Jacob Kiplimo runs 56:42 for Half!!!!! DESTROYS half marathon world record in Barcelona

Armstronglivs wrote:

tttttttt wrote:

1:41.73 while running wide in the curve -worth 1:41.5

2:12.18 - still no. 2 all-time

3:31.95 - after absolute ridiculous splits, definitely at least capable of 3:30.0

3:47.33

For sure he would be strong candidate today for any 800m title and he also would be in the mix for 1500m golds.

For you he was not necessarily doping in 1981, but he would need to to win today. You are obviously stupid.

He has been surpassed by several runners today over the 800 and he is over 4 seconds slower than the best today over the 1500. Yep - he would have to dope to beat them.

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

Track, shoes, wavelights, bicarb. Too hard for you?

Doping. Too hard for you?

efw wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yes, he could probably win the NCAA'S (except for Hoey). I said he isn't as fast as the best in this era. That is a fact. To beat them he would have to dope as they do.

Who in the NCAA is running 1:41.73?

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

Who in the NCAA is running 1:41.73?

Tracks, shoes, bicarb - and drugs. Any time now. Probably Hoey.

efw wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doping. Too hard for you?

If those factors gave him 0.5 sec he would have been 3rd in the Olympics last year. Too hard for you?

efw wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Tracks, shoes, bicarb - and drugs. Any time now. Probably Hoey.

So you are saying he had to be doped when he ran 1:41.73

Gotcha.

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

If those factors gave him 0.5 sec he would have been 3rd in the Olympics last year. Too hard for you?

Only 3rd? But this was the former world record holder. And there are more than 3 runners now faster than he was. You just can't accept that drugs are what is driving the top of the sport.

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

So you are saying he had to be doped when he ran 1:41.73

Gotcha.

You've got nothing. For NCAA runners to match what he did they would have to dope without a doubt. That doesn't mean he was.

Armstronglivs wrote:

To explain today's performances it's the mantra of "tracks, shoes, and bicarb". Sure - it's "the bike".

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

6 tenths of a second is not meaningful, dumbo.

There are several runners today who are running faster than he did over the 800 and more than that over the 1500.

efw wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Only 3rd? But this was the former world record holder. And there are more than 3 runners now faster than he was. You just can't accept that drugs are what is driving the top of the sport.

Only 3rd no. At least third. In his PB he didn't have runners to chase.
You are so stupid and ignorant you think only with drugs could he run half a second faster than he did 44 years ago.
Besides, you said he wouldn't be competitive. 3rd in the Olympics is being competitive. Especially 0.04 from gold.
Again, you are stupid.

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

Only 3rd no. At least third. In his PB he didn't have runners to chase.
You are so stupid and ignorant you think only with drugs could he run half a second faster than he did 44 years ago.
Besides, you said he wouldn't be competitive. 3rd in the Olympics is being competitive. Especially 0.04 from gold.
Again, you are stupid.

Waffle on. The sport today is more rotten with drugs than it ever was, including in Coe's era. He couldn't win today without it. No one can.

tttttttt wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There are several runners today who are running faster than he did over the 800 and more than that over the 1500.

Several runners are faster now?

Hoppel: 0.06 seconds

Tual: 0.12 seconds

Sedjati: 0.27 seconds

Arop: 0.53 seconds

Wanyonyi: 0.62 seconds

43 years after Coe has run his time (worth around 1:41.5 while running wide in the curve)

All the improvements of shoes, tracks and so on, how much do you give for this combined? 0.5 seconds? 0.01 seconds?

With his unique sprint finishes which Coe has shown in 1981, with his 2:12.18 (worth around 1:41.8) and his 1500m/Mile times, he wouldn't be a Gold contender now?

efw wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Waffle on. The sport today is more rotten with drugs than it ever was, including in Coe's era. He couldn't win today without it. No one can.

"Waffle on" - your usual response when cornered. What is rotten is your brain.

efw wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

To explain today's performances it's the mantra of "tracks, shoes, and bicarb". Sure - it's "the bike".

You are now talking to yourself? Jesus man, get some rest.

Armstronglivs wrote:

tttttttt wrote:

Several runners are faster now?

Hoppel: 0.06 seconds

Tual: 0.12 seconds

Sedjati: 0.27 seconds

Arop: 0.53 seconds

Wanyonyi: 0.62 seconds

43 years after Coe has run his time (worth around 1:41.5 while running wide in the curve)

All the improvements of shoes, tracks and so on, how much do you give for this combined? 0.5 seconds? 0.01 seconds?

With his unique sprint finishes which Coe has shown in 1981, with his 2:12.18 (worth around 1:41.8) and his 1500m/Mile times, he wouldn't be a Gold contender now?

He would be if he was doped as they are.

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

"Waffle on" - your usual response when cornered. What is rotten is your brain.

Of course you'll say that. Denial about doping is what keeps the sport going.

Armstronglivs wrote:

efw wrote:

You are now talking to yourself? Jesus man, get some rest.

How can I be talking to myself if you respond?