Yeah, is it really so presposterous to believe that Faith Kipyegon is 8 seconds faster than Heather MacLean on talent alone?
No, but if you think she is clean, what do you think she can run while doped? 3:45 - 3:47??
I never claimed she was clean but some posters seem to know exactly which performanes are dirty. So tell us how fast it's possible for a clean athlete to run - 3:55, 4:00? What's the upper limit?
Funny how just a few days ago everyone was agreeing Muir must be clean - despite the sudden surge in UK distance medals which has to seem at least a bit suspicious. Kipyegon must be obviously doping, but Muir just “feels” clean. I wonder why?
No, but if you think she is clean, what do you think she can run while doped? 3:45 - 3:47??
I never claimed she was clean but some posters seem to know exactly which performanes are dirty. So tell us how fast it's possible for a clean athlete to run - 3:55, 4:00? What's the upper limit?
It's been shown with doped Russian women athletes that they lost several seconds over 800m when they ran clean. They fell from 1.56 to 2.01 clean. Your suggestion of 3.55-4.00 is a not unreasonable guess.
If doping were completely removed from track we would likely see performances in most events return to a level not very different from the 1960's. Modern tracks and shoes would make some difference, as would a refinement in training methods. But we would see nothing like the performances that are routine today.
Funny how just a few days ago everyone was agreeing Muir must be clean - despite the sudden surge in UK distance medals which has to seem at least a bit suspicious. Kipyegon must be obviously doping, but Muir just “feels” clean. I wonder why?
Yeah, is it really so presposterous to believe that Faith Kipyegon is 8 seconds faster than Heather MacLean on talent alone? I mean she has been winning world championships since she was 16 so there probably is an actual talent gap between her and the rest of the field.
People accept that talent gaps exist in other sports all the time. Was Michael Jordan so much better because he was doping? Posters like astro accept that massive talent gaps exist on the HS level but yet they cannot exit in professional track.
The margins at the global level will necessarily be smaller than at a high school or college level. The talent pool internationally is much wider. So when athletes at a world level dominate the competition as though it doesn't even exist that defies what we understand about the nature of professional sport. It tells us there is another factor in play.
Yes of course margins at the professional level are smaller but there are still dominant performances and athletes in every pro sport.
The women's field in Monaco was not really that strong. Faith has won more medals than the rest of the field combined. In fact have any of the women in that race won a single championship medal or even a DL race? It seems quite believable for someone with her pedigree to win by a wide margin.
But speaking for myself, if I did not believe athletes were capable of great, or even trancendent performances just on the basis of talent I would bother to follow the sport.
No, but if you think she is clean, what do you think she can run while doped? 3:45 - 3:47??
I never claimed she was clean but some posters seem to know exactly which performanes are dirty. So tell us how fast it's possible for a clean athlete to run - 3:55, 4:00? What's the upper limit?
I noticed you didn't answer the question, but instead asked me one.
For the record, I never said I know what can be run by a clean athlete.
But, we know for a fact that a select few athletes have run 3:50. IF doping gives you 2 - 3% as claimed by several scientists, then we are talking about 5 - 7 seconds. Let's take the lower border, 5 seconds.
Then, if the 3:50 ladies are clean, then they could run 3:45 doped. I consider that unlikely, as no one, doped or clean, came even close to that.
On the other side, even if all top performances are doped, then 3:55 could be run by clean athletes.
Funny how just a few days ago everyone was agreeing Muir must be clean - despite the sudden surge in UK distance medals which has to seem at least a bit suspicious. Kipyegon must be obviously doping, but Muir just “feels” clean. I wonder why?
3.55 as against 3.50.
Perfect running body and impeccable form vs. Muir.
The margins at the global level will necessarily be smaller than at a high school or college level. The talent pool internationally is much wider. So when athletes at a world level dominate the competition as though it doesn't even exist that defies what we understand about the nature of professional sport. It tells us there is another factor in play.
Yes of course margins at the professional level are smaller but there are still dominant performances and athletes in every pro sport.
The women's field in Monaco was not really that strong. Faith has won more medals than the rest of the field combined. In fact have any of the women in that race won a single championship medal or even a DL race? It seems quite believable for someone with her pedigree to win by a wide margin.
But speaking for myself, if I did not believe athletes were capable of great, or even trancendent performances just on the basis of talent I would bother to follow the sport.
All fields are weak for Faith unless Tsegay and Hassan are at their absolute best, and even then….
Maybe Faith can ask one or both to pace her through 1000 or even longer. Why not help each other out? Seems crazy, but both Tsegay and Hassan are now better suited for 3-10, 000, so they should just help a sister out and pace Kipyegon to the 1500 record.
The margins at the global level will necessarily be smaller than at a high school or college level. The talent pool internationally is much wider. So when athletes at a world level dominate the competition as though it doesn't even exist that defies what we understand about the nature of professional sport. It tells us there is another factor in play.
Yes of course margins at the professional level are smaller but there are still dominant performances and athletes in every pro sport.
The women's field in Monaco was not really that strong. Faith has won more medals than the rest of the field combined. In fact have any of the women in that race won a single championship medal or even a DL race? It seems quite believable for someone with her pedigree to win by a wide margin.
