Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

I like that: missing a record attempt and by a substantial margin "fits in perfectly with the goals of modern training". Running much slower than you would hope is clearly a very realisable goal. In your world, failure equates with success - it has to.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I said the opposite -- that going for the 3000m record fits in perfectly with the principles of modern training, as he EXTENDS his SPECIFIC pace from 1500m to 3000m to 5000m/10000m.

A 7:33 also satisfies these principles.

I like that: missing a record attempt and by a substantial margin "fits in perfectly with the goals of modern training". Running much slower than you would hope is clearly a very realisable goal. In your world, failure equates with success - it has to.

As usual, the only way you can attempt to dispute me is to misquote me.

I did not say "goals of modern training", nor that getting the record was a goal.

I said "going for the 3000m record fits". This is true, regardless of succeeding or failing, because it is the attempt itself which fits both PACE and DISTANCE guidance.

Your comment is all the more puzzling because you know what Cheptegei said in the pre-race interview about his goals for the race.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I like that: missing a record attempt and by a substantial margin "fits in perfectly with the goals of modern training". Running much slower than you would hope is clearly a very realisable goal. In your world, failure equates with success - it has to.

As usual, the only way you can attempt to dispute me is to misquote me.

I did not say "goals of modern training", nor that getting the record was a goal.

I said "going for the 3000m record fits". This is true, regardless of succeeding or failing, because it is the attempt itself which fits both PACE and DISTANCE guidance.

Your comment is all the more puzzling because you know what Cheptegei said in the pre-race interview about his goals for the race.

"...going for the 3000m record fits in perfectly with the principles of modern training,"(quote)

Do those 'principles' mean missing the record? And by nearly the length of the straight?

Armstronglivs wrote:

"...going for the 3000m record fits in perfectly with the principles of modern training,"(quote)

Do those 'principles' mean missing the record? And by nearly the length of the straight?

Yes it can.

If you actually let yourself understand the discussions you participate in, and didn't get in your own way, you wouldn't need to ask basic questions about a methodology that have already been answered many times in many ways.

One more time, the "principles" can mean finishing as fast as 7:10, or as slow as 7:55, as the pace is still SPECIFIC.

What is important is:

- pace SPECIFIC to 5000m target race pace

- as the training progresses, the distance is increasing towards SPECIFIC target race distance

Achieving the record would have been icing on the cake, but he has still taken the cake and eaten it without the frosting.

This thread explains all there is to know about Armstrong and athletics.

He is stuck in the past. Anyone running faster than the athletes from his golden days is a doper.

That's how his simple mind "works".

fshd wrote:

This thread explains all there is to know about Armstrong and athletics.

He is stuck in the past. Anyone running faster than the athletes from his golden days is a doper.

That's how his simple mind "works".

Another thread rekrunner’ed.

It gets old.

fshd wrote:

This thread explains all there is to know about Armstrong and athletics.

He is stuck in the past. Anyone running faster than the athletes from his golden days is a doper.

That's how his simple mind "works".

My "simple mind" expects that "modern training" could produce a better result than missing a world record attempt by the length of the straight.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"...going for the 3000m record fits in perfectly with the principles of modern training,"(quote)

Do those 'principles' mean missing the record? And by nearly the length of the straight?

Yes it can.

If you actually let yourself understand the discussions you participate in, and didn't get in your own way, you wouldn't need to ask basic questions about a methodology that have already been answered many times in many ways.

One more time, the "principles" can mean finishing as fast as 7:10, or as slow as 7:55, as the pace is still SPECIFIC.

What is important is:

- pace SPECIFIC to 5000m target race pace

- as the training progresses, the distance is increasing towards SPECIFIC target race distance

Achieving the record would have been icing on the cake, but he has still taken the cake and eaten it without the frosting.

So what is the "cake" he has eaten? He missed the world record by 13 secs. That must have been very tasty for him.

So if it doesn't matter whether he runs 7.10 or 7.55 - as you claim - because it's all about achieving a strange thing called "specific pace" - then it means the actual result is irrelevant. I doubt that he or any serious athlete would agree with you.

But you also claim to know that his intention was to run at a "pace specific to 5000 target race pace". You know that - how? So he simply wanted to run the 3k at 5k pace - in a 3k record attempt? And yet he also ran the first 4 laps in 3.56. How is sub-4 for the mile "specific" to a 5k?

You have argued previously that his 3.37 for the 1500 was practise for the 3k record - which he failed to get - and now his 3k time is practise for running the 5k. That's the great thing about your "modern training" - no matter how slow you run it's always good practise for a longer distance. In old-fashioned training it was simply chalked up as a fail.

same ol wrote:

fshd wrote:

This thread explains all there is to know about Armstrong and athletics.

He is stuck in the past. Anyone running faster than the athletes from his golden days is a doper.

That's how his simple mind "works".

Another thread rekrunner’ed.

It gets old.

Not nearly as old as baseless accusations of doping from those with no real knowledge, because someone ran fast, or in this case, ran slow.

But I guess it depends on your point of view.

I asked for facts, and I got Armstrongliv'd, and I did not get any facts linking elite performance to doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

My "simple mind" expects that "modern training" could produce a better result than missing a world record attempt by the length of the straight.

Even Lydiard made a distinction between peaking for the important races, and the disposable off-event races in the early season as part of training.

