You compared a strong finish over 2.195km in a marathon with an much stronger finish over 400m in a 1500m race.
I put it in perspective: the portion of the race which Assefa ran at this faster pace than her average was comparable to 78m over 1500m, not 400m like you wrote (why 400m and not 800m? or 1200m?).
And the comparison to 1500m is not running at 3:26 or 3:27 pace (El G or Ingebbrigtsen, like you wrote), but around 3:38 or 3:39 pace.
Her finish is not comparable to running the last 400m of a WR 1500m race at 3:26/27 pace, but finishing the last 78m at 3:38/39 pace - did you understand now?
Nothing new that you get mad about simple facts. Because you are not interested in facts but just in keeping to your point made, and also because it's way beyond your understanding, which you know.
You are just repeating what you have failed to understand. Of course you are.
YOU compared Assefa's marathon finish over the last 2.195km with a 400m finish at male WR breakers speed in a 1500m WR.
I showed you that the two are completely different efforts.
Assefa's pace over the last 2.195km was much slower than Kipchoge's pace in his WR. And 400m in a 1500m for sure is way more than 2.195km in a Marathon.
Your comparison was nonsense - as usual.
That you don't have any interest just to re-think your comparison just illustrates again that you have no interest to discuss the subject at all.
Assefa's performance was extraordinary, but not anywhere near to Kipchoge's level.
You are just repeating what you have failed to understand. Of course you are.
YOU compared Assefa's marathon finish over the last 2.195km with a 400m finish at male WR breakers speed in a 1500m WR.
I showed you that the two are completely different efforts.
Assefa's pace over the last 2.195km was much slower than Kipchoge's pace in his WR. And 400m in a 1500m for sure is way more than 2.195km in a Marathon.
Your comparison was nonsense - as usual.
That you don't have any interest just to re-think your comparison just illustrates again that you have no interest to discuss the subject at all.
Assefa's performance was extraordinary, but not anywhere near to Kipchoge's level.
She was at his level over the last kilometre - Assefa ran 3:02 to Kipchoge's 3:00 - and that is the point you cannot and will not get. You are incapable of grasping the comparison between a woman 1500 metre runner finishing as fast as the fastest male and a woman marathon runner doing the same. You slither around it because neither effort can be justified if the woman is clean. And Assefa has shown she isn't.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
YOU compared Assefa's marathon finish over the last 2.195km with a 400m finish at male WR breakers speed in a 1500m WR.
I showed you that the two are completely different efforts.
Assefa's pace over the last 2.195km was much slower than Kipchoge's pace in his WR. And 400m in a 1500m for sure is way more than 2.195km in a Marathon.
Your comparison was nonsense - as usual.
That you don't have any interest just to re-think your comparison just illustrates again that you have no interest to discuss the subject at all.
Assefa's performance was extraordinary, but not anywhere near to Kipchoge's level.
She was at his level over the last kilometre - Assefa ran 3:02 to Kipchoge's 3:00 - and that is the point you cannot and will not get. You are incapable of grasping the comparison between a woman 1500 metre runner finishing as fast as the fastest male and a woman marathon runner doing the same. You slither around it because neither effort can be justified if the woman is clean. And Assefa has shown she isn't.
I can grasp very well what she did: after running 40km at 3:07.8/km pace, she finished the last 2.195m at 3:02.2/km pace. No need that you repeat it a dozent of times (don't think too much of your own needs), I knew this fact since I saw the splits after the race.
It's some indication that Assefa on this day was capable to run faster (2:11:30?).
You compared her effort to running the last 400m of a 1500m WR at El Gs/Ingebrigtsen's pace (3:26/27). I clarified that this comparison is nonsense. The equivalent would be more like finishing the last 78m of a 1500m WR at 3:38/39 pace.
You don't say a single word to your wrong comparison - because you don't have any interest in correct facts and probably also because you just can't understand what was wrong in your comparison.
You can use correct comparisons to underline that you think she was doping. Wrong requirements are worthless.
Your reply will come soon, it will contain the same what you have stated now several times (as you do always when profed to be wrong).
She was at his level over the last kilometre - Assefa ran 3:02 to Kipchoge's 3:00 - and that is the point you cannot and will not get. You are incapable of grasping the comparison between a woman 1500 metre runner finishing as fast as the fastest male and a woman marathon runner doing the same. You slither around it because neither effort can be justified if the woman is clean. And Assefa has shown she isn't.
