POLL: Does anyone think Makhloufi is clean?

As did Makhloufi. A final 100m in 14.0 is probably the slowest last 100m in any championship race I can remember. He went with 300 to go, treating it as his final sprint/burst, and then seeing if he could hang on. He did, as the rest of the field was poor. Had a peak Coe, Cram, El G, Morceli, ...etc been onhis shoulder with 300 to go, he certainly wouldn't have won.

His last 4 100m went, 13.8, 12.4 (that's his final effort there) 12.9, 14.0

That doesn't strike me as the closing splits of someone clearly using drugs. He slowed between 1300 & 1400 and then significantly between 1400 & 1500.

Deano, forget the stats for a minute and just watch the race.

This is a horrible situation and certainly more obvious than Ramzi, who I tried very hard to give the benefit of the doubt to.

deanouk wrote:

As did Makhloufi. A final 100m in 14.0 is probably the slowest last 100m in any championship race I can remember. He went with 300 to go, treating it as his final sprint/burst, and then seeing if he could hang on. He did, as the rest of the field was poor. Had a peak Coe, Cram, El G, Morceli, ...etc been onhis shoulder with 300 to go, he certainly wouldn't have won.

His last 4 100m went, 13.8, 12.4 (that's his final effort there) 12.9, 14.0

That doesn't strike me as the closing splits of someone clearly using drugs. He slowed between 1300 & 1400 and then significantly between 1400 & 1500.

There is obviously a qualitative difference between Makhloufi slowing in his final 100m and Kiplagat slowing. Makhloufi slowed because he knew he'd already won. What was the point of closing in 12.5 if he knew he only needed a 14.0 to win? Kiplagat slowed because he had nothing left: the medals were moving away from him but there was nothing he could do. Makhloufi wasn't "hanging on" in the final 100m. He looked easy and effortless. He was jogging to victory.

The BBC reported his 200m split from 1200m to 1400m to be 25.1 (with 12.5 and then 12.6). The manner of the victory, coupled with a history of drug taking from other athletes from his nation, coupled with none of the other athletes shaking his hands, coupled with the insight from Cram and Foster on the BBC, coupled with watching Ramzi four years ago is simply too much.

I'm not confident that Coe, Cram, El G or Morcelli would have beaten Makhloufi yesterday. Makhloufi wasn't pushed. We have no idea how fast he could have run had he been pushed. Ventolin has been saying he looks in WR shape.

Stevie Cram wrote:

VOTE:

http://poll.pollcode.com/fx82

I know I don't. But there's also a decent chance he gets away with it.

How about Seb Coe? Think he was clean?

I agree there is cause for suspicion here. But not only here.

lol this guy just ran last night. I think this thread is quite relevant.

I was there in the stadium and watched it again when I got home. He was not "jogging to victory" . He was clearly tiring in the home straight and his knees were dropping from 100m out. He only eased in the last few strides. There was no way he could have run 12.5 for that last 100m, even if he were drugged.

The BBC splits are "rough estimates" at best. He ran a 12.4 down the back straight and then a 12.9 round the bend for a 25.3. He was slowing down from 1300m onwards, or did he just jog the penultimate 100m because he knew he'd won?

Statistics don't lie and I've seen enough 1500 races thank you to know when someone is easing and when someone isn't. He was tiring.

Again, I'm not saying he isn't doping, and perhaps Cram et al have an insight into things we don't know about, but his run yesterday was not as impressive as many other championship performances I've seen over the years. It was a performance in keeping with a 3:30 runner.

His closing speed was hardly different to what Kiprop ran in his 3:28 in Monaco:-

Kiprop ~ last 800m (in his 3:28.8) 1:50.3, the same time as Makhloufi's last 800 in his 3:34

Kiprop's last 400m ~ 53.5, Makhloufi's ~ 52.8

Kiprop's last 300m ~ 39.5, Mak's ~ 39.3

Kiprop's last 200m ~ 26.1, Mak's ~ 26.9

Kiprop's last 100m ~ 13.0, Mak's ~ 14.0

Kiprop was finishing much faster in a 3:28 race than Makhloufi was in a 3:34 race. That shows there was nothing "out of this world" about Makhloufi's performance. Kiprop's closing splits surprised me more than what Makhloufi did. What surprised me more was how bad the rest of the field ran in the final yesterday.

[quote]deanouk wrote:

Again, I'm not saying he isn't doping...quote]

This is really the crux of the discussion. Do we think he is clean? It is starting to sound like you're simply uncertain one way or the other, which makes me wonder why you have doubts.

