Ask El Guerrouj or Morceli how being "nailed on for the Olympic 1500m title the year before" worked for them the first time..
Ask El Guerrouj or Morceli how being "nailed on for the Olympic 1500m title the year before" worked for them the first time..
As it was said many times. Jakob running 3:28 with 19 is incredible!! And he did it running in front of the pack far away from the pacers. Without any draft advantage. This is even more incredible. There is a huge diference between Doha 2019 and Monaco 2020. With the carefully training of Gjert consisting in high aerobic mileage and few lactate burning intervalls, he will mature and improve. So in 2021 he is absolutely a candidate for the gold medal. He will not peak and burn out like Ryun or Kwemoi.
When i was racing, first rule of my trainer was: Don´t go out too fast that the lactate burns your legs. You will not recover and running much slower than your actual level. I don´t understand why this rule is not valid for Tim. He always go out with crazy speed and slows down and then speed up again. He is a 1:43 runner. And not a 12:40 runner. Why he is not sitting and kicking? The pacers are always wrong? It happens twice in the imposible games and in Monaco ? i dont believe that. This men are very experienced and when you tell them run 52.5 they run 52.5. A miss of two secnds is imposible. There is something strange.
Deanouk wrote:
extreme bias wrote:
His first lap was way faster than 53.1 . But since it was close to Coe's 81 split from Stockholm, adding some tenths seems to be a good idea for Deanouk.
And he just WISHES that the times are affected by the new track. To call it as a fact shows that Deanouk is very dishonest.
Lol. Nonsense. The pacer went through in 52.6, with Tim in 3rd place, at least 3-4m behind. The absolute fastest he could have been was 53.0, but more likely 53.1. He then had the good sense to slow it down dramatically on the 2nd lap to 58.4-58.5 (1:51.5 at 800m, which is about perfect for a 3:28 1500m).
Everyone knows that a newly laid Mondo WS track at Monaco (it's advertised as making athletes faster on their webpage for goodness sake), already the fastest meet of the year, together with the technologically advanced carbon plates woven into the soles of today's spikes are going to make someone run considerably faster than with tracks and spikes from 30 years ago. That is a given. At the London 2012 Olympics the track was specially 'tuned' so that the inside lane gave more energy return (for the middle and distance athletes) than the 'harder' outside lanes, which were for the benefit of quicket times in the sprints. Hence lane 1 was not used for the 100m or 200m.
The commentaters are often referring to 'this is a very fast track, and insinuated that on Friday, with Cram saying something like, "Well it is Monaco folks!".
The idea that there has been no technological advances in track surfaces and running shoes in the last 30 years is laughable. And even when comparing current tracks, the important stadiums for championships and Diamond League events will invariably have more expensive and more up to date tracks that other meets cannot keep up with.
Cheruiyot was not "at least 3-4m behind" the PM at 400m, more like around 2m, little bit more than JI was behind at the finish (0.23s). Cheruiyot's time after one lap was around 52.9.
But this is not the point at all, the point is, that you are ALWAYS stretching anything in the direction you like it more (you have not falsly written that Cheruiyot has run 52.7, but 53.1 - correct is something in the middle). And you are doing this in this case because of Coe's similarly fast (even faster) opening lap in Stockholm 81. For whatever reason you just can't appreciate that Cheruiyot has managed to run 3.5 seconds faster than Coe did after his suicidal fast opening.
For sure you just mention Cheruiyot's 800m split (around 1:51.5) in an attempt to made it look like a good pacing effort. The damage was done on the first lap - you know this.
How much tracks and/or shoes have improved in decades is just speculation, we don't have a serious method to calculate this. It could be seconds (like you try to argue) or more just tenths (as I would tend to).
Great that you mention Cram in this case, but for sure what he talks to Rieti is completely nonsense to you. But what does "well, it is Monaco" mean at all?