You got it right -- the actual result of this 3000m race is irrelevant.

I think every athlete and every coach would agree that these early season races in off-events are not important, except for their training value towards something much bigger.

Maybe you are unaware that the big event this year is the Olympics, in about 10 weeks.

Cheptegei will not run the 1500m or the 3000m -- he will run his main events: the 5000m/10000m.

The cake here is training -- this was a good workout for the real goal -- the Olympics.

Armstronglivs wrote:

... no matter how slow you run it's always good practise for a longer distance. In old-fashioned training it was simply chalked up as a fail.

Speaking of "fail", I should remind everyone that Cheptegei actually won this race, and by a lot.

He won by an 8 second margin, over Paul Chelimo, who ran 10 seconds slower than his 7:31.57 PB.

I guess it must be really old-fashioned thinking that would chalk up a race win, by 50+ meters, from a guy who "blew up" after 4 laps, as a fail.

not necessarily...

First of all, his 1500 PB is 3:37.

Secondly, The Kenetic Energy to run at the faster velocity may may exceed his capacity to maintain it. KE = 1/2(mv^2) where KE is Kenetic Energy, m is mass, and v is velocity (meters/second).

lets say JC is 50 Kg. running at 12:35 for 5000m is 6.622 m/s. Therefore the KE is 50(43.824)/2 = 2191/2 = 1095.5. To increase that to 3:40 per 1500, which is 12:13 for 5000, which is 6.82 m/s. The formula's result is now 50(46.512)/2 = 2325/2 = 1162.5. That is a 6.14% increase in energy. It doesn't seem like much, but we are talking about running at the redline. A 400meter runner who has a best of 45.3 seconds can easily run 48 seconds. But to jump up that 6% to bring it to 45 is taxing to the point of near failure. My point is that when JC ran his 12:35, he was likely at a redline for him: That's 2:31 per 1000meters. to jump that up to 2:26 per 1000 meters is probably beyond his threshold. After-all his 1500 PB is only 3:37, which is 2:22.xx per 1000m. He's maxed out. He's redlining. His talent is not his speed but his ability to approach the redline at a high level and hold on

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My "simple mind" expects that "modern training" could produce a better result than missing a world record attempt by the length of the straight.

Even Lydiard made a distinction between peaking for the important races, and the disposable off-event races in the early season as part of training.

I don't recall he advocated failing in world record attempts as part of his training. But keep failing with your arguments- it's the only thing you succeed at.

And if he loses at the Olympics? I guess that will just be "a workout for the real goal" of the following Olympics. According to your perceptions, he can never lose. Just another workout.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

... no matter how slow you run it's always good practise for a longer distance. In old-fashioned training it was simply chalked up as a fail.

Speaking of "fail", I should remind everyone that Cheptegei actually won this race, and by a lot.

He won by an 8 second margin, over Paul Chelimo, who ran 10 seconds slower than his 7:31.57 PB.

I guess it must be really old-fashioned thinking that would chalk up a race win, by 50+ meters, from a guy who "blew up" after 4 laps, as a fail.

Silly us. The thread is about beating Komen's world record, and Cheptegei had himself announced an attempt. But his real goal was just to beat the runner behind him in a 3k race - whoever he was.

I like the way rekrunner shifts the goal posts for Cheptegei - just like he always does for his losing arguments.

I thought you were an expert on Lydiard.

Lydiard was a master at peaking for the important races, and he often used early season races in other events as training for some specific attribute. Winning these early races was of secondary importance, behind training.

That is your argument.

A loss at the Olympics will be a failure to achieve the goal of the year.

You are confusing threads.

This thread was about "Cheptegei is suspicious" based on a slow 1500m.

The other thread was about a 3000m world record attempt.

And your so dishonest about what Cheptegei announced, considering you yourself posted repeatedly about how he downplayed his chances at the world record.

You can only "win" when you lie, i.e. now about what my goalposts are.

My goalpost in this thread was two-fold: 1) Do you have any facts? and 2) explaining how the principles of modern training favor 5000m SPECIFIC paces, i.e. a slow 1500m.

Cheptegei's paces for both 1500m and 3000m are easily explained by modern training.

He succeeded at SPECIFIC INTENSITY, and then at EXTENSION.

Getting the world record was never my goalpost for Cheptegei.

I predicted a Geb-esque and Bekele-esque performance, but didn't rule out a world record.

No one considers winning a race by 50m over someone with a better PB as a "failure".

I know you have trouble keeping up but the discussion had moved to Cheptegei's wr attempt. He missed the record by 13 secs. Only you can argue that Cheptegei didn't fail because he won the race, Shifting the goalposts - as you do. You previously said he had a very good chance of beating a "soft world record", that he was likely capable of 7.11 based in his 5k and 10k performances, and we could expect a 7.23 performance, for which his 3.37 for a 1500 was preparation for wr pace. Ouch. Three strikes and you're out. If winning the race was the objective Cheptegei wouldn't have announced a record attempt, gone out at wr pace and basically blown up halfway.

You're quite right that Lydiard advocated targeting races - which is why he wouldn't have advocated a wr attempt unless the athlete was at peak fitness and had a very good chance of taking it. Cheptegei failed also by Lydiard training standards. But keep telling us what "modern training" can do. It seems the main thing is ensuring an athlete is at the peak of their doping cycle. Another fail there by Cheptegei. And you.