I'm convinced that Chepngetich's 2:09 = Paula's 2:15 adjusted for SuperShoes. Paula's 2:!5 was such an outlier for so long that others struggled to get within 2 minutes of it. So if you believe one is/was on PEDs, then naturally it stands to reason that the other is/was. Conversely if you believe one is/was clean, then it stands to reason that the other is/was as well. Question is whether Ruth's 2:09 is a one-off outlier or if (a) she'll be able to repeat it, and (b) whether we'll have a flood of similar performances from other athletes.
My take: they're both probably pharmaceutically enhanced performances.
paula had grey area salazar type soft blood doping. = gunpowder
epo and test and HGH are absolute = TNT. x 5 in women.
realize these chicks can go 208 at least on the super sauce. now. and go for a brisk jog after.
that is the same as the best american men with 27x 10k.
kapish?
I think what we saw yesterday is example of what might have happened had the Chinese women's crew from the '90s not been stopped in it's tracks.
Whatever they were doing at that time was unprecedented, such that they managed to turn the performance dial up so high that the Chinese authorities began asking questions. Those who recall the details of their performances will know that they were easily on track to run the track times we've been seeing in the past few years-- 30 years ago, and in conventional shoes. Wang Yunxia ran a solo 29:30, going 15:00/14:30 with a 58 secs final 400. And she was 25, and it was her 5th race of the meet (1500 H and F, 3k H and F, then 10k). It and some of the other performances at the same meet were so preposterous people thought they may have been faked using a shortened track.
The point, of course, is that there have long been doping regimes that can push performances-- in women, at least-- to the point of absurdity, such that the first people to adopt them make everyone else look like children.
Of course the new WR can seem unbilievable, but one of the reasons is that the most part of runners (and coaches...) don't have a real idea about which percentage of speed of the PB of 10000m is possible to maintain in a full marathon when the athlete is specifically prepared for the full distance (I mean REALLY prepared, not to THINK that is prepared.....).
I want to give PB of European athletes (after this we can speak of African, but I prefer to stay in the field of western runners) for 10000m, HM and Marathon, with the percentage of speed athletes are able to run comparing with the speed for the marathon.
HM / 10000m : 97% - Mar / 10000m : 93.4% - Mar / HM : 96.3 %
We can see that the average of speed specialized marathon runners can develop (compared with their PB in 10000m) can be about 93%, while the percentage of speed used for running HM (from 10000m) is around 97%, and HM-Marathon is 96%.
This means that athletes preparing marathon, comparing their PB in 10000m and the possible PB in marathon, can run with proper training in the following times :
28'00" (94% = 2'58"1) in 2:05 - 2:06
28'20" (94% = 3'00"2) in 2:06:30 - 2:07
28'40" (94% = 3'02"3) in 2:08 - 2:08:30
29'00" (94% = 3'04"5) in 2:09 - 2:09:30
29'20" (94% = 3'06"6) in 2:10:30 - 2:11
29'40" (94% = 3'08"7) in 2:12:30 - 2:13:0
30'00" (94% = 3'10"8) in 2:14 - 2:15
This means that in many Countries (particularly in US and UK) at the moment there is not a correct idea of the performances athletes can achieve, according their PB in 10 km, if start to do proper training, without thinking that workouts like 3 times 3 miles at Marathon Pace with 1 mile recovery at 80% of MP are something specific : if there is specific speed, the volume of training and the length of the workout is not enough ; if on the contrary length and volume are enough, the speed is too slow and it's not possible to have metabolic adaptation to the distance at given pace.
Then why do this athletes pbs not fit in anywhere close to your projections
Who are these 14min and 29min runners going sub 2:10. List them please and list their track progression.
Ruth is way ahead of the WRs for both these distances as well as the HM, and went flat out at HM PB pace. That has never eve been done, and is physically impossible
Yuki Kawauchi ran 2:08 in old racing flats (Sortiemagic) with a 13:58/29:02. He also did a bunch of 800s in his off season and never broke 2.
He later improved his PR to 2:07 with a 28:53 in supershoes.