Are you still saying that Monaco times are not worth what the clock is showing? A 3:28.45 in Monaco is just worth 3:30 on any other CURRENT track? You have denied this heavily in another thread, now you are coming along with this again?
I obviously can't change your biased thinking in any way (Rieti no more "anomalous" than Zurich - one of your laughable statements).
Continue and measure any nanometer Coe has ever run wide (as some poster once has written) - and forget to do something similar in other cases. Add two tenths for an intermediate time if it's helpful for you, make Coe older, mention any cold he has ever had and ignore that other athletes might have sometimes similar problems. But just be aware that you sometimes look like a complete fool.
I can't understand your need to try to highten up any performance by Coe and to put down many other great performances.
Coevett wrote:
My predictions were spot on as usual. I predicted Brazier to run low 1:43, I predicted Kyle Langford to run 1:44, I predicted Jake Wightman to run 3:29 and I predicted Jakob to run 3:28.
Can you direct me to the comment where you made these predictions?
The Unkle wrote:
Coevett wrote:
My predictions were spot on as usual. I predicted Brazier to run low 1:43, I predicted Kyle Langford to run 1:44, I predicted Jake Wightman to run 3:29 and I predicted Jakob to run 3:28.
Can you direct me to the comment where you made these predictions?
Toward the bottom of page 2:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10156315&page=1John Wesley Harding wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
Can you direct me to the comment where you made these predictions?
Toward the bottom of page 2:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10156315&page=1
Lol "Tim 3:31.5" and not even top 3
The Unkle wrote:
Coevett wrote:
My predictions were spot on as usual. I predicted Brazier to run low 1:43, I predicted Kyle Langford to run 1:44, I predicted Jake Wightman to run 3:29 and I predicted Jakob to run 3:28.
Can you direct me to the comment where you made these predictions?
He also predicted that Cheruiyot is done.
extreme bias wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
Lol. Nonsense. The pacer went through in 52.6, with Tim in 3rd place, at least 3-4m behind. The absolute fastest he could have been was 53.0, but more likely 53.1. He then had the good sense to slow it down dramatically on the 2nd lap to 58.4-58.5 (1:51.5 at 800m, which is about perfect for a 3:28 1500m).
Everyone knows that a newly laid Mondo WS track at Monaco (it's advertised as making athletes faster on their webpage for goodness sake), already the fastest meet of the year, together with the technologically advanced carbon plates woven into the soles of today's spikes are going to make someone run considerably faster than with tracks and spikes from 30 years ago. That is a given. At the London 2012 Olympics the track was specially 'tuned' so that the inside lane gave more energy return (for the middle and distance athletes) than the 'harder' outside lanes, which were for the benefit of quicket times in the sprints. Hence lane 1 was not used for the 100m or 200m.
The commentaters are often referring to 'this is a very fast track, and insinuated that on Friday, with Cram saying something like, "Well it is Monaco folks!".
The idea that there has been no technological advances in track surfaces and running shoes in the last 30 years is laughable. And even when comparing current tracks, the important stadiums for championships and Diamond League events will invariably have more expensive and more up to date tracks that other meets cannot keep up with.
Cheruiyot was not "at least 3-4m behind" the PM at 400m, more like around 2m, little bit more than JI was behind at the finish (0.23s). Cheruiyot's time after one lap was around 52.9.
But this is not the point at all, the point is, that you are ALWAYS stretching anything in the direction you like it more (you have not falsly written that Cheruiyot has run 52.7, but 53.1 - correct is something in the middle). And you are doing this in this case because of Coe's similarly fast (even faster) opening lap in Stockholm 81. For whatever reason you just can't appreciate that Cheruiyot has managed to run 3.5 seconds faster than Coe did after his suicidal fast opening.
For sure you just mention Cheruiyot's 800m split (around 1:51.5) in an attempt to made it look like a good pacing effort. The damage was done on the first lap - you know this.
