6 women run 1:58.5 or better in the PRELIMS of the Russian champs

Bit like looking at the US sprints trials

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Bit like looking at the US sprints trials

No.

I think Gatlin peed into his own bottle.

Savinova and Arzhakova are proven championship performers and both have good kicks, unlike their 'time trial' compatriots like Kofanova who has choked in every major final she has ever been in, including Russian champs. But I don't think a single one of their 1500m women has any chance of getting near the medals.

ukathleticscoach wrote:Bit like looking at the US sprints trials

moron

nowhere similar

if you don't expect american champs to be running 9.8 - 9.9 for top-3 in this era, then you are an idiot

if they went 9.6 - 9.7 for the top-3, <2m/s, then you have semblance of a case

until then, stick to your unpaid job coaching 13.5 guys outer the shittier hebrides

Yeah, the Russians only have SIX women who have run faster than Morgan Uceny this year. I wouldn't worry about them.

And Savinova ONLY ran down Mr. Semenya in Deagu. The South Africans are just going to have to get themselves a faster guy.

And throwing in the two Ethiopians, I think Morgan and Jenny know what they're up against. It's going to be MUCH harder than last year.

But Alysia Montano, if she ran like she did at Pre, and Savinova, with that monster kick, would make for one hell of a final in London.

coach d wrote:

Yeah, the Russians only have SIX women who have run faster than Morgan Uceny this year. I wouldn't worry about them.

Russians running fast times in Russia mean nothing. Remind me what happened to their no. 2 and no. 5 ranked athletes in the 1500m at the Euro champs? They will not be near the medals because not a single one of them will thrive in a tactical race. And reading over my previous post I don't see any point where I was downplaying Savinova's chances...

For those who have no marks outside Russia, I'm more concerned about the out of competition testing or lack thereof than I am about the timing clock.

Consider Gorbunova's progression from 2010. I'm worried that what we're looking at are several people that have been siting outside the normal testing protocol, deep in Russia, and suddenly, just before the Olympics they emerge a la Ramzi.

Reminiscent of '08 wrote:Remind me what happened to their no. 2 and no. 5 ranked athletes in the 1500m at the Euro champs?

no one, least the russians are interested in these meaningless ec

they probably ran those as training, as not far from ruskie to former colony of helsinki

most idiotic idea for a sports event in living memory...

It's the same story every year. Eastern European women refuse to compete outside of their home countries, put down some crazy marks, and then choke at the major championships. Yes they are probably doped but their lack of any international experience will be their undoing. Before I consider Gorbunova's progression from 2010, I'll consider the way she got smashed by the Turks in Helsinki. Speaking of the Turks, if you want someone to be worried about then worry about Asli Cakir: a PROVEN drug cheat who won Euro's in 4:05.3 with a 57.9 last lap. Definitely a bigger threat than any of the Russians in the 1500.

coach d wrote:and suddenly, just before the Olympics they emerge a la Ramzi.

ramzi was in 3'27 shape in his 3'29.1pb ( lost to k2 who backed off until last lap ), when he followed crazy opener of 52+ & ? 1'48

( i'm upset as that's the only "important" <3'30 i missed seeing, as i went out that day & didn't set vid - they didn't show replays later )

anyhows, we know he had 3'27 in him in '06

he showed it again in '08 semis with that astonishing last lap

he was known "exceptional" quality - albeit doped

ruskies haven't shown anything approaching this exalted form

i woudn't fear them as iaaf testers must be rushing towards moscow/siberia/etc...

coach d wrote:

And Savinova ONLY ran down Mr. Semenya in Deagu. The South Africans are just going to have to get themselves a faster guy.

This guy does not represent LA track and field on this topic.

So violentin^3 you are saying that the Chinese were NOT doping to run those times? If so, you have permanently proven yourself to be the fattest

moron

to ever post on these boards.

moron

if you think women wr = 3'30 standard for men means doping, then you are an idiot

what part of your numbskull doesn't understand

10.00 -> 11.00

20.00 -> 22.00

3'50.46 ->3'29.50

idiot

that is = on mens list to

53rd

The Russian women are all on drugs.

Okay, what's next?

A bit of perspective might be called for with regard to the 1500m times. According to that latest IAAF list we're talking about 2 Russians who just squeeked in under the 4 minute mark. The remaining 4 are a second or less in front of the leading American. At a time when women's middle distance running is globally relatively weak at the moment, distorting the magnitude of those performances. The results, while good, aren't exactly drug shattering. I've had a bit to do with the Russian sport training system over the past 4 years. Not with track, admitedly, with hockey. But what I've seen is an impressive structure with some very switched on coaches and some very dedicated athletes who are not distracted by shoe endorsements. Maybe some credit where credit is due.

So you are too chickensh!t to answer the question: were the Chinese women doping?

Godfree Kiptitkum wrote:So you are too chickensh!t to answer the question: were the Chinese women doping?

moron

running 3'46/3'47 is likely to need doping

3'50 can be done without it

ventolin^3 wrote:

moron

if you think women wr = 3'30 standard for men means doping, then you are an idiot

what part of your numbskull doesn't understand

10.00 -> 11.00

20.00 -> 22.00

3'50.46 ->3'29.50

idiot

that is = on mens list to

53rd

You were probably pretty close with your initial statement that 4:00 for women is equivalent to 3:32-3:33 for men. In fact, the IAAF scoring tables say that 4:00 is on par with a 3:32.77. This talk of it being equivalent to 3:38-3:39 is absurd. Also, the tables have 3:50 scoring the same as a 3:27.

Do I believe that the IAAF scoring tables are 100% accurate? Of course not. However, I would be willing to bet that they are closer to accurate than some makeshift system developed by a random guy on Letsrun (especially when said random guy is unable to prove his point and is repeatedly forced to resort to name-calling).

10.00 -> 11.00, what don't you understand? Blah, blah, blah. It is a little pathetic.