Poll: Is Jakob's 3:43:73 mile the fastest CLEAN mark in history?

rekrunner wrote:

themildrunmaster wrote:

Upvote = Yes

Downvote = NO

And tell me WHY: Do you think El Guerrouj & Ngeny are clean or not? Do you think Jakob is clean or not?

Also how does this race stack up against the WR race?

I would say all four athletes, El G, Ngeny, Jakob and Nuguse could have produced these 3:43.xx times clean.

If we assumed a PED existed, for the elite men's world class performances in the 1500m/mile, that is powerful enough to produce significantly unnaturally fast times, and the use of this PED was and is widespread, especially during the "full-throttle era" when testing was non-existant, then statistically we should have seen many more athletes/performances, say within 4 seconds of El G's world records (i.e. sub-3:30 for 1500m and sub-3:47 for the mile).

In the 1500m, before the era of new shoes, only about 2 dozen athletes had run sub-3:30, about a dozen ran sub-3:29, and only 5 ran sub-3:28. These performances are more or less distributed evenly across the +/- 30 years since the era of Coe, Ovett, and Cram, with no obvious link to doping eras or anti-doping milestones.

This changed noticeably in recent years. Since the supershoes in the last 5 years, the number of 3:30.0 or better performances jumped from about 101 to 145 (today), or about 45%.

Nick Willis estimates that the new generation of spikes are worth some 2-3 seconds for the mile (he became a believer when he ran a 1200m time trial 2 seconds faster than expected.)

Sub-9 guy wrote:

I would tend to agree with you, and you always have something valuable to say. Notwithstanding the reality that some Norwegian cross country skiers have been caught transfusing blood in the past, I think Jakob represents a perfect combination of talent and exquisitely detailed training. And Nuguse is just a monster.

But, there’s no doubt in my mind the pace lighting and the shoes are a huge part of this phenomenon. Between the two, I’d say they’re worth a second per lap. When my daughter switched to the “bouncy shoes,” she immediately dropped six seconds in the 1600 and her training times got much faster too. That’s why the unwritten rule in women’s prep distance running, anyway, is 4:50 is the new sub-5:00 for recruiting. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. So, if this new technology is taking an otherwise 3:47 performer and turning him into a 3:43 performer, it’s believable. The same way Laros in now a sub-3:49 performer.

I would not be surprised to see Jakob run 3:25, and it is believable. But it’s also a huge function of better technology too.

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

I hate to say this but I do think it's the clean WR - but that's pure opinion.

Why do I believe performances 1 and 2 aren't clean? The era. I wrote a post on this a week or so ago about how much the 90's were in terms of an outlier decade for record breaking primarily in the 1500m (which clearly is applicable in the mile). From Bayi in 1974 through to Aouita (^^ and the last record of the 80's) the largest drop we saw in the 1500m record was 1.1 seconds when Cram broke 3.30 for the first time. And even that was an outlier as the record was only ever broken by tenths of a second on the 7 other occasions it occured. In total it went down 2.7 seconds across 17 years. In the 90's, Morceli and El G took 3.46 seconds off that last mark of the 80's across 7 years and it just can't be coincidence that the 90's was the most infamous era in endurance sports for doping - especially with respect to EPO. I loved watching El G run. I once sat next to Ngeny at Weltklasse and we both watched Hicham run under 3.27 - but history has shed some light on what almost certainly was happening back then.

Why do I think Jakob is clean? Because he is part of the smartest coaching setup in history (even more than Coe) and the technology at his disposal caters perfectly to all his strengths. Jakob can sit there and guarantee that Nguse will run at least 3.46 if he sticks to him because he knows what he can run and there is no guess work anymore. They know he can run a certain pace for a certain distance and barring an illness etc, he physiologically will have no problems handling it. And once they know that they request the most impactful tech in the history of the sport to cater exactly to their science and he goes out and executes it. It was so easy to predict what would happen today through 1200m split wise - the only guesswork was how much power he had left to get close to the record. Today it was pretty damn good - not quite good enough. I can't even imagine the confidence this provides to know that there is almost no way you can screw it up. If you know you need to run 56.0 for exactly two laps you can just stay right at the top of those yellow lights and you will run 1.52.0 for 800m (exactly like he did today to the tenth). My point is, I think that people will say "well how can they be so close to dopers times if they aren't doping" - well if those guys back in the 90's had access to the tech available now and had unlocked the science that Jakob uses (knowing his threshold with respect to speed v distance) the records would be considerably tougher. Probably 3.25.0 give or take a tenth in the 1500m and the mile would have been also about a second faster (insane to say this but I believe it). So if you believe that all things equal those records would be at those levels then it becomes highly likely that Jakob is just a super talent without the extra "stimulus" of the 90's.

