You've got nothing. For NCAA runners to match what he did they would have to dope without a doubt. That doesn't mean he was.
I've got you. I never said anything about NCAA runners matching his time. You are horrible with numbers and with words. It's 1 a.m. Put the bottle down and get some sleep.
The only thing you've got is air. I didn't say Coe was doped to run what he did. He may have been. But for any college athlete today to match him they would be. Also, to beat the best today he would have to dope, as they are.
1:41.73 while running wide in the curve -worth 1:41.5
2:12.18 - still no. 2 all-time
3:31.95 - after absolute ridiculous splits, definitely at least capable of 3:30.0
3:47.33
For sure he would be strong candidate today for any 800m title and he also would be in the mix for 1500m golds.
For you he was not necessarily doping in 1981, but he would need to to win today. You are obviously stupid.
He has been surpassed by several runners today over the 800 and he is over 4 seconds slower than the best today over the 1500. Yep - he would have to dope to beat them.
In 43 years, he has been surpassed by nobody in the 800m. The small improvements in time are more than explainable by all the improvements in shoes, tracks and so on.
He is 3 seconds slower over 1500m than the best today (your old friend from Norway), not over 4. Learn to calculate.
43 years after Coe has run his time (worth around 1:41.5 while running wide in the curve)
All the improvements of shoes, tracks and so on, how much do you give for this combined? 0.5 seconds? 0.01 seconds?
With his unique sprint finishes which Coe has shown in 1981, with his 2:12.18 (worth around 1:41.8) and his 1500m/Mile times, he wouldn't be a Gold contender now?
He would be if he was doped as they are.
With his level of fitness which he has had in 1981, he wouldn't be a Gold contender now?
He has been surpassed by several runners today over the 800 and he is over 4 seconds slower than the best today over the 1500. Yep - he would have to dope to beat them.
In 43 years, he has been surpassed by nobody in the 800m. The small improvements in time are more than explainable by all the improvements in shoes, tracks and so on.
He is 3 seconds slower over 1500m than the best today (your old friend from Norway), not over 4. Learn to calculate.
In 43 years, he has been surpassed by nobody in the 800m. The small improvements in time are more than explainable by all the improvements in shoes, tracks and so on.
He is 3 seconds slower over 1500m than the best today (your old friend from Norway), not over 4. Learn to calculate.
Athletes don't use drugs to impair their health or breach standards of sportsmanship but to make performance gains.
But if some of the drugs are potentially ineffective, athletes risk harming themselves by increasing the doses beyond what is healthy, and/or by long term use of ineffective drugs.
You said "it wouldn't win now", but this old 40+ year old performance, before the EPO-era, on an old 40+ year old track would still win many races in this modern era.
Yes, he could probably win the NCAA'S (except for Hoey). I said he isn't as fast as the best in this era. That is a fact. To beat them he would have to dope as they do.
I've got you. I never said anything about NCAA runners matching his time. You are horrible with numbers and with words. It's 1 a.m. Put the bottle down and get some sleep.
The only thing you've got is air. I didn't say Coe was doped to run what he did. He may have been. But for any college athlete today to match him they would be. Also, to beat the best today he would have to dope, as they are.
You are right I have air. You probably don't have enough as you are braindead.
Yes. It takes a special kind of stupid to claim that a guy who ran 1:41.73 almost 44 years ago wouldn't be competitive with 1:41.1-3 runners today. It also takes a special kind of stupid to turn a thread discussing a half-marathon world record into a discussion about the 800m That kind of stupid, ladies and gentlemen, is Armstronglivs.
Yes. It takes a special kind of stupid to claim that a guy who ran 1:41.73 almost 44 years ago wouldn't be competitive with 1:41.1-3 runners today. It also takes a special kind of stupid to turn a thread discussing a half-marathon world record into a discussion about the 800m That kind of stupid, ladies and gentlemen, is Armstronglivs.
Yes, you are that kind of stupid - because that's exactly what you've done to the thread. I didn't say Coe wouldn't be "competitive" - what's that? Failing to place in championship final? Coming 8th? I said he wouldn't beat the best today unless he doped - as they clearly do.
Yes, he could probably win the NCAA'S (except for Hoey). I said he isn't as fast as the best in this era. That is a fact. To beat them he would have to dope as they do.
You said "it (1:41.73) wouldn't win now".
The are several runners today faster than his best, so the reasonable assumption is he wouldn't win against them. But I'm sure he would have every chance if he was on what they are.
Athletes don't use drugs to impair their health or breach standards of sportsmanship but to make performance gains.
But if some of the drugs are potentially ineffective, athletes risk harming themselves by increasing the doses beyond what is healthy, and/or by long term use of ineffective drugs.
You're assuming the drugs are ineffective. Decades of doping by countless athletes suggest they aren't. WADA takes a similar view, or it wouldn't be actively opposed to unfair advantage through drugs.
The are several runners today faster than his best, so the reasonable assumption is he wouldn't win against them. But I'm sure he would have every chance if he was on what they are.