Let's talk about the elephant in the room: Hocker drop in fitness is SUSPECT.

Femboi9 wrote:

Is ingebrigtsen clean?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Also, keep in mind that not all countries qualify their athletes in the same way and on the same timeline. These guys basically had to peak at the trials, then hold it for another month. Kessler, for example, ran phenomenally well at the trials, obviously had a fantastic, peak, peak Olympic final, and then it was just a matter of time… is he doped? I doubt it.

Why does "coming down from a peak" require an almost immediate slump, instead of a gradual decline?

Coevett wrote:

Hocker barely out kicked Laros, or made up any ground on a clearly sick Jakob in the home straight. Yet a month ago, he destroys them all in a 3:27 race despite getting blocked and losing momentum.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Why does "coming down from a peak" require an almost immediate slump, instead of a gradual decline?

Bro, he ran 3:30 four days ago in Zurich, which, but for the Olympics, would’ve been his PR. Just behind Nuguse and Jakob and ahead of Kerr. Is that not a “gradual” decline??

Again, I’m not saying any of these guys are not doping. Maybe they all are. What I’m saying is having to peak twice in six weeks with the main goal of the Olympic 1500 is a tall ask. What I’m also saying is 3:27 should not be a surprise with the super shoes and bicarb.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Bro, he ran 3:30 four days ago in Zurich, which, but for the Olympics, would’ve been his PR. Just behind Nuguse and Jakob and ahead of Kerr. Is that not a “gradual” decline??

Again, I’m not saying any of these guys are not doping. Maybe they all are. What I’m saying is having to peak twice in six weeks with the main goal of the Olympic 1500 is a tall ask. What I’m also saying is 3:27 should not be a surprise with the super shoes and bicarb.

I'm a broken record!

Armstronglivs wrote:

4545 wrote:

Your argument is the usual waffle from an old man stuck in the past.

The past is all I know. That's why I don't understand the present.

4545 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm a broken record!

Correct.

4545 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The past is all I know. That's why I don't understand the present.

Yes.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Bro, he ran 3:30 four days ago in Zurich, which, but for the Olympics, would’ve been his PR. Just behind Nuguse and Jakob and ahead of Kerr. Is that not a “gradual” decline??

Again, I’m not saying any of these guys are not doping. Maybe they all are. What I’m saying is having to peak twice in six weeks with the main goal of the Olympic 1500 is a tall ask. What I’m also saying is 3:27 should not be a surprise with the super shoes and bicarb.

3 seconds off his Olympic time and looking nothing like the gold medallist. Not even in contention in Zurich. If you hadn't seen Paris you would simply conclude that's the usual Hocker. Paris looked like a fluke - or something else.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

3 seconds off his Olympic time and looking nothing like the gold medallist. Not even in contention in Zurich. If you hadn't seen Paris you would simply conclude that's the usual Hocker. Paris looked like a fluke - or something else.

So to you that constitutes an immediate slump, whereas I see it as more of a “gradual decline” consistent with what you already said was more appropriate, especially for a guy who had to peak in late June and again in early August.

Was he doped? I have no idea. But you don’t either. To allege otherwise is borderline unethical and irresponsible, honestly. Was Nuguse doped? He almost outleaned Kerr for the silver medal in 3:27, now he can “only” manage a 3:29? What about Kerr? From 3:27 to 3:31? Ouch. Can’t have an off race I guess.

Peach Pit wrote:

bro hes clean just look at him

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Ok, so that’s more of a balanced and nuanced position. And I’m not saying you’re wrong. But can you accept the new super shoes are worth 0.5 sec per lap +/- depending on the runner, allow harder training than ever before w less recovery, and bicarb helps neutralize acid to allow for “peaker” performance? 3:27… meet the old 3:29/3:30.

I think there's still too much debate about what the shoes can do. If you say the super shoes are worth 0.5sec per lap that means El G effectively ran 3:24 back in the '90's and with bicarb you take off another second so he's down to 3:23. That's pretty hard to believe and it substantially diminishes the value of the times being run today. I would more likely go with a 1 second gain in total over that distance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I think there's still too much debate about what the shoes can do. If you say the super shoes are worth 0.5sec per lap that means El G effectively ran 3:24 back in the '90's and with bicarb you take off another second so he's down to 3:23. That's pretty hard to believe and it substantially diminishes the value of the times being run today. I would more likely go with a 1 second gain in total over that distance.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I think there's still too much debate about what the shoes can do. If you say the super shoes are worth 0.5sec per lap that means El G effectively ran 3:24 back in the '90's and with bicarb you take off another second so he's down to 3:23. That's pretty hard to believe and it substantially diminishes the value of the times being run today. I would more likely go with a 1 second gain in total over that distance.

Moreover, what I’ve witnessed in high school is these shoes are worth about a second per lap. It all depends on efficiency of the runner. At the elite pro level, yes, I’m sure they’re only worth 1 sec for some athletes, 2.5 for others.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I think there's still too much debate about what the shoes can do. If you say the super shoes are worth 0.5sec per lap that means El G effectively ran 3:24 back in the '90's and with bicarb you take off another second so he's down to 3:23. That's pretty hard to believe and it substantially diminishes the value of the times being run today. I would more likely go with a 1 second gain in total over that distance.

I’m just basically going off of what Nick Willis said, and he should know. They are definitely not worth nothing. El G? Well, now that was the notoriously doped generation, no? Epo is a helluva drug. So, maybe equivalent to the super shoes and bicarb?

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Moreover, what I’ve witnessed in high school is these shoes are worth about a second per lap. It all depends on efficiency of the runner. At the elite pro level, yes, I’m sure they’re only worth 1 sec for some athletes, 2.5 for others.

… for the entire race