Within a year? Who else has progressed like that? Seems really suspicious, no trolling.
Jakob went from 7:51 to 7:27 in one year. Then from 7:23 to 7:17 in one year.
Technically true but highly misleading. Jakob was already a European Champion at 3k and 5k when he ran 7:27 just after his 20th birthday. He hadn’t run a non-championship 3k since he was 16 and was coming off a 13:02 5k (with a 53 second final lap) and 5th place Worlds finish the previous year, so it’s not like the time came out of nowhere. He did go from 7:23 to 7:17 in one year, but he’d already run 7:54 (equivalent to 7:19). And that was 3 years after running 7:27.
Cole went from 8:05 (equivalent to 7:30) to 7:23 in one year. He did run 12:58 last spring but couldn’t even make the US 5k team, and is now the 6th fastest 3k runner ever, 0.05 behind El G.
Not saying Cole is doping, but his progression isn’t comparable.
Jakob went from 7:51 to 7:27 in one year. Then from 7:23 to 7:17 in one year.
But we saw through his 1500m that he progressed steadily every year. Hocker went from struggling to close at 3:30 pace to closing very fast at 3:27 pace? A few months of consistent training doesn’t make you improve that much…sorry.
Evaluating progress is useless (too much unknowns) -especially when you are cherry picking. Because your example Jakob did not progress steadily. -From 16 to 17 years old he went from 3.39 high to 3.31 low… (Saying that, I nevertheless don’t suspect anything..).
I see now posters are saying that until proven guilty they are innocent. I agree totally!!! but I wish the same consideration was given to Africans as well.
For years we've heard El G and Komen were dirty but now their so-called dirty records are broken, and the people running them are innocent.
Personally, I do think Grant and Cole are clean along with Yared and Hoey. I just wish the same consideration was equally given to the Africans. Not all cheat and shouldn't be swept with a broad brush.
If there was a drug available right now that there was no effective testing for, that one study found improved 3K times by 6%, and if Wada introduced a test for it this year, and then Nuguse and Fisher's WRs lasted for another 20 years with only a huge leap forward in shoe and track technology enabling them to finally be approached or bettered, and there were 400 US distance running doping busts in those 20 years, then yeah, anybody with an IQ in double digits would be fairly sure they doped.
I'd bet money that you're the same turd who insulted me in the Sam Ruthe thread.
Well, if you did bet money, you would lose because I have no idea what you are talking about. You are the guy who keeps posting doping articles about Africans. You are a troll and a miserable looser
You have to remember in 2024 he finally was able to get a whole training block healthy and has remained healthy, so a lot of the improvement can be attributed to that. It’s not like he was he was a scrub before, he was still 6th in Tokyo and top 10 in the 2023 World Championships. The extra strength gained from a healthy training block could be the best explanation for why he’s a phenom now.
Having said that, he may still be juiced. It’s likely that almost everybody at the pro level is juiced and it’s easier than we realize to avoid positive tests. I’m sure he was juiced since the NCAA. It’s a wash if everyone does it.
Mo Katir’s rapid improvement was far more suspicious. He went from being barely a sub 14 guy to running 12:50 in less than a year. Everyone could see the writing on the wall. Cole’s success has been far more linear when you account for injuries. He was already an NCAA champ and ran fairly well, far better than Katir. The jump is more believable.
Hocker in 2023 consistently placed 5th to 12th in all of his international races, struggling to close fast in decently paced races (3:30-3:33). I don’t buy that with a healthy training block he somehow is able to close in 39 seconds for a 3:27 or improve dramatically from a 7:30 3000m to 7:23.
Skep Fan, just please enlighten us. What is exactly is your standard for how much someone is allowed to improve without being considered a drug cheat? A second off a 1500 PB? Not at all? Or do they have to go backwards and get slower. Cole closed in 39. What if he only closed in 41? Is he no longer suspicious then? What exactly is your standard and why? In Cole’s case we have someone who was already really good, finally was able to put together a healthy season, and then got better as logic and reason would dictate. What is your limit that you believe Cole should have been stuck at to be not suspicious of doping? Enlighten us.