It certainly doesn't sound like you're sure he's clean (in the way that I am sure Lisa Dobriskey and Hannah England are clean and probably you are too). Why would you be sure with them and not with him?

The analysis of splits that you have done is interesting. Where did you get your splits from? The BBC's came from their statistician, Mark Butler, who is extremely reliable. I would have thought that accurate and official splits should be available somewhere though.

I agree that it is slightly surprising that a lot of the rest of the field underperformed. I think this is partly because they just did not think they could win when they were on the startline, it was a psychological underperformance rather than just a physical underperformance. They were all sure he was juiced, and that made them think they couldn't beat him. (Paula wrote on this topic in her autobiography.)

I also think that the whole disqualification over the lack of effort in the 800m is extremely odd. I'm not aware of the IAAF ever applying this rule in the history of global championships before and this case is clearly exceptional. Often they have totally ignored this rule because it is so subjective and very abitrary. To me it seems like they did not want him to run the 1500m final and were looking for any pretext. The only reason I can think of them not wanting him to line up for the 1500m final is because they are sure he is juiced but don't currently have quite enough evidence.

I sure don't think he's clean. I just get a bad feeling watching him.

My take is that he is dirty because

1. He claims he was "injured so badly he had to stop running"

2. Because it was a "Rashid Ramzi" flashback all over again; he just looked to easy

3. The guy really came out of nowwhere, as where manzano has been consistent all the way from indoors.

4. Not to put a finger on North African Arabics, but theyve already had some dirty runners...Laalou, Selousi, Ramzi..need I go on?

5. Because he was already in hot water with the IOC & IAAF.

If he does get caught, distance running will now be the dirtiest event, as where this will be the second time a gold medalist gets stripped of his title in the olympics

Watch this Daegu semifinal. Makloufi has no answer for the kickers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vts8_XEpMT0

Without the juice, he would have as much chance winning the 1500 final as I would.

If you dont at least suspect something you don't have a working knowledge of the history of the sport.

[quote]113 wrote:

Watch this Daegu semifinal. Makloufi has no answer for the kickers:

That should seal it if anyone has doubts.

Cheat. And he also seems like a major ass**** -- maybe the two are inseparable. But with the 800 hijinks, the ridiculous 1500m showings, and his annoying face/mugging for the camera before the race, this guy is one of the worst, a true disgrace. Not only that but his ultra-easy win made the race totally undramatic, besides enjoying Leo's silver. But the race for the win was a joke, and it made a mockery of the Olympics. If this guy is a doper, which there is a good chance he is, what a waste and a jerk-off.

OSU_FAN wrote:

I usually won't indict someone before any test results, but what I saw on the track yesterday was enough for me to be very sure that he's doped. At that level you just don't look THAT much better than everyone else. It looked like he was a seasoned pro running against a bunch of mid-level college guys.

What bothers me the most is that if he's doped the experience is ruined for most runners in the race no matter what. Manzano will never experience the thrill of being the Olympic champ at the games. Centro won't experience the medal podium and celebrating.

My first thought watching the race was that Makhloufi was doping. This was based on:

(1) him coming out of seemingly nowhere based on prior championship races;

(2) him pulling away so easily from a pretty solid 1500 field; and

(3) probably an unfair association of him with other Moroccan and Algerian middle distance runners.

On further reflection, probably all the above could be said about Manzano (if you were from any other country, wouldn't you have been shocked/incredulous if Manzano won, and the US has had its own history with mid-D dopers - i.e. Jacobs and Slaney). That tempers my desire to jump to conclusions.

Finally, I wouldn't say that if Makhoulfi was doping, he stole a podium ceremony from Manzano. He certainly stole it from someone, but watching the race, I am not so sure Manzano gets silver unless Makhloufi makes that HUGE move that shattered the field. Heck, maybe Centro takes it if the race was in control for a bit longer. Someone would have gotten jobbed, but just not Manzano.

The people that think he is clean are just using raw numbers which do not tell the story.

Or benefit of the doubt, which is fair.

This is about perceived effort and no logical argument can factor in perceived effort.

He looked like a man among boys as he just waiting for a lap to go, burst out and then cruised in to do just enough to win.

And of course the way he ran the heats, blasting away instead of just getting the qualifying spots.

I have seen Morceli and El G dominate races. And they were honestly suspect.

But Makhloufi seemed even more over-matched for the field.

A field with 3 sub 3:30 men (who did perform terribly).

