Jerry's post is incredibly retarded. Of course a masters runner who runs a 1:11 half and then suddenly pops a 1:06 would get accused of doping.
Jerry's post is incredibly retarded. Of course a masters runner who runs a 1:11 half and then suddenly pops a 1:06 would get accused of doping.
Sean Norton wrote:
40 years ago today a little-known graduate student took ten minutes off his marathon pr and won Boston, setting the American record. Nobody has ever accused Bill Rodgers of cheating, and nobody with any credibility ever will. If a similar feat were achieved in next Monday's race, for sure people would be saying "that dude must be on something."
The cheaters need to be caught--absolutely--and banned for life--but there are also astounding performances that happen on any given day. Merely judging from time is not a fair basis to make an accusation.
I'm can guess by your post that you are still a young kid. Yes people can have great days...but they almost never happen after 40. You can read any science book on getting older and they all support the same thing. You DON'T get faster as you get older. It just doesn't happen. So in your example, he was still very young, young people can have those days. Heck I've even had them.
I don't think Espinosa doped, but you need to get a little real here.
Lemme guess wrote:
Sean Norton wrote:40 years ago today a little-known graduate student took ten minutes off his marathon pr and won Boston, setting the American record. Nobody has ever accused Bill Rodgers of cheating, and nobody with any credibility ever will. If a similar feat were achieved in next Monday's race, for sure people would be saying "that dude must be on something."
The cheaters need to be caught--absolutely--and banned for life--but there are also astounding performances that happen on any given day. Merely judging from time is not a fair basis to make an accusation.
I'm can guess by your post that you are still a young kid. Yes people can have great days...but they almost never happen after 40. You can read any science book on getting older and they all support the same thing. You DON'T get faster as you get older. It just doesn't happen. So in your example, he was still very young, young people can have those days. Heck I've even had them.
I don't think Espinosa doped, but you need to get a little real here.
I am a reasonably statistically coherent47 year old whippersnapper. I feel plenty real, actually. I also feel confident in saying that making an assumptions based on the available information, that Espinosa's 2:08 *must* be phony is blind skepticism. This is just as frustrating as blind optimism. I have no idea if Espinosa cheated or not, but I know enough about his career and what others have done at a similar age, to know it is equally likely he was clean. Are you are familiar with the achievements of Jack Foster, John Campbell, and Joyce Smith? I don't think anything has been promulgated publicly to call Espinosa into question. As has been said, he didn't run on flat courses that many times--possibly because they aren't that interesting. Paul Tergat didn't run much faster in his victory at New York that Espinosa did. New York is a hard course. Personally, I am very condemning of an athlete who misses a drug test or associates with drug folks, but casting aspersions *only* based on time--just doesn't make sense, particularly when the course we are talking about is Berlin. The last five times the world record has been set has been on that course.
HRE wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:Running fast in your late 30s and early 40s is not suspicious in and of itself, but running lifetime bests at that age with out major changes in training, diet, events, etc., is a red flag. I can't see someone running 20 marathons during their 30s and running a PR at age 40.
Jack Foster, John Campbell, Priscilla Welch, Joyce Smith all did.
They all ran PRs in their 40's but I don't think any of these people ran 20 marathons in their 30's. They were all very late starters.
But I agree with others that this whole thread is baseless.
And even though it doesn't count for anything in the LR kangaroo court, I will also add that I spent an evening with Andres Espinosa and others before the 1999 Boston marathon. He is a very gentle and modest soul, remarkably so for someone was a great champion, and also a happy person.
Mark
Johnsons, it seems time to delete this thread you started. We all make mistakes, but it is a sign of true character when we acknowledge and address them.
If you look at what I call the "Mexican Explosion" it all makes sense. EPO was available by 1989 (and it could have been earlier I don't know - I was not a doper back then?), that much is sure because the early adopters in cycling (The Dutch and Belgians) were already dying from it in 1989 and the winter of 1990. They took WAAAYYY too much of it and died in their sleep. Their were about 10 deaths. Why it was limited to riders from the Low Countries, I don't know. This much is well-documented.