I can grasp very well what she did: after running 40km at 3:07.8/km pace, she finished the last 2.195m at 3:02.2/km pace. No need that you repeat it a dozent of times (don't think too much of your own needs), I knew this fact since I saw the splits after the race.
It's some indication that Assefa on this day was capable to run faster (2:11:30?).
You compared her effort to running the last 400m of a 1500m WR at El Gs/Ingebrigtsen's pace (3:26/27). I clarified that this comparison is nonsense. The equivalent would be more like finishing the last 78m of a 1500m WR at 3:38/39 pace.
You don't say a single word to your wrong comparison - because you don't have any interest in correct facts and probably also because you just can't understand what was wrong in your comparison.
You can use correct comparisons to underline that you think she was doping. Wrong requirements are worthless.
Your reply will come soon, it will contain the same what you have stated now several times (as you do always when profed to be wrong).
The point I was making that you are simply too dense to grasp is that there is as much credibility in a woman marathon runner closing the final stages of the race at the same speed as the fastest man as a woman 1500 runner doing the same in a 1500 race. Neither race is about 1 kilometre or 400 metres - it is about comparable speed in the closing stages of a race that is either a marathon or a md race. Your evasive pedantry about that only shows how you wish to duck the only plausible explanation.
But if I try to simplify the comparison, so that even you might understand, how is it is credible that a woman 1500 runner should close (at whatever the precise distance) at the same speed as the fastest man in history while she also runs a world record? The relevant comparison to Assefa is not the exact distance equivalent to a kilometre in a 1500 race, it is that in a race of sustained world-record effort the woman runner is finishing the end stage at the speed of the fastest man. It is obvious that it cries out doping, just as it has with Assefa.
I can grasp very well what she did: after running 40km at 3:07.8/km pace, she finished the last 2.195m at 3:02.2/km pace. No need that you repeat it a dozent of times (don't think too much of your own needs), I knew this fact since I saw the splits after the race.
It's some indication that Assefa on this day was capable to run faster (2:11:30?).
You compared her effort to running the last 400m of a 1500m WR at El Gs/Ingebrigtsen's pace (3:26/27). I clarified that this comparison is nonsense. The equivalent would be more like finishing the last 78m of a 1500m WR at 3:38/39 pace.
You don't say a single word to your wrong comparison - because you don't have any interest in correct facts and probably also because you just can't understand what was wrong in your comparison.
You can use correct comparisons to underline that you think she was doping. Wrong requirements are worthless.
Your reply will come soon, it will contain the same what you have stated now several times (as you do always when profed to be wrong).
The point I was making that you are simply too dense to grasp is that there is as much credibility in a woman marathon runner closing the final stages of the race at the same speed as the fastest man as a woman 1500 runner doing the same in a 1500 race. Neither race is about 1 kilometre or 400 metres - it is about comparable speed in the closing stages of a race that is either a marathon or a md race. Your evasive pedantry about that only shows how you wish to duck the only plausible explanation.
But if I try to simplify the comparison, so that even you might understand, how is it is credible that a woman 1500 runner should close (at whatever the precise distance) at the same speed as the fastest man in history while she also runs a world record? The relevant comparison to Assefa is not the exact distance equivalent to a kilometre in a 1500 race, it is that in a race of sustained world-record effort the woman runner is finishing the end stage at the speed of the fastest man. It is obvious that it cries out doping, just as it has with Assefa.
Regardless how often you state the opposite: I very well grasp what you are trying to say.
You don't have any trust in Assefa's performance to be achieved without doping. That's OK, no problem with that. She might be doped. I don't know if that's true (I'm sceptical of this performance), you pretend to know it (btw., you claimed to detect a doped athlete when you see one - why are you not conatcting WADA? they could safe a lot of money for all the tests, they should just ask you).
Completely independent from this: you did a completely misleading and wrong comparison. This was my point, but since you have absolutely no interest in correct facts, you will change this again and again.
The last 78m (not 400m) at 3:38/39 pace (not 3:26/27 pace) in a 1500m WR race, this would be a fair comparison.
What do you think Assefa could have run in Berlin with perfect splits?
How do you rank the new women's Marathon WR compared to 3:49.11, 8:06.11, 14:00.26, 30:01.03, 1:02.52?