But speaking for myself, if I did not believe athletes were capable of great, or even trancendent performances just on the basis of talent I would bother to follow the sport.
You assume her superiority - her "pedigree" - is of a clean athlete. That is precisely what is at issue. It could easily be the result of her doping.
Yes of course margins at the professional level are smaller but there are still dominant performances and athletes in every pro sport.
The women's field in Monaco was not really that strong. Faith has won more medals than the rest of the field combined. In fact have any of the women in that race won a single championship medal or even a DL race? It seems quite believable for someone with her pedigree to win by a wide margin.
But speaking for myself, if I did not believe athletes were capable of great, or even trancendent performances just on the basis of talent I would bother to follow the sport.
You assume her superiority - her "pedigree" - is of a clean athlete. That is precisely what is at issue. It could easily be the result of her doping.
Sure, it's possible she was doping at age 16. I guess you believe Sydney was doping at that age as well, along with Mondo, Erriyon Knighton, Zola Budd, Ryun and any other athlete that showed exceptional talent at a young age.
Very unlikely that she is juiced. She is just a very hard working Kenyan runner, working hard and reaping the benefits of very organized and systematic training, with almost 100 percent of her intervals on the track (mostly at the Kipchoge stadium in Eldoret) done with male pacers. I was there in April/May this year in Eldoret and saw her train at the stadium with my own eyes. What stood out for me was the efficiency and quasi perfect form of her running form with an apparent total lack of inefficient movements, unfortunately so common in many other Kenyan female runners.
In addition, Faith is a God Fearing Christian, which would make it unlikely for her to engage in illicit practices. Some people might consider this a silly and irrelevant point, but it is worth mentioning, nevertheless. In short I think that most people have faith in Faith.
"God Fearing Christian" types have committed (and continue to commit) some of the worst atrocities ever witnessed on this planet; are you so daft and naive to believe that because she's a GFC she'd somehow magically eschew actions comparatively far less egregious? Smh
I never claimed she was clean but some posters seem to know exactly which performanes are dirty. So tell us how fast it's possible for a clean athlete to run - 3:55, 4:00? What's the upper limit?
I noticed you didn't answer the question, but instead asked me one.
For the record, I never said I know what can be run by a clean athlete.
But, we know for a fact that a select few athletes have run 3:50. IF doping gives you 2 - 3% as claimed by several scientists, then we are talking about 5 - 7 seconds. Let's take the lower border, 5 seconds.
Then, if the 3:50 ladies are clean, then they could run 3:45 doped. I consider that unlikely, as no one, doped or clean, came even close to that.
On the other side, even if all top performances are doped, then 3:55 could be run by clean athletes.
The standards for what might seem achievable clean or otherwise are not set in stone. They evolve as athletes improve. Not too long ago the idea of a woman running close to 50 seconds flat, or even under 50 seemed far-fetched. Just because 3:45 does not seem possible for a female athlete today does not mean that standard will still apply in 20 years.
Mondo, Crouser, Warholm, Gidey, Sybney have all pushed up against the boundaries of their respective events. I just don't happen to believe that all great performances and improvements in the sport are fueled entirely by doping.
20 years doesn't sound like a lot of time, considering the world record was already 3:50 in 1993, 29 years ago. 40 years ago, the world record was 3:52.
The levels of utter delusion or dishonesty when discussing the top levels of this sport are always embarrassing.
Lets have a look at the all time top 10 in the women's 1500 shall we:
1) Dibaba
2)Kipyegon
3) Qu (China)
4) Jiang (China)
5) Kipyegon (again).
6) Lang (China)
7) Wang (China)
8) Hassan (LOL)
9) Kanzankina (Soviet Union)
I mean, are they kidding us? This is a list of the worst and most obvious dopers in the sport, starting with Dibaba. Yet people on here are actually arguing that Kipyegon is not doping despite beating the times of some of the most notorious dopers in sports history, almost beating the WR of another notorious doper (analogous to a sprinter beating FloJo's WR), and destroying other world class runners just as dopers always do (Just look at what the Chinese did to the Kenyans and everyone else during the Ma's Army era). To the doping apologists on this board we were not all born yesterday. If you have a vested interest in rooting for your hero, do so. But don't insult everyone's intelligence. Kipyegon is a doper and an athletic fraud. She has lots of company. Are you guys going to roll out that East African running gene again? If that does not work shout "racism." It is good for a laugh. :)
You could probably make a reasoned argument for the Chinese women of the '90s and the Russian women of the '80s.
Doping has always started young ehere you have an established doping culture. many of the Ma's Army runners teenagers. And the bio passport ironically encourages this. Dope younger so that subsequent doping does not raise red flags.
Anyway that list I posted is pretty decisive. Sorry but no one is that freakish an athlete. Beating known dopers is a massive doping indication.
Doping has always started young ehere you have an established doping culture. many of the Ma's Army runners teenagers. And the bio passport ironically encourages this. Dope younger so that subsequent doping does not raise red flags.
Anyway that list I posted is pretty decisive. Sorry but no one is that freakish an athlete. Beating known dopers is a massive doping indication.
Do you think Crouser is doping? He did break the record of a convicted doper.