Killeriotttt wrote:
The context is his agent apparently said he was going for a world record. Please educate yourself.
Yes and thus he didn't run an evenly paced 7:33. He went after a 7:20-7:22 mark, realized he wasn't up for it and cruised it home. Many athletes have this happen when they go after a mark they're not ready for.
Killeriotttt wrote:
And for you to say “Can you say dirty?”
If there is no correlation, then time will not tell.
rekrunner wrote:
Killeriotttt wrote:
And for you to say “Can you say dirty?”
If there is no correlation, then time will not tell.
Of course. Nothing will tell for you. There is nothing. Even a positive test does not tell you for sure. There is nothing. A confession could be false. There is NEVER any proof that cannot be questioned. So there you go and there you are.
Killeriotttt wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
If there is no correlation, then time will not tell.
Of course. Nothing will tell for you. There is nothing. Even a positive test does not tell you for sure. There is nothing. A confession could be false. There is NEVER any proof that cannot be questioned. So there you go and there you are.
All we have are performances.
So a 12.35 guy over 5k who ran 7.33 for 3k in that race can't run any faster in an actual 3k event, even though it is only a little more than half the 5k. Nothing to see here.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Killeriotttt wrote:
The context is his agent apparently said he was going for a world record. Please educate yourself.
Yes and thus he didn't run an evenly paced 7:33. He went after a 7:20-7:22 mark, realized he wasn't up for it and cruised it home. Many athletes have this happen when they go after a mark they're not ready for.
Armstrong, educate yourself^^
ImpaIa31 wrote:
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Yes and thus he didn't run an evenly paced 7:33. He went after a 7:20-7:22 mark, realized he wasn't up for it and cruised it home. Many athletes have this happen when they go after a mark they're not ready for.
Armstrong, educate yourself^^
At this rate he is on track to run close to 13 mins for the 5k. Impressive.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So a 12.35 guy over 5k who ran 7.33 for 3k in that race can't run any faster in an actual 3k event, even though it is only a little more than half the 5k. Nothing to see here.
Cheptegei went after Komen’s record, fell off the pace, and phoned in the last lap. To pretend that 7:33 is representative of his current 3k ability is asinine. Context matters. Next time try watching the race before running your mouth.
ssdd wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So a 12.35 guy over 5k who ran 7.33 for 3k in that race can't run any faster in an actual 3k event, even though it is only a little more than half the 5k. Nothing to see here.
Cheptegei went after Komen’s record, fell off the pace, and phoned in the last lap. To pretend that 7:33 is representative of his current 3k ability is asinine. Context matters. Next time try watching the race before running your mouth.
My mouth is apparently faster than he can run. If he ran 7.33 and no faster then that appears to be the very definition of his current ability. Yes, context matters - a massive fail on a record attempt.
rekrunner wrote:
Killeriotttt wrote:
Of course. Nothing will tell for you. There is nothing. Even a positive test does not tell you for sure. There is nothing. A confession could be false. There is NEVER any proof that cannot be questioned. So there you go and there you are.
All we have are doped performances.
Fixed.
Armstronglivs wrote:
ssdd wrote:
Cheptegei went after Komen’s record, fell off the pace, and phoned in the last lap. To pretend that 7:33 is representative of his current 3k ability is asinine. Context matters. Next time try watching the race before running your mouth.
My mouth is apparently faster than he can run. If he ran 7.33 and no faster then that appears to be the very definition of his current ability. Yes, context matters - a massive fail on a record attempt.
Your mouth is also considerably faster than your brain. Because he ran 7:33, we must conclude that he is only capable of 7:33. Never mind the circumstances of the race, I’m sure going through four laps in 3:55 had nothing to do with his final time. He was going to run 7:33 today no matter how the race played out.
Why are you using under-distance performances that you know don’t accurately reflect his abilities as evidence that Cheptegei is doping? Out of all the arguments you could have made, why this one?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Fixed.
Same question:
What time would Cheptegei have had to run, for you to say "clean"?
I cannot imagine any performance you would not interpret as confirmation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So a 12.35 guy over 5k who ran 7.33 for 3k in that race can't run any faster in an actual 3k event, even though it is only a little more than half the 5k. Nothing to see here.
There you go with "can't run" again. He "did not" run any faster.
Is English your first language?
A lot can happen in the next 10-11 weeks of training.
Do you know anything about how training works?
ssdd wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
My mouth is apparently faster than he can run. If he ran 7.33 and no faster then that appears to be the very definition of his current ability. Yes, context matters - a massive fail on a record attempt.
Your mouth is also considerably faster than your brain. Because he ran 7:33, we must conclude that he is only capable of 7:33. Never mind the circumstances of the race, I’m sure going through four laps in 3:55 had nothing to do with his final time. He was going to run 7:33 today no matter how the race played out.