Much stronger? And the old Marathon WR of 2:14:04?
I think those records now are relatively close to each other - Wang's curious 8:06.11 still the best.
How do you rank Snell's 1:44.3 61 years ago? You quoted Lydiard, who said on modern tracks (of the 80s?) it would be "a couple of seconds" faster. How fast on todays tracks with modern shoes, wavelight, many attempts? Definitely faster than Rudisha. But he surely was clean, right? And any sub 1:44 African today is doped, correct?
Since T Assefa was paced by a man for over 25 miles, her 2:11:xx Marathon is over 10% slower than Eliud Kipchoge's 1:59:xx Marathon. He was also paced by men over 25 miles. Who cares if T Assefa raced a portion faster than E Kipchoge! Some elite women, sub-50 400m athletes pace their 400m better than some men, sub-45 400m athletes. Some women 400m sprinters sprint final 100m sub-13 seconds. Many male sub-45 400m athletes sprint final 100m slower than 13 seconds. So what! Elite 400m men are more than 10% faster than elite women 400m athletes; elite male Marathoners are more than 10% faster than elite female Marathoners.
Since T Assefa was paced by a man for over 25 miles, her 2:11:xx Marathon is over 10% slower than Eliud Kipchoge's 1:59:xx Marathon. He was also paced by men over 25 miles. Who cares if T Assefa raced a portion faster than E Kipchoge! Some elite women, sub-50 400m athletes pace their 400m better than some men, sub-45 400m athletes. Some women 400m sprinters sprint final 100m sub-13 seconds. Many male sub-45 400m athletes sprint final 100m slower than 13 seconds. So what! Elite 400m men are more than 10% faster than elite women 400m athletes; elite male Marathoners are more than 10% faster than elite female Marathoners.
All this is pointless. She is faster than one of the greatest male marathon runners in history, her late countryman Abebe Bikila. He was a highly-trained athlete. The only way a woman can be better than a male runner of his calibre is by massively doping. It is irrelevant that men today are also considerably faster. It has been achieved the same way - and it isn't footwear, which add little more to performance than shorts or singlets. Running is legs, lungs and heart - all amenable to doping. That is where most of the gains have come from.
Since T Assefa was paced by a man for over 25 miles, her 2:11:xx Marathon is over 10% slower than Eliud Kipchoge's 1:59:xx Marathon. He was also paced by men over 25 miles. Who cares if T Assefa raced a portion faster than E Kipchoge! Some elite women, sub-50 400m athletes pace their 400m better than some men, sub-45 400m athletes. Some women 400m sprinters sprint final 100m sub-13 seconds. Many male sub-45 400m athletes sprint final 100m slower than 13 seconds. So what! Elite 400m men are more than 10% faster than elite women 400m athletes; elite male Marathoners are more than 10% faster than elite female Marathoners.
All this is pointless. She is faster than one of the greatest male marathon runners in history, her late countryman Abebe Bikila. He was a highly-trained athlete. The only way a woman can be better than a male runner of his calibre is by massively doping. It is irrelevant that men today are also considerably faster. It has been achieved the same way - and it isn't footwear, which add little more to performance than shorts or singlets. Running is legs, lungs and heart - all amenable to doping. That is where most of the gains have come from.
Your posts are pointless. You keep polluting thread after thread with the exact same crap, day after day. You are annoying.
Yes, doping exists, and lots of elites and non-elites dope. Now STFU.
Give Bikila pacemakers, a fast Spring/Autumn marathon, modern training, massage, nutrition, and a pair of Vaporflies, and he ia easily a 2:06 man, at least.
The point I was making that you are simply too dense to grasp is that there is as much credibility in a woman marathon runner closing the final stages of the race at the same speed as the fastest man as a woman 1500 runner doing the same in a 1500 race. Neither race is about 1 kilometre or 400 metres - it is about comparable speed in the closing stages of a race that is either a marathon or a md race. Your evasive pedantry about that only shows how you wish to duck the only plausible explanation.
But if I try to simplify the comparison, so that even you might understand, how is it is credible that a woman 1500 runner should close (at whatever the precise distance) at the same speed as the fastest man in history while she also runs a world record? The relevant comparison to Assefa is not the exact distance equivalent to a kilometre in a 1500 race, it is that in a race of sustained world-record effort the woman runner is finishing the end stage at the speed of the fastest man. It is obvious that it cries out doping, just as it has with Assefa.