It was used by some people (namely Mexicans, East Africans and the Moroccans) in 1989-90 as well. When you look at the Annual List, every yr from 1989 the 5k annual best was faster than 13:06 every year from 1989 until this year. Previous to that 13:06 had only been bested by TWO people in all of history (Moorcroft and Aouita - and Moorcroft did it just once).
In the 10k 27:20 was bested every year from 1989 until this year. In 1989 27:20 had only been bested TWICE in all of history, and by two men (Mamede and Lopes).
If you look at track running and road racing and marathon around that time, there was a "Mexican Explosion" ... there were suddenly a ton of good and great distance runners from Mexico (a nation that heretofore had very little tradition of being good at the distances.
I thought everyone knew about this, and understood its cause?
I can't say that Espinosa is/was a doper, that would be wholly unfair. I can say that JUST LIKE EPO WAS RESPONSIBLE for lowering the 10k WR 51 seconds in NINE years, it was also responsible for boosting up a whole generation of Mexicans to a level of running NOBODY in their nation had ever achieved in the previous 80 years.
Drugs were used before the Mexicans, drugs were used after. WRs were set with drugs before that era and ... well, they weren't set after that era, because it has been many years since the 1500, 2k, 3k, 2Mile, 5k and 10k were taken to levels we never imagined, and nobody has ever been able to get reasonably close since testing has become more stringent. Since those WRs were moved HUGE-amounts in the 90s and only 2 of them have been moved at all in 17 years, I feel we are STILL IN THAT ERA.
We will still be until we either ...
1) discover a new drug and break most/all of those WRs, (which means we have entered that "new-drug era", or ...
2) acknowledge that every WR is tainted, clean the slate and start over with "all-new" WRs, or ...
...well, I guess those are the only ways.
But my point is that the Mexicans weren't the only ones doing it.
And why are you so sure that Meb is not doping? You are too naive or have no idea what it takes to run sub 2:10 marathon at age of 40 or just trying to cover up someone's doping activities.
DC Area Runner wrote:
I'm right up there with the most skeptical Letsrunners and I agree with wejo that there is nothing overly suspicious about Espinosa's career trajectory. It looks like at age 40 it was the first time he really went for it time wise on a fast course. He was clearly in far better than 2:10 shape in his 20's and 30's and I think getting a late start helped give him a little bit more in the tank when he was older.
His career seems very similar to Meb's in the sense that they are more into racing than running fast times. I could easily see Meb getting a marathon PR in his 40's if he ever decided to run on a course like London.
Jack was probably pretty close. He was running maybe 4-7 marathons a year once he started at the distance. I don't know about the other three. I'd bet that Campbell wasn't close to that number. But the other question is how hard the marathons were.
HRE wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:Running fast in your late 30s and early 40s is not suspicious in and of itself, but running lifetime bests at that age with out major changes in training, diet, events, etc., is a red flag. I can't see someone running 20 marathons during their 30s and running a PR at age 40.
Jack Foster, John Campbell, Priscilla Welch, Joyce Smith all did.
As mentioned, these people didn't run 20 marathons before 40, and Campbell caught the tailwind in Boston 90. Espinoza may or may not have tampered, but Foster's 2:11 is still the incontrovertible Master's record in my mind.
newname wrote:
If you look at what I call the "Mexican Explosion" it all makes sense. EPO was available by 1989 (and it could have been earlier I don't know - I was not a doper back then?), that much is sure because the early adopters in cycling (The Dutch and Belgians) were already dying from it in 1989 and the winter of 1990. They took WAAAYYY too much of it and died in their sleep. Their were about 10 deaths. Why it was limited to riders from the Low Countries, I don't know. This much is well-documented.