How much tracks and/or shoes have improved in decades is just speculation, we don't have a serious method to calculate this. It could be seconds (like you try to argue) or more just tenths (as I would tend to).
Great that you mention Cram in this case, but for sure what he talks to Rieti is completely nonsense to you. But what does "well, it is Monaco" mean at all?
Are you still saying that Monaco times are not worth what the clock is showing? A 3:28.45 in Monaco is just worth 3:30 on any other CURRENT track? You have denied this heavily in another thread, now you are coming along with this again?
I obviously can't change your biased thinking in any way (Rieti no more "anomalous" than Zurich - one of your laughable statements).
Continue and measure any nanometer Coe has ever run wide (as some poster once has written) - and forget to do something similar in other cases. Add two tenths for an intermediate time if it's helpful for you, make Coe older, mention any cold he has ever had and ignore that other athletes might have sometimes similar problems. But just be aware that you sometimes look like a complete fool.
I can't understand your need to try to highten up any performance by Coe and to put down many other great performances.
S88, you are wrong in so many ways with what you have written above. Here are just a few points:
1). I have not mentioned Coe's run in Stockholm at all in this thread. It is you who brought it up. You somehow see yourself as a mind reader!
2) You are absolutely wrong when you say Cheruiyot was 2m behind the PM at 400m! You do know that an average stride is about 2m!? Well there was the PM going through in 52.59 (52.6) with the second pacer 1.5m behind him and then at least 2m between the 2nd pacer and Tim; more than a full stride. That's a conservative 3.5m or 0.48 secs (based on that 100m section being covered in 13.8). That is twice the gap between Tim and Jakob at the end. You know that well enough. When 1 runner follows another right behind, that's 0.2 secs. There is at least 0.4 between the PM and Tim.
3)You clearly didn't understand the point I made about his 800m split, which was in context.
1:51.5 as an 800m split is perfect for running a 3:28, but if it were achieved running 55.5, 56.0.
I clearly said that his first lap was TOO FAST, but that he "had the good sense to slow it down dramatically on the 2nd lap to 58.4-58.5"
4) Cheruiyot was able to still run a 3:28 because he was paced/drafted to the bell and had the good sense to run the 2nd lap in 58.4. He wouldn't have run so fast had he followed up that 53 first lap with a 56 second lap and run it solo.
5) Cram's comments re Rieti in 86 sounded more like sour grapes as he almost lost his 1500m UK record. He'd almost broken the 1500 WR himself 2 days earlier in Brussels, so he was in great shape and a 1:43.19 shouldn't have come as a surprise.
6) Cram's comments concerning Monaco being especially 'fast' were echoed by Hutchings and have been mentioned often (on a yearly basis) by athletes in interviews and commentators alike. You would think those who actually run on it are in a better position to make comments and compare with other tracks than us observers watching from home!?
7) I have already clarified several times what I think about the Monaco track. For quite some time now it has been known that there are tracks that are tuned to benefit one group of runners over another. Some are laid with a harder base to benefit sprinters, who don't want bouncy tracks with lots of energy return. Others are kept softer to allow more energy return for middle and distance runners. A case in point is the London 2012 Olympic track (latest Mondo design, which is becoming quicker all the time), where the inside lane (lane 1) was a different composition to the other lanes. The 100m and 200m races did not use the inside lane, because sprinters running in that lane would be at a disadvantage. Lane 1 was kept bouncier to give more energy return to the athletes competing in longer events, where they tend to run mainly in lane 1. That way a meet gets fast times across the board.
https://www.mondoworldwide.com/emea/en/sport/track-and-field/mondotrack-ws/?fbclid=IwAR3G7IeV9qjFos4FvTAcRGbMELUy-HjBZHfastT6tzeQW3RYNs-w8iNSOmETaken from the link above: [-
MONDO transformed specific needs of athletes into new track technologies and applied them to the MONDOTRACK WS to optimize it for the Tokyo 2020 Games. MONDOTRACK WS is the most technologically advanced athletic track in the world.