Regardless how often you state the opposite: I very well grasp what you are trying to say.
You don't have any trust in Assefa's performance to be achieved without doping. That's OK, no problem with that. She might be doped. I don't know if that's true (I'm sceptical of this performance), you pretend to know it (btw., you claimed to detect a doped athlete when you see one - why are you not conatcting WADA? they could safe a lot of money for all the tests, they should just ask you).
Completely independent from this: you did a completely misleading and wrong comparison. This was my point, but since you have absolutely no interest in correct facts, you will change this again and again.
The last 78m (not 400m) at 3:38/39 pace (not 3:26/27 pace) in a 1500m WR race, this would be a fair comparison.
What do you think Assefa could have run in Berlin with perfect splits?
How do you rank the new women's Marathon WR compared to 3:49.11, 8:06.11, 14:00.26, 30:01.03, 1:02.52?
Much stronger? And the old Marathon WR of 2:14:04?
I think those records now are relatively close to each other - Wang's curious 8:06.11 still the best.
How do you rank Snell's 1:44.3 61 years ago? You quoted Lydiard, who said on modern tracks (of the 80s?) it would be "a couple of seconds" faster. How fast on todays tracks with modern shoes, wavelight, many attempts? Definitely faster than Rudisha. But he surely was clean, right? And any sub 1:44 African today is doped, correct?
You ask half a dozen questions - which are mostly irrelevant. The subject is Assefa. She has shown without a doubt what doping can do in this sport.
- All the women's world records you compare her performance with are also doped. So was the previous marathon record.
- Snell's 800m record was estimated by Lydiard to be worth perhaps 1:42-43 on modern tracks. That doesn't make him as fast as Rudisha (who may well have been doped. I would say that everyone behind him in the 2012 final certainly was). But no one in the sport has seriously suggested Snell (or any other md runner in the early '60's) was doped.
- I do not say every African under 1:44 is doped but I suspect any 18 year old anywhere who is that fast probably will be.
My view is that because of the effects of doping and how it has spread through the sport that we haven't seen clean world records in the sport for decades. Athletes in the '60's and '70's trained hard; shoes are not all that different today and don't boost performance like some claim here - that is marketing hype. The difference is that tracks have improved a lot since then. That is where the gains should have come from but doping has surpassed everything else for the literally unbelievable improvements in athletic performance in recent decades. Running has become a doping circus - like many other sports.
All this is pointless. She is faster than one of the greatest male marathon runners in history, her late countryman Abebe Bikila. He was a highly-trained athlete. The only way a woman can be better than a male runner of his calibre is by massively doping. It is irrelevant that men today are also considerably faster. It has been achieved the same way - and it isn't footwear, which add little more to performance than shorts or singlets. Running is legs, lungs and heart - all amenable to doping. That is where most of the gains have come from.
Your posts are pointless. You keep polluting thread after thread with the exact same crap, day after day. You are annoying.
Yes, doping exists, and lots of elites and non-elites dope. Now STFU.
Give Bikila pacemakers, a fast Spring/Autumn marathon, modern training, massage, nutrition, and a pair of Vaporflies, and he ia easily a 2:06 man, at least.
No, he isn't. They don't make that kind of difference. That is the mythology of this place to justify what is otherwise the result of doping.
Last 2k at 3’00 for kipchoge- 3’02 for assefa. Still hanging onto that clean thread?
Clean or not- you can't compare to Kipchoge.
How fast would he have closed if he runners with him and ahead of him to push him?
He was alone.
How fast would she have run if it was a women's only start?
No male pacers for 26.2 miles. Leading all the way, alone at the end.
She ran 2:15 no factor in these new shoes and the pacing and 2:11:53 doesn't seem impossible.
This is still nonsense. Regardless of whether Kipchoge was running alone or not there is no way a female runner should be matching him for speed at that stage of the race - especially when she has been running at well below wr pace - unless she is doped. I don't think some of you understand the unbridgeable difference between the best male and female athletes.
How fast would he have closed if he runners with him and ahead of him to push him?
He was alone.
How fast would she have run if it was a women's only start?
No male pacers for 26.2 miles. Leading all the way, alone at the end.
She ran 2:15 no factor in these new shoes and the pacing and 2:11:53 doesn't seem impossible.