It was used by some people (namely Mexicans, East Africans and the Moroccans) in 1989-90 as well. When you look at the Annual List, every yr from 1989 the 5k annual best was faster than 13:06 every year from 1989 until this year. Previous to that 13:06 had only been bested by TWO people in all of history (Moorcroft and Aouita - and Moorcroft did it just once).
In the 10k 27:20 was bested every year from 1989 until this year. In 1989 27:20 had only been bested TWICE in all of history, and by two men (Mamede and Lopes).
If you look at track running and road racing and marathon around that time, there was a "Mexican Explosion" ... there were suddenly a ton of good and great distance runners from Mexico (a nation that heretofore had very little tradition of being good at the distances.
I thought everyone knew about this, and understood its cause?
I can't say that Espinosa is/was a doper, that would be wholly unfair. I can say that JUST LIKE EPO WAS RESPONSIBLE for lowering the 10k WR 51 seconds in NINE years, it was also responsible for boosting up a whole generation of Mexicans to a level of running NOBODY in their nation had ever achieved in the previous 80 years.
You are badly misinformed. Mexico was a road-racing power throughout the 1980s, with guys like Rodolfo Gomez, Jose Gomez, Arturo Barrios, Martin Pitayo, Alejandro Cruz, and a number of others that you apparently don't know anything about.
Avocado's Number wrote:
newname wrote:If you look at what I call the "Mexican Explosion" it all makes sense. EPO was available by 1989 (and it could have been earlier I don't know - I was not a doper back then?), that much is sure because the early adopters in cycling (The Dutch and Belgians) were already dying from it in 1989 and the winter of 1990. They took WAAAYYY too much of it and died in their sleep. Their were about 10 deaths. Why it was limited to riders from the Low Countries, I don't know. This much is well-documented.
It was used by some people (namely Mexicans, East Africans and the Moroccans) in 1989-90 as well. When you look at the Annual List, every yr from 1989 the 5k annual best was faster than 13:06 every year from 1989 until this year. Previous to that 13:06 had only been bested by TWO people in all of history (Moorcroft and Aouita - and Moorcroft did it just once).
In the 10k 27:20 was bested every year from 1989 until this year. In 1989 27:20 had only been bested TWICE in all of history, and by two men (Mamede and Lopes).
If you look at track running and road racing and marathon around that time, there was a "Mexican Explosion" ... there were suddenly a ton of good and great distance runners from Mexico (a nation that heretofore had very little tradition of being good at the distances.
I thought everyone knew about this, and understood its cause?
I can't say that Espinosa is/was a doper, that would be wholly unfair. I can say that JUST LIKE EPO WAS RESPONSIBLE for lowering the 10k WR 51 seconds in NINE years, it was also responsible for boosting up a whole generation of Mexicans to a level of running NOBODY in their nation had ever achieved in the previous 80 years.
You are badly misinformed. Mexico was a road-racing power throughout the 1980s, with guys like Rodolfo Gomez, Jose Gomez, Arturo Barrios, Martin Pitayo, Alejandro Cruz, and a number of others that you apparently don't know anything about.
This is Letsrun. People are not interested in facts here. If they were, Fag-Jo would not have started this thread.
Avocado's Number wrote:
You are badly misinformed. Mexico was a road-racing power throughout the 1980s, with guys like Rodolfo Gomez, Jose Gomez, Arturo Barrios, Martin Pitayo, Alejandro Cruz, and a number of others that you apparently don't know anything about.
Right. WR holders, medalists, Major Marathon champions. A prolific list of Mexico's talent. The best Marathon among them? 2:08:57, set early in his career, not years into the steady decline that comes with age. Set before EPO. And certainly not at age 40.
No guarantees that anyone is clean; steroids, amphetamines, painkillers could all have been used by anyone in the last 100 years. But Barrios is a measuring stick I use to draw a line between EPO and non EPO times.
...