Designed with the goal of taking human speeds to levels never reached before. A constant push toward the finish line to pass opponents and achieve personal bests: That’s what athletics is about. To provide athletes with the surface they need to reach their full potential, MONDO used the latest technology to create the perfect track. Designed for optimal athletic performance and chosen as the official track of the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, Mondotrack WS is the ultimate running track.
It continues,...
Mondotrack WS’s backing features patented Elongated Honeycomb Backing technology. The lower layer is composed of an elongated diamond-shaped geometric structure that can be deformed in three dimensions to provide a perfect combination of shock absorption, energy storage and energy return, facilitating the foot’s natural roll. When the athlete’s foot hits the surface, the air cells are compressed, absorbing the impact and converting the stored energy into the maximum amount of kinetic energy. This way, impact and vibration are minimized, movement is more efficient and the energy yield is maximized. This significantly improves athletic performance.
So please tell me that the latest Mondo tracks are not faster than tartan ones from the 80's, just as they were faster than cinder ones from the 50's and 60's!
On average, looking at stats of runners over 1500m over a period of time and comparing what they run on other tracks during the same season, there seems to be an average of about 2 secs benefit running at Monaco. I do not believe this to be entirely down to the track surface, as it will also be down to weather, quality of pacing, in depth competition, etc. But looking at stats from earlier this decade, this was what I found.
BUT, if you are comparing a track like Monaco, or Doha, or any of the other multi million dollar Mondo WS tracks laid in recent years, to a smaller meet that has Tartan synthetic used in the 80's, then yes I think they would work out faster. At a guess maybe between 1 or 2 seconds over 1500m.
8) I afford the same assessment of other athletes as I do Coe when I am aware of specifics, e.g extra distance run, and when that is the point I am making. I agreed with you on such analysis of Aouita's extra distance run in the Nice 1500m. I know more about the health/injury backgrounds of the likes of Coe, Ovett, Cram, because I am well read on them. If there isn't a biography of Bile, Gonzales, El G, etc, in the English language and I don't know that athlete A was ill on date B, then I can't really comment on it or take it into account in any sort of assessment, can I!?
9) I can't believe you are pedantic enough to still be rattling on about stating that 'Coe was almost 30' when running 3:29.77, when he was actually 29 and 11 months! Really!??
the beagle wrote:
Why are you going with what some YouTube yapper says instead of actual timing splits?
YOU claimed that the leader went through 1200m in 2:57 even. That’s how you came up with Brazier being 2:57.5.
Actual split for that guy leading at 1200m (Paulson) when he was at 1100m was 2:43.302. That’s not what some YouTuber says, it’s the actual gd split.
That means you are dumb enough to argue he ran from 1100m to 1200m in 13.7 (I can tell I have to hold your hand, so that’s calculated from 2:57.0 - 2:43.3), and you are also dumb enough not to realize it.
Further, that guys last lap was only 56.558, so if he started with a 13.7 that would be notably faster than he averaged over the last 300m (42.858) which is obviously not what happened.
What part of that don’t you follow, besides all of it that you created?
You don't seem to have a clue mate!
I'm not interested in Paulson's or any other pacer's splits. I was only at any stage referring to Brazier's splits. I gave the link to the Youtube video to show that someone else also calculated the 1100m split for Brazier as being 2:43.5.
The video shows that the PM is on the finish line/1100m split at exactly 2:43.0.
https://youtu.be/O2xNqBV8OaY?t=89At this point Brazier is in 4th place, about 5m behind the leading PM. That gives him a 1100m split of c. 2:43.6, which is backed up by the video stating 'Brazier's split was around 2:43.5'.
You claim that Paulson was in the lead at 1200m, well he was in 2nd place at 1100m, as the leader with a lap to go dropped out before reaching 1200m. It seems strange that they had a split of the 2nd pacer at the bell (neglecting to give the leader's or Brazier's splits) to 1/1000th of a second, but the 2:43.3 that you give would be about right for him. But Brazier is 2 places behind him, meaning his split would be nearer to 2:43.6.
