hard now. I wonder what happen if I ran 120 MPW and trained for the 10k or marathon.
From the sound of it, you had much more natural talent than Hall. If you trained hard in your 30's I wouldn't be surprised if you were quite successful. But 8th in the world - like her? I doubt it.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I could only be sure if I had concrete evidence. She would need to test positive and admit to it freely.
Lopes was 38 when he ran his record. He also ran World Junior CC in '66 and was well down the field and got a bit better later on at the Senior level.
So 2.15 by Hall wouldn't worry you - even now?
Sure, if she tested positive. I don't believe she has the speed to run that fast either.
Regarding Campbell, if he really was more talented he would have made more of a mark as a younger athlete and probably kept going through the 70s. But he was B level.
Really, the chance of becoming the best in the world either overall or the type of Master Campbell was are both incredibly remote anyway. About as unlikely as Hall running 2:20.
Both still happened though.[/quote]
b]So 2.15 by Hall wouldn't worry you - even now?[/quote]
Sure, if she tested positive.
If she tested positive you'd be "worried"? Not even certain there? I can see where you're coming from. You are unwilling to conclude doping without a confirmed doping violation, even though most dopers never get caught. When you set the bar for the argument there you really aren't debating the question at all - there are no arguments you accept or even find persuasive except a confirmed violation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
So 2.15 by Hall wouldn't worry you - even now?
Sure, if she tested positive. I don't believe she has the speed to run that fast either.
Regarding Campbell, if he really was more talented he would have made more of a mark as a younger athlete and probably kept going through the 70s. But he was B level.
Really, the chance of becoming the best in the world either overall or the type of Master Campbell was are both incredibly remote anyway. About as unlikely as Hall running 2:20.
Both still happened though.
b]So 2.15 by Hall wouldn't worry you - even now?[/quote]
Sure, if she tested positive.
If she tested positive you'd be "worried"? Not even certain there? I can see where you're coming from. You are unwilling to conclude doping without a confirmed doping violation, even though most dopers never get caught. When you set the bar for the argument there you really aren't debating the question at all - there are no arguments you accept or even find persuasive except a confirmed violation.[/quote]
You really scrambled to misunderstand me there.
But Campbell had to have been a doper. There's no other explanation. Right?
But Campbell had to have been a doper. There's no other explanation. Right?[/quote]
If you say so. But if you do, it doesn't make a better case for Hall.
But you have indicated that you would only have doping concerns about Hall if she either 1. failed a drug test or 2. broke the wr. Hence, there is no level of performance between 2.14 and 2.20 that would raise a red flag for you.
You have also said you doubt she will get much faster but I would point out she has suddenly improved 6 minutes. What is to say she will not improve another 6 minutes - and run 2.14? After all - who predicted she would progress from 2.26 to 2.20 - in one race?
Talent beats training wrote:
I was pretty decent but very lazy and didn't like running. I ran 4:45 in 8th grade gym class never having run before. I ran 4:12 in high school on 25 MPW. I ran sub 14 in college on 50 MPW. I was always good at faking small injuries to get out of long runs and hard workouts. I probably would be somebody that you would call out as a doper if I trained hard now. I wonder what happen if I ran 120 MPW and trained for the 10k or marathon.
Probably get injured and never get heard from again:) But yes pretty much every masters runner who sets a record gets accused of doping these days. It is a tradition.
But lets say Sara is doping. When did she start? 2016 with the 2:30? 2018 with the 2:26? 2019 with the 2:22? 2020 with the 2:20:30?
Armstronglivs wrote:
But Campbell had to have been a doper. There's no other explanation. Right?
If you say so. But if you do, it doesn't make a better case for Hall.
But you have indicated that you would only have doping concerns about Hall if she either 1. failed a drug test or 2. broke the wr. Hence, there is no level of performance between 2.14 and 2.20 that would raise a red flag for you.
You have also said you doubt she will get much faster but I would point out she has suddenly improved 6 minutes. What is to say she will not improve another 6 minutes - and run 2.14? After all - who predicted she would progress from 2.26 to 2.20 - in one race?[/quote]
She didn't suddenly improve 6 minutes. She ran 2:22 twice. before. Do you even follow running?
Her progression was just gradual and pretty typical. She just ran faster than you would like.
You have also said you doubt she will get much faster but I would point out she has suddenly improved 6 minutes. What is to say she will not improve another 6 minutes - and run 2.14? After all - who predicted she would progress from 2.26 to 2.20 - in one race?[/quote]
She didn't suddenly improve 6 minutes. She ran 2:22 twice. before. Do you even follow running?
Her progression was just gradual and pretty typical. She just ran faster than you would like.[/quote]
What I would like is irrelevant. So you don't answer my question: why would she not keep improving - even by another 6 minutes?
5 years ago she ran 2.48 - at age 32. She had been a serious runner prior to that for at least 15 years. Now, at 37, she has run 2.20 - 28 minutes faster. She ran 2.26 in 2018, and 2.22 in 2019, before her 2.20 run last year. Just "gradual and typical"? So why was this thread posted (and not by me) if the perception is that it is anything but "gradual and typical"? I could also ask you - do you even follow running?
You obviously don't realize that there was a prediction contest in which many of us predicted 2:19.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have also said you doubt she will get much faster but I would point out she has suddenly improved 6 minutes. What is to say she will not improve another 6 minutes - and run 2.14? After all - who predicted she would progress from 2.26 to 2.20 - in one race?
She didn't suddenly improve 6 minutes. She ran 2:22 twice. before. Do you even follow running?
Her progression was just gradual and pretty typical. She just ran faster than you would like.[/quote]
What I would like is irrelevant. So you don't answer my question: why would she not keep improving - even by another 6 minutes?
5 years ago she ran 2.48 - at age 32. She had been a serious runner prior to that for at least 15 years. Now, at 37, she has run 2.20 - 28 minutes faster. She ran 2.26 in 2018, and 2.22 in 2019, before her 2.20 run last year. Just "gradual and typical"? So why was this thread posted (and not by me) if the perception is that it is anything but "gradual and typical"? I could also ask you - do you even follow running?[/quote]
Why wouldn't she improve?
You still haven't explained your claim about how EPO can make a runner use more oxygen while breathing less.
So your endless claims need to be questioned.