Thats why I asked about track progression, Kawauchi was never a track runner of note at all, doing mega mileage. All these top marathon runners have a serious track pedigree.
Finally, someone sensible and balanced. I sometimes wonder how a country can possibly elect a narcissistic, hateful megalomaniac, and then I read the comments on here. I realise I should just not read them. Ciao.
Who are these 14min and 29min runners going sub 2:10. List them please and list their track progression.
Ruth is way ahead of the WRs for both these distances as well as the HM, and went flat out at HM PB pace. That has never eve been done, and is physically impossible
Yuki Kawauchi ran 2:08 in old racing flats (Sortiemagic) with a 13:58/29:02. He also did a bunch of 800s in his off season and never broke 2.
He later improved his PR to 2:07 with a 28:53 in supershoes.
Thats why I asked about track progression, Kawauchi was never a track runner of note at all, doing mega mileage. All these top marathon runners have a serious track pedigree.
neither was Ruth afaik. Another case in point: Naoko Takahashi. Not sub-210, but she's the first woman to go under 2:20. Normally that requires at least a 30-low 10k, especially without supershoes. But her life-time PR was 31:47. Unlike Kawauchi, she actually ran a lot of track. There used to be footage of her running 3000m on YT.
tbh, if doping is so rampant, that's basically a level-playing field at least at the elite level. If we're talking about health, it's their bodies, their choice. Why can't we just enjoy the show? Athletes are basically just entertainers, not some kinds of mystic higher beings
You're opinion is not very nuanced.
First off and most obviously, someone should not have to risk their health and lifespan to succeed in track and field.
Secondly, PEDs are not fair at all, some people respond much better to PEDs than others. Rich people have access to better drugs, doctors, etc. This makes doping safer and more effective.
Lastly, PEDs make the sport boring. Most people don't watch the WWE for a reason. If athletes were allowed to full throttle dope, the same ones would win every time. The same dudes win the Mr.Olympia competition every year.
WADA has done a mediocre job since Covid stopping athletes from doping. It very clearly protects certain athletes and countries for political reasons.
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
So cheating is cool then? Paula Radcliffe’s now quaint record was probablycertainly doped too, just as a certain j hull and george bell. That now looks like one syringe in a sea of millions. Stop distracting from the point.
You should forward those questions to the fervent supporters of kelly hodges, george bell, jess hull and the golden poster child of white western doping, the norwegian.
Well, impossible may be a stretch, but it would be interesting to take 10 top marathon runners, male and female and tell them to race the first half at precisely their Half p.b. What would happen? I mean even for non-elites this would be a disaster.
Look Mr PD, consider taking a leaf out of our highly esteemed antidoping luminary Armstrong below!!!! Look at how he reasons and persuades holistically:
"It isn't incredibly more difficult to use drugs than in former decades. Drug use is more sophisticated than antidoping, it is always ahead - and this from the former head of WADA. Doping is like the shoes, but advancing more continuously and is way more scientifically advanced. There are few variations in the supershoes but the estimated illicit drugs available are over hundred at any one time and most are undetectable. If it were not so sports doping wouldn't be the billion dollar black market it has been reliably estimated to be. Valerie Adams may well have been one of the few top athletes that chose not to go down that path - or she would have likely been the world record holder, like Crouser, who I wouldn't put money on being clean."
I was unimpressed with the high density of opinion and low factual content. You seem highly persuadable by such posts and posters.
that is the same as the best american men with 27x 10k.
kapish?
You guys need to stop using the results of american 27:xx guys in marathon as a proof these times are impossible. USA is the more than obvious outlier there with its complete inability to convert 10K speed to marathon performance. This is an unique situation that isn't replicated anywhere else in the world.
Not a very compelling link when we are talking about actual competition.
"However, there is limited consensus in the literature regarding its true performance-enhancing effects. In fact, some studies suggest there is no conclusive evidence;"
"Overall, there is low-to-moderate quality evidence suggesting rHuEPO may be more beneficial than placebo in enhancing haematological parameters, pulmonary measures, maximal power output and time to exhaustion independent of dosage. However, these improvements are almost exclusively seen during maximal exercise intensities, which may be less relevant to athletic competition conditions."