This is still nonsense. Regardless of whether Kipchoge was running alone or not there is no way a female runner should be matching him for speed at that stage of the race - especially when she has been running at well below wr pace - unless she is doped. I don't think some of you understand the unbridgeable difference between the best male and female athletes.
Her pace for the last 2195m was 5.8% slower than Kipchoge's average during his WR and 7.1% slower than Kipchoge's average in Vienna.
Her average pace for the Marathon was 8.9% slower than Kipchoge's average during his WR and 10.2% slower than Kipchoge's in Vienna.
Why don't you use those numbers? Not extreme enough?
The new WR is in line with the other distance records, while looking on the new shoe technology, maybe still little behind the others. No need to bring male comparisons into the equation.
Faster than Bikila! - What a nonsensical point. Either Bikila was just an average Ethiopian or today he easily would run 2:05.
Regardless how often you state the opposite: I very well grasp what you are trying to say.
You don't have any trust in Assefa's performance to be achieved without doping. That's OK, no problem with that. She might be doped. I don't know if that's true (I'm sceptical of this performance), you pretend to know it (btw., you claimed to detect a doped athlete when you see one - why are you not conatcting WADA? they could safe a lot of money for all the tests, they should just ask you).
Completely independent from this: you did a completely misleading and wrong comparison. This was my point, but since you have absolutely no interest in correct facts, you will change this again and again.
The last 78m (not 400m) at 3:38/39 pace (not 3:26/27 pace) in a 1500m WR race, this would be a fair comparison.
What do you think Assefa could have run in Berlin with perfect splits?
How do you rank the new women's Marathon WR compared to 3:49.11, 8:06.11, 14:00.26, 30:01.03, 1:02.52?
Much stronger? And the old Marathon WR of 2:14:04?
I think those records now are relatively close to each other - Wang's curious 8:06.11 still the best.
How do you rank Snell's 1:44.3 61 years ago? You quoted Lydiard, who said on modern tracks (of the 80s?) it would be "a couple of seconds" faster. How fast on todays tracks with modern shoes, wavelight, many attempts? Definitely faster than Rudisha. But he surely was clean, right? And any sub 1:44 African today is doped, correct?
You ask half a dozen questions - which are mostly irrelevant. The subject is Assefa. She has shown without a doubt what doping can do in this sport.
- All the women's world records you compare her performance with are also doped. So was the previous marathon record.
- Snell's 800m record was estimated by Lydiard to be worth perhaps 1:42-43 on modern tracks. That doesn't make him as fast as Rudisha (who may well have been doped. I would say that everyone behind him in the 2012 final certainly was). But no one in the sport has seriously suggested Snell (or any other md runner in the early '60's) was doped.
- I do not say every African under 1:44 is doped but I suspect any 18 year old anywhere who is that fast probably will be.
My view is that because of the effects of doping and how it has spread through the sport that we haven't seen clean world records in the sport for decades. Athletes in the '60's and '70's trained hard; shoes are not all that different today and don't boost performance like some claim here - that is marketing hype. The difference is that tracks have improved a lot since then. That is where the gains should have come from but doping has surpassed everything else for the literally unbelievable improvements in athletic performance in recent decades. Running has become a doping circus - like many other sports.
You are the one who started heighten up Assefa's performance with your stupid male comparisons and an attempt to put it in superhuman league. So it's just fair to make the facts correct. Her performance is on par to the other distance records.
1:42-43? For early 80s tracks, correct? That's a "couple of seconds" for you? Good to know. 1.3 seconds? For all the effects? For sure much more.
What about Walker's 4:51.52, 47 years ago? Current tracks, shoes, wavelight, pacemakers - 4:46? But surely he was clean. New Zealanders don't do bad things. Oh, wait...
This is still nonsense. Regardless of whether Kipchoge was running alone or not there is no way a female runner should be matching him for speed at that stage of the race - especially when she has been running at well below wr pace - unless she is doped. I don't think some of you understand the unbridgeable difference between the best male and female athletes.
Her pace for the last 2195m was 5.8% slower than Kipchoge's average during his WR and 7.1% slower than Kipchoge's average in Vienna.
Her average pace for the Marathon was 8.9% slower than Kipchoge's average during his WR and 10.2% slower than Kipchoge's in Vienna.
Why don't you use those numbers? Not extreme enough?
The new WR is in line with the other distance records, while looking on the new shoe technology, maybe still little behind the others. No need to bring male comparisons into the equation.