You are relying on a supposed split given to 1/1000th of a second to support your nonsense! LOL. Please send a link to these 'official' splits given. Go on, I dare you!
Brazier's 100m from the bell to 1200m was c. 13.9. NOT 13.7. And I couldn't give a flying f*** what Paulson's corresponding split was! It is irrelevant.
Your fixation with Paulson's splits is your concern, but why you have trouble with the concept that some runners run the fastest 100m of the last lap at the beginning, is baffling. So he wasn't able to maintain the pace in the last 300m that he had in the 100m from 1100m to 1200m!? It often happens.
Was this a Jakob Ingebrigtsen thread?
forgot to add link showing 3.5 - 4m distance between pacer 1 and Tim at 400m.
https://youtu.be/sO1xWz4LDvA?t=63
Take a random point in the 30 m before that point where the gaps between the 3 athletes remain constant, and you get 0.5 secs difference between pacer 1 and Tim.
Deanouk wrote:
I'm not interested in Paulson's or any other pacer's splits. I was only at any stage referring to Brazier's splits.
Deanouk wrote:
The lead (Paulson) goes through 1200m just as clock turns 2:57.
Brazier is the same distance behind Paulson at 1200m as he is at 1100m. They ran the same time for that 100m, and you claim Paulson was 2:57.0. That's the point. I included your quote saying as much. 2:57.0 - 2:43.3 is 13.7.
Deanouk wrote:
It seems strange that they had a split of the 2nd pacer at the bell (neglecting to give the leader's or Brazier's splits)
They have splits for all of them, dumbarse.
Deanouk wrote:
You are relying on a supposed split given to 1/1000th of a second to support your nonsense! LOL. Please send a link to these 'official' splits given. Go on, I dare you!
Unlike you, I don't just make sh!t up.
Deanouk wrote:
Brazier's 100m from the bell to 1200m was c. 13.9. NOT 13.7. And I couldn't give a flying f*** what Paulson's corresponding split was! It is irrelevant.
It's relevant because they would have run the same from 1100m to 1200m. But they didn't run 13.7 or 13.9, whichever one you want to claim today. There is no way they are running sub 56 pace for that 100m - it's clear they didn't pick it up that much. No chance in hell it is under 14, and considering Brazier's last lap was 52.128, that puts him close to 38.0 at the very slowest for the final 300m. Definitely not this 38.4 BS.
The point is Paulson was not 2:57.0 and Brazier was not 2:57.5 at 1200m as you've claimed, and you'd have to be clueless about track, which you are, to think otherwise. It's like you think a clock on the screen on a stream is gospel. You are at least a few tenths off. All of your splits you give for historic races are now worth f*ckall, because you shot your credibility.
It's just completely hopeless with your bias.
Cheruiyot was little bit more than one step behind the first pacer. Definitely less than four tenths, I would estimate three.
I have not said that you mentioned Coe's 81 race. But that you changed the 400m split because it was almost as fast as Coe's (which I obviously can't know, but I'm convinced that there is a connection that you have mentioned this split at all and made it slower than it actually is). Again, you try to talk Cheruiyot's splits good. 3:28.45 after 52.9 ist just astonishing for anybody (maybe with the sole exception of you, because he realised after 400m that...).
Again and again you point the picture, that Monaco times are not worth what the clock is showing - compared to the other current tracks. If pointed on this, you always change to a comparison to 1980s tracks.
Is Monaco 2020 track faster than Zurich, Brussels, Lausanne, Berlin 2020 tracks? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, have you checked if you find this backed up in any running event, or just the 1500m? Hopefully you now bring up the new 5000m world record...
The point about the age illustrates very well your acting on this board since 10+ years. I don't know what you are talking about "almost 30... 29 and 11 months". 29 and 11 months is almost 30. But it clearly shows that you not even understand the main point.