Hocker in 2023 consistently placed 5th to 12th in all of his international races, struggling to close fast in decently paced races (3:30-3:33). I don’t buy that with a healthy training block he somehow is able to close in 39 seconds for a 3:27 or improve dramatically from a 7:30 3000m to 7:23.
Skep Fan, just please enlighten us. What is exactly is your standard for how much someone is allowed to improve without being considered a drug cheat? A second off a 1500 PB? Not at all? Or do they have to go backwards and get slower. Cole closed in 39. What if he only closed in 41? Is he no longer suspicious then? What exactly is your standard and why? In Cole’s case we have someone who was already really good, finally was able to put together a healthy season, and then got better as logic and reason would dictate. What is your limit that you believe Cole should have been stuck at to be not suspicious of doping? Enlighten us.
All I am asking is who else has shown this kind of progression? Perhaps he runs 3:28-3:29 with a slowerish close and 7:25-7:27. 3:30-3:33 struggling to close under 41 seconds to 3:27 closing in 39 seconds is farcical. His final 2000m close of 4:53-4:54 for the final 2000m in a 7:22 race after struggling to close in 5:00 in a 7:30 race a year earlier is astonishing. I just don’t see any credible explanation other than the obvious.
Evaluating progress is useless (too much unknowns) -especially when you are cherry picking. Because your example Jakob did not progress steadily. -From 16 to 17 years old he went from 3.39 high to 3.31 low… (Saying that, I nevertheless don’t suspect anything..).
That was at Monaco (when virtually everybody here agreed Monaco was a couple of seconds faster than any other track). It was literaly his first race on the senior circuit. And he was 17.
That’s a bizarre comment. Why would anyone care about the WWE? Are you a fan?
It isn't essentially any different from track today. Both are juiced to the gills.
The value of the WWE is commonly put at around $9 billion.
In 2022 World Athletics had an operating loss of $17 million, with $55 million income and $72 million in expenses.
It's not even on the same planet.
You account for your belief that everybody dopes today, but nobody doped before the 80's, through a financial motive that wasn't present back then.
It's true to an extent, but then again, track was 100x bigger back then, and glory and international fame was what motivated runners in the amateur era.
It's certainly not credible that parents in Western countries are routinely doping their 13 year old kids in the hope they might be able to compete for $8,000 winners cheques in another decade.
On the other hand, we know that $8,000 sets up an East African for life, literally. That's probably the fundamental reason why there have been 400 doping busts in Kenya and zero in New Zealand.
It isn't essentially any different from track today. Both are juiced to the gills.
They have been for decades. Doping was used in the 1930s. Try to learn something useful about the sport for a change.
It wasn't significant in this sport until the '70's. Perhaps you could learn something about it. If they were doping in the '30's they weren't getting much out of it because the fastest men were scarcely faster than women today.
It isn't essentially any different from track today. Both are juiced to the gills.
The value of the WWE is commonly put at around $9 billion.
In 2022 World Athletics had an operating loss of $17 million, with $55 million income and $72 million in expenses.
It's not even on the same planet.
You account for your belief that everybody dopes today, but nobody doped before the 80's, through a financial motive that wasn't present back then.
It's true to an extent, but then again, track was 100x bigger back then, and glory and international fame was what motivated runners in the amateur era.
It's certainly not credible that parents in Western countries are routinely doping their 13 year old kids in the hope they might be able to compete for $8,000 winners cheques in another decade.
On the other hand, we know that $8,000 sets up an East African for life, literally. That's probably the fundamental reason why there have been 400 doping busts in Kenya and zero in New Zealand.
I don't say there wasn't doping before 1980 - there was.
Money isn't the only reason athletes dope. They dope to succeed - to be the best they can - which is why it has been identified in recreational athletes, seniors and even school kids. That's what makes it like WWE - doping now determines success.
WADA has grouped t and f with cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding for risk of doping. Which of any of those sports would you trust?