Some of you are not drawing the same conclusion I am. Fine. But don't say that the discussion doesn't belong. We are in this mess because so many did not question the development of the EPO era, and are now dug in too deep. No, performances don't indicate doping directly. But to ignore them is to ignore the only data we regularly collect. To keep performance data out of the doping discussion is like taking calories out of weight loss. For Wejo, the performance data started the conversation. then he went to ask more questions. That's what needs to happen. If the follow up doesn't turn up anything, fine, but at least you pursued a more nuanced truth. Opening the conversation to the forum was another step to find more information. This process needs to happen more regularly.
clerk wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:You are badly misinformed. Mexico was a road-racing power throughout the 1980s, with guys like Rodolfo Gomez, Jose Gomez, Arturo Barrios, Martin Pitayo, Alejandro Cruz, and a number of others that you apparently don't know anything about.
Right. WR holders, medalists, Major Marathon champions. A prolific list of Mexico's talent. The best Marathon among them? 2:08:57, set early in his career, not years into the steady decline that comes with age. Set before EPO. And certainly not at age 40.
No guarantees that anyone is clean; steroids, amphetamines, painkillers could all have been used by anyone in the last 100 years. But Barrios is a measuring stick I use to draw a line between EPO and non EPO times.
...
Some of you are not drawing the same conclusion I am. Fine. But don't say that the discussion doesn't belong. We are in this mess because so many did not question the development of the EPO era, and are now dug in too deep. No, performances don't indicate doping directly. But to ignore them is to ignore the only data we regularly collect. To keep performance data out of the doping discussion is like taking calories out of weight loss. For Wejo, the performance data started the conversation. then he went to ask more questions. That's what needs to happen. If the follow up doesn't turn up anything, fine, but at least you pursued a more nuanced truth. Opening the conversation to the forum was another step to find more information. This process needs to happen more regularly.
Personally, I am not saying take performance data out of the equation entirely. I just don't think that it is enough to condemn someone, particularly when there is no other reason to call an individual athlete into question. I agree that we are in a hole with corruption around drug use. So fine--have the discussion. But I am not ready to condemn Espinosa on the information that is available. I suppose it's a sad consequence of federations ignoring the EPO problem (or even aiding dopers) that all we are left with is speculation of this sort, where possibly honest runners and great performances are forever called into question. This is the consequence of individual cheaters and institutions that are unwilling to be transparent and accountable.
Did he have the resources to full-time before he won NYC? It sounds like he was strapped for cash before then.
He fcking ran 2:07, retards.
The process may need to happen more regularly but it should not happen in a way that singles out a single athlete simply because his performance is better than someone thinks it should be.
Obviously some performances are so ahead of the curve that they raise questions, Beamon's long jump in Mexico City was always attributed to the affects of altitude as much as to his ability. Clayton's 2:08 has always generated discussion because it was so much faster than anyone had gone and because so much time went by without anyone matching or bettering it. Radcliffe's performance is probably in the same boat. Espinosa's time is not in that league.
Non wrote:
Is it coincidence his slowest times seem to be WC or olympic races.. Where testing is maybe a little more strict?
1995 World Champs Marathon 2:16:44 age 32
1997 World Champs Marathon DNF age 34
2000 Olympic Marathon 2:18:02 age 37
2001 World Champs 2:23:06 age 38
2004 Olympic Marathon 2:29:43 age 41
It is NOT a coincidence that they are all hot and humid championship races where the winning times are never fast (Wanjuri the ONE exception). And often not fast courses either.
Troy was Andres' agent. He the same guy! That made no sense.But I do agree with your assessment of his book. Letsrun should do a review or something.
Idiots all of you wrote:
No one not even his agent pointed out that Troy never ran the sh!t out of Andres .
newname wrote:
If you look at what I call the "Mexican Explosion" it all makes sense. EPO was available by 1989 (and it could have been earlier I don't know - I was not a doper back then?), that much is sure because the early adopters in cycling (The Dutch and Belgians) were already dying from it in 1989 and the winter of 1990. They took WAAAYYY too much of it and died in their sleep. Their were about 10 deaths. Why it was limited to riders from the Low Countries, I don't know. This much is well-documented.