Do you really belief you are not heavily biased in any subject where there is some relation to Coe? You are. Just look at any Rieti thread.
Freediverunner wrote:
When i was racing, first rule of my trainer was: Don´t go out too fast that the lactate burns your legs. You will not recover and running much slower than your actual level. I don´t understand why this rule is not valid for Tim. He always go out with crazy speed and slows down and then speed up again. He is a 1:43 runner. And not a 12:40 runner. Why he is not sitting and kicking? The pacers are always wrong? It happens twice in the imposible games and in Monaco ? i dont believe that. This men are very experienced and when you tell them run 52.5 they run 52.5. A miss of two secnds is imposible. There is something strange.
Well, Tim is a unique athlete. Can you recall in 2015 he went out in 51.96 in the 1600 leg of the DMR? Despite that he held on for a 3:53 split. He was only a 3:34-5 1500 runner that season. He is able to survive a breakneck pace better than most. He does not however have an explosive turn of speed. That is why Manangoi who has elite shifting abilities used to have his number. So his best route is to control the race off a quick pace. Sein was the pacemaker both times and I think is just inexperienced at it. Tim definitely wants him at 54 so he can gap Jakob at 54.5, but clearly the pacer is overexcited.
extreme-bias wrote:
It's just completely hopeless with your bias.
Cheruiyot was little bit more than one step behind the first pacer. Definitely less than four tenths, I would estimate three.
I have not said that you mentioned Coe's 81 race. But that you changed the 400m split because it was almost as fast as Coe's (which I obviously can't know, but I'm convinced that there is a connection that you have mentioned this split at all and made it slower than it actually is). Again, you try to talk Cheruiyot's splits good. 3:28.45 after 52.9 ist just astonishing for anybody (maybe with the sole exception of you, because he realised after 400m that...).
Again and again you point the picture, that Monaco times are not worth what the clock is showing - compared to the other current tracks. If pointed on this, you always change to a comparison to 1980s tracks.
Is Monaco 2020 track faster than Zurich, Brussels, Lausanne, Berlin 2020 tracks? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, have you checked if you find this backed up in any running event, or just the 1500m? Hopefully you now bring up the new 5000m world record...
The point about the age illustrates very well your acting on this board since 10+ years. I don't know what you are talking about "almost 30... 29 and 11 months". 29 and 11 months is almost 30. But it clearly shows that you not even understand the main point.
Do you really belief you are not heavily biased in any subject where there is some relation to Coe? You are. Just look at any Rieti thread.
I was wrong with first split, Cheruiyot was almost 0.5s behind first pacer.
Someone has written the official time was 52.98, don't know if this is correct.
Can you quit it with the really long, drawn out explanations. And stop quoting every single response too. You’re never gonna convince these guys you are right. Stop wasting your time.
the beagle wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
I'm not interested in Paulson's or any other pacer's splits. I was only at any stage referring to Brazier's splits.
Deanouk wrote:
The lead (Paulson) goes through 1200m just as clock turns 2:57.
Brazier is the same distance behind Paulson at 1200m as he is at 1100m. They ran the same time for that 100m, and you claim Paulson was 2:57.0. That's the point. I included your quote saying as much. 2:57.0 - 2:43.3 is 13.7.
Deanouk wrote:
It seems strange that they had a split of the 2nd pacer at the bell (neglecting to give the leader's or Brazier's splits)
They have splits for all of them, dumbarse.
https://live.athletictiming.net/meets/6159/events/211902/resultsDeanouk wrote:
You are relying on a supposed split given to 1/1000th of a second to support your nonsense! LOL. Please send a link to these 'official' splits given. Go on, I dare you!
Unlike you, I don't just make sh!t up.
Deanouk wrote:
Brazier's 100m from the bell to 1200m was c. 13.9. NOT 13.7. And I couldn't give a flying f*** what Paulson's corresponding split was! It is irrelevant.