Maybe if the Kenyans didn't choke, Mak wouldn't have won.

Or maybe we would have seen Mak really turn it on.

This is ridiculous. He ran a 25.2 200m then bit it badly (14 for the last 100m) This is pretty normal. The guy had run 3:30 and has been around for a while. Leo, on the other hand, with a 3:33 pb and the 10th ranked time in the final, clearly had to drug up to get a silver medal.

The splits are easy to find using a recording of the race and a pause button. Sometimes the clock on screen is a tenth or two out with what comes up as a split time, but in the case of this Olympics they have been spot on to the nearest 0.1.

So, Makhloufi's torso clearly hits the finish line with a lap to go in 2:41.2, giving a last 400m of 52.8. I think an "official" last 400m is given to the nearest 0.01, and that was 52.78, so as you can see, it is very accurate.

At 1200m the clock stops at 2:54.72, and at this point Makhloufi is abreast of the leader, so his time would have been no slower than 2:54.8, giving him a 39.3 (when rounding 3:34.08 up to 3:34.1) last 300m. He then clearly hits the 200m from home line in 3:07.1 (going into 3:07,2) ~ 3:07.1 - 2:54.7 = 12.4.

He then clearly has his torso above the 100m from home line at 3:20.0 (going into 3:20.1). That's a curve of 12.9 (possibly 12.8!) giving him that 200m section in 25.3 ( could be argued 25.2), but not the "25.0 or 25.1" that Cram mentioned.

His torso also clearly hits the finish line in 3:34.0, so the on screen clock is very accurate.

Last 100m in 14.0 is dreadful at this level, and the pack chasing him were hardly any quicker. Everyone apart from Makhloufi performed badly.

I don't buy the psychological impact on the rest of the field. It didn't seem to bother Kiprop in Beijing against Ramzi. Here there were too many guys (the 3 Kenyans & Willis in particular) who just didn't deliver what they are capable of. The 2 Americans ran nearer to their absolute potential than most and deservedly placed well.

Iguider has been there or there abouts for several seasons now, hovering around the 3:31/3:32 area, but even he didn't run as well as he looked in the semi.

You're right about how I feel about Makhloufi and whether or not he cheated. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, like I am with some runners, but that doesn't justify the OTT criticism and mud slinging that is going on on these boards.

What I do know is that I am far more confident that some illustrious runners from the last 20 years were more likely to have doped than Makhloufi. As I said on one of the threads on here, if he now goes on to run a 3:27 somewhere before the end of the summer, then I might very likely revise my view on his authenticity. What he did yesterday is in keeping with the form of a 3:30 athlete. Yes, he put in a 12.4 100m split (which is an incredible turn of speed) but this was after 1200m. He then slowed quite dramatically afterwards, and not through choice until maybe the last 10m.

I remember Ovett ran a 12.0 100m stretch in the 77 World Cup 1500m in a similar overall time to Makhloufi's (Ovett ran 3:34.4) at 1300m, which to me is more impressive as he had to run a further 100m before doing it. Ovett also slowed, with a last 100m of 13.1. And that was a pb for Ovett at the time. He had never run as fast as that before and there was no suggestion before that race that he could do that to the likes of Walker & Wessinghage. It was truly incredible, but made the more so because Wessinghage at that stage was not the runner he was to become in 1980 (3:31.5) and Walker wasn't the athlete he'd been in 76.

Coe also ran a faster 100m stretch than Makhloufi, when he ran the last 100m in Moscow in 12.1. Again, more impressive than the Algerian's burst, because it came after 1400m, an additional 200m further on in the race than when Makhloufi "exploded"

Coe's 12.1 came after a 12.9 round the curve, Makhloufi's 12.4 came after a 13.8 after the curve.

I repeat, Makhloufi's run was not as awesome as it looked or what people are suggesting. It's not his fault that everyone around him ran poorly.

And again, stats don't lie. They are about the only way one can compare 2 different races (to an extent). Certainly it is a more accurate way than stating Makhloufi demolished some 3:28 and 3:29 runners, therefore he must be doped.

He's totally juiced.

It's not THAT he won, it's HOW he won.

The only other plausible explanation would be that his ability stood out only because the entire field running poorly, as some poster upthread suggested.

That is a far less likely possibility than the possibility that Makhloufi is juiced.

And shades of Yusuf Kamel, in the personality department.

He's an a-hole and a scumbag, the two go hand-in-hand in certain cultures.

And, he's proud of it.