Why are you using under-distance performances that you know don’t accurately reflect his abilities as evidence that Cheptegei is doping? Out of all the arguments you could have made, why this one?
Look up doping cycles.
I didnt say 7.33 is all he is capable of. But it does reflect where he is currently. If you had read a few posts earlier I estimated he might be able to get down to 7.25 (if he could run 3.32 for the 1500 at his peak). But I have said all along he won't break Komen's record because he lacks the speed. I can't see him being able to run 3.29 - as Komen could. If an athlete is not also strong 1500/miler I can't see them getting the record.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So a 12.35 guy over 5k who ran 7.33 for 3k in that race can't run any faster in an actual 3k event, even though it is only a little more than half the 5k. Nothing to see here.
There you go with "can't run" again. He "did not" run any faster.
Is English your first language?
A lot can happen in the next 10-11 weeks of training.
Do you know anything about how training works?
You're the one who says his "modern training" is what will give him the record. Tell me how that works again? Being 13 secs off the time is part of the plan?
So he "did not run" any faster than 7.33. You mean he could have run faster than that in that race? Or the next one? You know that how? Another one of your unsubstantiated speculations. Unfortunately his time says exactly how fast he is. You can't make him run any faster by playing word games. And you really are too dim to play that game.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Fixed.
Same question:
What time would Cheptegei have had to run, for you to say "clean"?
I cannot imagine any performance you would not interpret as confirmation.
You miss the point - as you always do. The extremes of his performances are typically indicative of doping cycles. That's what happens to dopers. They have performance spikes and their lows are relative troughs. But your "data" wouldn't tell you that.
Of course the alternative is they are either injured - nope - or badly trained. And that isn't possible with "modern training".
"I’m sure going through four laps in 3:55 had nothing to do with his final time. He was going to run 7:33 today no matter how the race played out."(quote)
But rekrunner says it's a simple matter of just "extending" that to 3k? That's what "modern training" is supposed to do, to give him the endurance to put two 3.40's back to back. But that you say he was going to run 7.33 "no matter how the race played out", are you saying there's something wrong with his training? Or did he just massively overestimate his capability?
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're the one who says his "modern training" is what will give him the record. Tell me how that works again? Being 13 secs off the time is part of the plan?
So he "did not run" any faster than 7.33. You mean he could have run faster than that in that race? Or the next one? You know that how? Another one of your unsubstantiated speculations. Unfortunately his time says exactly how fast he is. You can't make him run any faster by playing word games. And you really are too dim to play that game.
I said the opposite -- that going for the 3000m record fits in perfectly with the principles of modern training, as he EXTENDS his SPECIFIC pace from 1500m to 3000m to 5000m/10000m.
A 7:33 also satisfies these principles.
You said that he "can't run" faster -- it is not my burden to settle your claim.
My claim is that he "did not run" faster, which we can easily prove by looking at his time, and concluding that his time is the same as his time, and not faster.
I did not claim that he "could run" faster -- that is your reflexive tactic to build a strawman, that you then argue is unsubstantiated speculation, when such a claim has not yet been instantiated.
His time tells us what he "did run", not what he "can't run".
Armstronglivs wrote:
"I’m sure going through four laps in 3:55 had nothing to do with his final time. He was going to run 7:33 today no matter how the race played out."(quote)
But rekrunner says it's a simple matter of just "extending" that to 3k? That's what "modern training" is supposed to do, to give him the endurance to put two 3.40's back to back. But that you say he was going to run 7.33 "no matter how the race played out", are you saying there's something wrong with his training? Or did he just massively overestimate his capability?
Extension of his current speed will be the goal over the next 10-11 weeks.
I think virtually every athlete and coach has extensive personal direct experience with running slow in the beginning of the season, and then, after weeks and months of training, running faster when their fitness peaks, hopefully in time for the big goal, like the Olympics.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Same question:
What time would Cheptegei have had to run, for you to say "clean"?
I cannot imagine any performance you would not interpret as confirmation.
You miss the point - as you always do. The extremes of his performances are typically indicative of doping cycles. That's what happens to dopers. They have performance spikes and their lows are relative troughs. But your "data" wouldn't tell you that.
Of course the alternative is they are either injured - nope - or badly trained. And that isn't possible with "modern training".
Nope -- that's not the point.
The point is that the scenario makes no difference -- every scenario is suspicious for some reason, as long as races have winners. Cheptegei could run 7:18, or 7:55, or DNF, or DNS, and you would step forward and claim victory.
What you describe looks like what happens to every runner, when comparing off-season to end of season. Look up training cycles.
You describe these early season practice preparation races as extreme low performance "troughs", but in the 1500m, not his main event, he was right there, one step behind the winners, only losing to the sprint, and in the 3000m, he won by 8 seconds.