It's relevant because they would have run the same from 1100m to 1200m. But they didn't run 13.7 or 13.9, whichever one you want to claim today. There is no way they are running sub 56 pace for that 100m - it's clear they didn't pick it up that much. No chance in hell it is under 14, and considering Brazier's last lap was 52.128, that puts him close to 38.0 at the very slowest for the final 300m. Definitely not this 38.4 BS.
The point is Paulson was not 2:57.0 and Brazier was not 2:57.5 at 1200m as you've claimed, and you'd have to be clueless about track, which you are, to think otherwise. It's like you think a clock on the screen on a stream is gospel. You are at least a few tenths off. All of your splits you give for historic races are now worth f*ckall, because you shot your credibility.
The official splits don't have their splits for 1200m! So your whole post is nonsense.
I stated that the video said Brazier's 1100m split was 2:43.5, but that I had it as more like 2:43.6. The splits given on the 'Athletic Live' gives it as 2:43.7, so I was only 0.1 secs out.
Before I even realised who Paulson is, I originally stated, "The clock doesn't show tenths, which is a bit pathetic for a top meeting, but from the seconds shown, the lead guy was 1m shy of the 1200m line at exactly 2:57 in the race." I now know that this was Paulson. If he was 1m before the line at 2:57.0, then his time at 1200m would have been 2:57.1/2:57.2. I never said that Paulson went through in 2:57.0, I wrote that the guy on the video said 'the leader went through in 2min 57' adding that this was vague and not specific. I also stated that your claim his 1100m was 2:43.3 was 'about right'. This means his 100m from 1100m to 1200m would have been 13.8/13.9.
I stressed that I didn't care what Paulson's split for that stretch was, I never actually stated that it wasn't 13.7. Rather I stated that Brazier's was 13.9 not 13.7. I still believe that his 1200m split (not listed by Athletics Live) was 2:57.5. Now that his official 1100m split was 2:43.7 (0.1 secs slower than my calculation) then his 1200m split was possibly nearer to 2:57.6. But this still gives that 100m stretch at 13.9. It also means his last 300m was 38.25 (3:35.85 - 2:57.6), which can be rounded up to 38.3. The problem with having a on screen clock only showing seconds, when all proper international meets show to tenths of seconds, is that you cannot establish what the residual error is between the on-screen clock and the actual times. It is usually spot on but can differ by a few tenths.
I originally said his last 300m was 38.3, I never said 38.4 as you now claim. That is just a blatant lie. One could suggest it was 38.2 if not choosing to round up to nearest 1/10, but it certainly wasn't 38 flat or 37 and bits as I've seen some claim.
extreme-bias wrote:
It's just completely hopeless with your bias.
Cheruiyot was little bit more than one step behind the first pacer. Definitely less than four tenths, I would estimate three.
Well you need your eyes tested. At 400m Cheruiyot was in 3rd place, and they were in a line. How can he be 1 step (c.2m) behind the first placed pacer when there is another guy between them? He must have been at least 2 strides between the leader which means 3.5-4m. 0.4secs an absolute minimum.
Coevett wrote:
But continue believing in your Alice in Wonderland world that 60 Kenyan busts in 5 years and zero busts in GB or Norway mean that Jake Wightman and the Ingebrigtsens are more likely to be doped than Tim. Continue believing on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that Western athletes are 'protected' when the reality is that the manager of the Kenyan Rio team was recently convicted of bribing athletes to give them advance warning of tests.
Karl Popper - 'what distinguishes science from non-science is falsifiability'.
That quote of Popper does not apply to your statement. What is the hypothesis here to be 'falsified'?
Maybe another Popper quote " the growth of knowledge comes through disagreement" perhaps.
But that would require you to accept the disagreements of others, so perhaps not.
Coevett is finally losing his sanity. If Cheruiyot wins in Stockolm, the Coevett will need to be checked into an insane asylum