It was used by some people (namely Mexicans, East Africans and the Moroccans) in 1989-90 as well. When you look at the Annual List, every yr from 1989 the 5k annual best was faster than 13:06 every year from 1989 until this year. Previous to that 13:06 had only been bested by TWO people in all of history (Moorcroft and Aouita - and Moorcroft did it just once).
In the 10k 27:20 was bested every year from 1989 until this year. In 1989 27:20 had only been bested TWICE in all of history, and by two men (Mamede and Lopes).
If you look at track running and road racing and marathon around that time, there was a "Mexican Explosion" ... there were suddenly a ton of good and great distance runners from Mexico (a nation that heretofore had very little tradition of being good at the distances.
I thought everyone knew about this, and understood its cause?
I can't say that Espinosa is/was a doper, that would be wholly unfair. I can say that JUST LIKE EPO WAS RESPONSIBLE for lowering the 10k WR 51 seconds in NINE years, it was also responsible for boosting up a whole generation of Mexicans to a level of running NOBODY in their nation had ever achieved in the previous 80 years.
Drugs were used before the Mexicans, drugs were used after. WRs were set with drugs before that era and ... well, they weren't set after that era, because it has been many years since the 1500, 2k, 3k, 2Mile, 5k and 10k were taken to levels we never imagined, and nobody has ever been able to get reasonably close since testing has become more stringent. Since those WRs were moved HUGE-amounts in the 90s and only 2 of them have been moved at all in 17 years, I feel we are STILL IN THAT ERA.
We will still be until we either ...
1) discover a new drug and break most/all of those WRs, (which means we have entered that "new-drug era", or ...
2) acknowledge that every WR is tainted, clean the slate and start over with "all-new" WRs, or ...
...well, I guess those are the only ways.
But my point is that the Mexicans weren't the only ones doing it.
Yeah, we all know that the widespread use of EPO during the 90s and early 2000s also was the reason why people ran so much faster in the marathon in those days...oh, wait...
Some on this message board have mentioned others who ran PR's for the marathon in their 40s - Jack Foster, John Campbell, Priscilla Welch, Joyce Smith. Those examples are instructive, for they follow the pattern of Kenneth Mungara: someone who took up competitive marathoning in their late 30s or early 40s. This is the opposite of Andres Espinosa, who did so in his mid 20s.
Joyce Smith ran her first marathon at age 41, Priscilla Welch quit smoking and ran her first marathon at age 35 & didn't start her elite marathon career until she was 38, Jack Foster took up running at 32 & didn't start his marathon career until he was 40, and John Campbell didn't run his first marathon until he was 35, when he still had a day job (he worked as a fisherman for 15 years).
Likewise, Mungara's first major marathon was at 35 years of age. Moreover, his PR of 2:07:36 is over a minute faster than his master's WR of 2:08:43.
Espinosa, by contrast, took up marathoning at 25, had a long string of marathons in his 20s and 30s, and except for that wind-blown Boston race in 1994, his career had no sub 2:10s until 15 years later, when at age 40 he ran 2:08:46.
And that isn't supposed to make anyone at least raise an eyebrow?
Again, Espinosa's experience is the opposite of the 5 elite athletes mentioned above.
Like others, I believe a man is innocent until proven guilty. This includes Espinosa.
But "Clerk" is right on the mark when he writes that this issue needs to be discussed. "Some of you are not drawing the same conclusion I am. Fine. But don't say that the discussion doesn't belong. We are in this mess because so many did not question the development of the EPO era, and are now dug in too deep. No, performances don't indicate doping directly. But to ignore them is to ignore the only data we regularly collect. To keep performance data out of the doping discussion is like taking calories out of weight loss. For Wejo, the performance data started the conversation. then he went to ask more questions. That's what needs to happen. If the follow up doesn't turn up anything, fine, but at least you pursued a more nuanced truth. Opening the conversation to the forum was another step to find more information. This process needs to happen more regularly."
I agree.