This race was absolutely as good as 1999 and bigger picture even better because of the volume of guys under 3.50 (11!)

I would tend to agree with you, and you always have something valuable to say. Notwithstanding the reality that some Norwegian cross country skiers have been caught transfusing blood in the past, I think Jakob represents a perfect combination of talent and exquisitely detailed training. And Nuguse is just a monster.

But, there’s no doubt in my mind the pace lighting and the shoes are a huge part of this phenomenon. Between the two, I’d say they’re worth a second per lap. When my daughter switched to the “bouncy shoes,” she immediately dropped six seconds in the 1600 and her training times got much faster too. That’s why the unwritten rule in women’s prep distance running, anyway, is 4:50 is the new sub-5:00 for recruiting. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. So, if this new technology is taking an otherwise 3:47 performer and turning him into a 3:43 performer, it’s believable. The same way Laros in now a sub-3:49 performer.

I would not be surprised to see Jakob run 3:25, and it is believable. But it’s also a huge function of better technology too.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I burst out laughing when you started a paragraph with, "if we assume a ped existed" (only assume!) ... to produce "significantly unnaturally fast times" - and then effectively argued there isn't. Of course it can't be doping - even though it's been around for decades! You are also blithely unaware of the absurdity of arguing that there is a technology readily available in the form of shoes that will enhance performance while maintaining such performance gains are unlikely to come from doping, which is a far more comprehensive and sophisticated form of technology, because it goes far beyond anything an athlete puts on their feet.

Of course you did. You don't really know any better, because your faith is too strong and has been for too long. You are too emotionally invested in a series of myths that you have never been able to substantiate, so you hide these failures with laughter along with arrogance and insults.

Nevertheless, the way you describe your beliefs, shouldn't we expect to find a significant number of improved performances worldwide for decades -- the results of a powerful and widespread PED? Yet when looking at men's fastest performances in the 1500m/mile, we can observe an unmistakeable signficant worldwide shift in performance in the era of new shoes, that we just never saw with doping. So either 1) effective elite doping in the men's 1500m/mile was not worldwide (El G was just one of the few who doped, even during the full-throttle era), or 2) doping is not as effective in the men's 1500m/mile as the shoes, and never was, historically.

In fact, if you were not of African origin, the fastest non-African men's 1500m/mile performances peaked historically around 1985-1988, during the British-era, despite your repeated wishful suggestions that doping "is a far more comprehensive and sophisticated form of technology" -- that is until the era of new shoes. While doping was advancing worldwide in cycling, apparently in running, these significant and prolific worldwide advancements were contained in small East and North African regions, because ???

Rather than shoot down the messenger, you should go back to the drawing board, and redo your homework and then show your work.

Historical performances speak louder than popular myths.

Cheating is the new norm wrote:

FatSlowLurker wrote:

What does this even mean. Everybody at the top level has always sought out the shoes that they thought would help them to run the fastest possible. You don’t see anybody in the DL Final racing barefoot, nor in trainers. In El G’s day the shoe regarded as the fastest was probably the Jasari (the original version, not the mass produced version). In many elite races every single competitor in the race was wearing it, and it wasn’t because of the pretty colors. Steve Prefontaine quipped something about how when you’re gonna run the last lap under 60 you gotta have spikes on your feet before any of today’s competitors were even born.

Today the shoes are different. Don’t pretend they aren’t. Nobody prior to 2017 ran with carbon fiber springs attached to their feet. It’s making a mockery of the sport.