"Due to heterogeneity among trials, more high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes in conditions that mirror actual competition are needed to further elucidate these effects."
To "further elucidate" is to add clarifying details, not to alter the general picture let alone contradict its message. It would be helpful if you had a clearer grasp of the English language and what the writers are in fact saying.
I'm wondering, did you read what the "writers are in fact saying"? Can you summarize what has been elucidated so far?
I don't attempt to "alter the general picture", but on the contrary find myself largely, if not completely, in agreement with the writers, and their detailed assessment of the low-to-moderate quality evidence, and the need for higher quality evidence, and especially the discussion of the many limitations that still exist with the remarkably few studies that met their inclusion criteria.
With respect to endurance performance, the writers concluded: "Athletic performance mostly appears similar between placebo and intervention groups during submaximal exercise conditions, which may be more relevant to performance in sporting competitions, especially in endurance sports."
Of course the new WR can seem unbilievable, but one of the reasons is that the most part of runners (and coaches...) don't have a real idea about which percentage of speed of the PB of 10000m is possible to maintain in a full marathon when the athlete is specifically prepared for the full distance (I mean REALLY prepared, not to THINK that is prepared.....).
I want to give PB of European athletes (after this we can speak of African, but I prefer to stay in the field of western runners) for 10000m, HM and Marathon, with the percentage of speed athletes are able to run comparing with the speed for the marathon.
HM / 10000m : 97% - Mar / 10000m : 93.4% - Mar / HM : 96.3 %
We can see that the average of speed specialized marathon runners can develop (compared with their PB in 10000m) can be about 93%, while the percentage of speed used for running HM (from 10000m) is around 97%, and HM-Marathon is 96%.
This means that athletes preparing marathon, comparing their PB in 10000m and the possible PB in marathon, can run with proper training in the following times :
28'00" (94% = 2'58"1) in 2:05 - 2:06
28'20" (94% = 3'00"2) in 2:06:30 - 2:07
28'40" (94% = 3'02"3) in 2:08 - 2:08:30
29'00" (94% = 3'04"5) in 2:09 - 2:09:30
29'20" (94% = 3'06"6) in 2:10:30 - 2:11
29'40" (94% = 3'08"7) in 2:12:30 - 2:13:0
30'00" (94% = 3'10"8) in 2:14 - 2:15
This means that in many Countries (particularly in US and UK) at the moment there is not a correct idea of the performances athletes can achieve, according their PB in 10 km, if start to do proper training, without thinking that workouts like 3 times 3 miles at Marathon Pace with 1 mile recovery at 80% of MP are something specific : if there is specific speed, the volume of training and the length of the workout is not enough ; if on the contrary length and volume are enough, the speed is too slow and it's not possible to have metabolic adaptation to the distance at given pace.
Here's a telling stat. Chepngetich ran exactly 2:22 in 3 out of 4 consecutive marathons. Then she's eventually popping a 209? HAHA. Disgusting.
Great point. ^ 3 marathons at 2:22…..then, the 4th marathon is 2:09. That massive and sudden improvement of 13 minutes - considering a cluster of marathon PRs were around 2:22 - is suspicious.
Averaging sub 5 minute miles for a marathon is unreal. Something is up, reminds me of when the road 10k record women's record was set. One of the girls already popped like last week.
One thing that makes things a little more believable is these women train with 2:05 men marathon so they are pulled along every workout - plus the shoes, altitude, and I imagine some PEDs.
I’d like to say something about 5 min. miles by a woman marathon runner. I live in the Boston area and every year my wife and I go the 40 km mark, near the end of a long downhill section. In 2014, as Rita Jeptoo ran by, I remarked to my wife how strong and powerful she looked, in fact I guesstimated correctly she was close to 5 flat pace. How naive and fooled I was! Needless to say, I’m now a converted cynic. The shoes of course have had a big effect, it’s just that the unbelievabity has been raised a notch or two.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.