Faster than Bikila! - What a nonsensical point. Either Bikila was just an average Ethiopian or today he easily would run 2:05.
Finished as strong as Kipchoge - just wrong.
What a stupid deflection. The comparison being made in this thread is not between Kipchoge and Assefa for the full distance - that is a complete red-herring - but over the last kilometre, where she was running at virtually the same speed as the winner of the male race while she was also well under the women's world record. That you cannot see the absurdity in that shows you are blinded by your partiality, that if an African woman sets a world mark - no matter how ludicrous - it must be clean. Your further comments about the great Bikila show how little you understand the sport and that you probably have no experience of anything before this century.
You ask half a dozen questions - which are mostly irrelevant. The subject is Assefa. She has shown without a doubt what doping can do in this sport.
- All the women's world records you compare her performance with are also doped. So was the previous marathon record.
- Snell's 800m record was estimated by Lydiard to be worth perhaps 1:42-43 on modern tracks. That doesn't make him as fast as Rudisha (who may well have been doped. I would say that everyone behind him in the 2012 final certainly was). But no one in the sport has seriously suggested Snell (or any other md runner in the early '60's) was doped.
- I do not say every African under 1:44 is doped but I suspect any 18 year old anywhere who is that fast probably will be.
My view is that because of the effects of doping and how it has spread through the sport that we haven't seen clean world records in the sport for decades. Athletes in the '60's and '70's trained hard; shoes are not all that different today and don't boost performance like some claim here - that is marketing hype. The difference is that tracks have improved a lot since then. That is where the gains should have come from but doping has surpassed everything else for the literally unbelievable improvements in athletic performance in recent decades. Running has become a doping circus - like many other sports.
You are the one who started heighten up Assefa's performance with your stupid male comparisons and an attempt to put it in superhuman league. So it's just fair to make the facts correct. Her performance is on par to the other distance records.
1:42-43? For early 80s tracks, correct? That's a "couple of seconds" for you? Good to know. 1.3 seconds? For all the effects? For sure much more.
What about Walker's 4:51.52, 47 years ago? Current tracks, shoes, wavelight, pacemakers - 4:46? But surely he was clean. New Zealanders don't do bad things. Oh, wait...
With regard to Assefa, you use inevitably doped performances as a benchmark for what you consider to be a performance that is "on a par". She has destroyed the previous world mark while running faster than one of the greatest male marathon runners in history. It shows how farcical the sport has become.
The estimation of Snell's 1:44.3 on grass as being worth 1:42-high today came from Lydiard, as I said. Whatever. It would be significantly faster today because of the surface he ran on, which has long been superseded by modern tracks.
The factors you suggest would improve Walker's 2k time are mostly bs. The tracks and shoes aren't significantly better and it isn't wavelight that sets records. It is continually improved doping that is behind the increasingly faster times.
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.
Your posts are pointless. You keep polluting thread after thread with the exact same crap, day after day. You are annoying.
Yes, doping exists, and lots of elites and non-elites dope. Now STFU.
Give Bikila pacemakers, a fast Spring/Autumn marathon, modern training, massage, nutrition, and a pair of Vaporflies, and he ia easily a 2:06 man, at least.
No, he isn't. They don't make that kind of difference. That is the mythology of this place to justify what is otherwise the result of doping.
Bikila finished 2 marathons in his career, both at the Olympics.
Now compare Kipchoge's Olympic marathon times (2:08:44 and 2:08:38) with his Berlin times (2:04:05, 2:04:00, 2:03:32, 2:01:39, 2:01:09, 2:02:42).
The only mythology here is that you know anything about elite training and performance. You shout "doping!" because you are ignorant.
How fast would he have closed if he runners with him and ahead of him to push him?
He was alone.
How fast would she have run if it was a women's only start?
No male pacers for 26.2 miles. Leading all the way, alone at the end.
She ran 2:15 no factor in these new shoes and the pacing and 2:11:53 doesn't seem impossible.
Not only was she alone from the point of view of competitors, she already had the race, the money and the WR safe and sound. So what reason on earth would she be wanting to run 'that ' fast, but Kipchoge doesn't? She not only does that but harddly puffs, with every indication of going much faster given the progression.
No use repeating ad nauseum, but no one has even spoken about the gap in her career and in the progression from 800m to marathon....none