I don't think she's clean, but why would one go out and run a time that outlandishly fast if they're doping? It's totally reckless. It's either complete stupidity or she's extremely confident she's not getting caught.
I guess we should hate evolution as well for making humans of today smarter and more adapted than humans of the past. Not every step forward is drug-aided. Would you accept the result if she ran the time 300 years from now instead of today? Would that be enough time for you to accept the legitimacy.
so the possibility exists, as anybody who ever ran recognises, that sudden progress is possible..so there is no reason to believe women cannot get closer in terms of time to men, much as that might piss men off...
Other than the 64 flat half converting to 2.10, I don't think this record stacks up against others as being any more or less suspicious.
Her differential from Kiptum's time was around 7.5%, which is pretty massive but I think this race today is better considered compared to Kipchoge's sub 2 given the conditions.
Namely, she has the massive advantage of being paced by two men who metronomed the effort, running in a big pack until around 20-25k and then coming through the back of the men's field in the last few kilometres. No solo running on a very fast course
The differential there is 8.6% between Kipchoge and Ruth C.
Compare that with Assefa and Kiptum - 9.5% or Kipchoge's 2.01.09 vs Kosgei at Chicago (also paced) at 9.2%.
Take it back to Ratcliffe's 2.15 (paced by men etc) in 2003 compared to the then world record of 2.05.38 then the percentage gap there is 7.7% - a mere 0.2% difference between that and today's time compared with Kiptum's.
You're now comparing an exceptional performance to a derivation of 0.6-0.9% between previous record holders. Then only a 0.2 difference between that and the most alike comparison possible from history.
It's outstanding but not as impossible or improbable as some are making out
Other than the 64 flat half converting to 2.10, I don't think this record stacks up against others as being any more or less suspicious.
Her differential from Kiptum's time was around 7.5%, which is pretty massive but I think this race today is better considered compared to Kipchoge's sub 2 given the conditions.
Namely, she has the massive advantage of being paced by two men who metronomed the effort, running in a big pack until around 20-25k and then coming through the back of the men's field in the last few kilometres. No solo running on a very fast course
The differential there is 8.6% between Kipchoge and Ruth C.
Compare that with Assefa and Kiptum - 9.5% or Kipchoge's 2.01.09 vs Kosgei at Chicago (also paced) at 9.2%.
Take it back to Ratcliffe's 2.15 (paced by men etc) in 2003 compared to the then world record of 2.05.38 then the percentage gap there is 7.7% - a mere 0.2% difference between that and today's time compared with Kiptum's.
You're now comparing an exceptional performance to a derivation of 0.6-0.9% between previous record holders. Then only a 0.2 difference between that and the most alike comparison possible from history.
It's outstanding but not as impossible or improbable as some are making out
Don't waste your time overanalyzing things. That's the problem with American runners. They spend too much time trying to apply statistical methods to predicting their times or trying to justify the times run by non-Americans. Just go out there and run. Confidence doesn't give a dam about your statistical methods. African runners just go out there and get it done.
I guarantee you the Kenyan equivalent of Letsrun doesn't have people trying to fit times into their limited understanding of the scientific world. Americans put too many constraints on themselves by virtue of their overanalysis.
I guess we should hate evolution as well for making humans of today smarter and more adapted than humans of the past. Not every step forward is drug-aided. Would you accept the result if she ran the time 300 years from now instead of today? Would that be enough time for you to accept the legitimacy.
No. The landslide of doping positives in Kenya combined with Kenya Athletics slashing its testing budget and reluctance to test road runners is more than enough to completely write off this performance.
The epo era is now.
When she is eventually caught she will just walk away with the prize money and focus on her “farm”. Which I guess is just what you do in Kenya.
Has this already been posted? Rojo straight up asked her if she was doping!! Well done Rojo!
LetsRun’s Robert Johnson asked Ruth Chepngetich about her marathon world record of 2:09:56 in an era when Kenya is struggling with doping.
Johnson: “Ruth, unfortunately in recent years there’s been a number of doping positives in Kenya. What would you say to someone who says… pic.twitter.com/uO2qDKcxjK
Don't waste your time overanalyzing things. That's the problem with American runners. They spend too much time trying to apply statistical methods to predicting their times or trying to justify the times run by non-Americans. Just go out there and run. Confidence doesn't give a dam about your statistical methods. African runners just go out there and get it done.
I guarantee you the Kenyan equivalent of Letsrun doesn't have people trying to fit times into their limited understanding of the scientific world. Americans put too many constraints on themselves by virtue of their overanalysis.
From the Letsrun article:
“Obviously it was a day to run fast, but for us as a unit, it didn’t feel right, so we backed off a little bit, collectively,” Bates said.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
