What has Alberto apparently figured out that no other coaches have.

Not saying Al's athletes are taking hornets juice, but this give you an idea of just how far runners are going to get a "perceived" edge. Lots and lots of placebo effects. The mind is more powerful than the body.

FWIW, Salazar told my father point blank in 1984 that he believes in doing everything humanly possible that is "legal" to get an edge in running. Many others have attested to this same sentiment coming from Salazar over the years. He clearly still subscribes to this school of thought with his current crop of athletes (e.g. altitude tents, thyroid meds, alter-g treadmills, etc.).

The question is how far does he really take this and how does he define the word legal? Does he use Nike's resources to develop "supplements" that provide a performance boost without being detected and rationalize "they're not testing for it, so it must be legal?" It's hard for any of us to know for sure, but I have my suspicions, especially when you consider some of his questionable statements and associations (e.g. Victor Conte).

If any of his athletes ever get caught, then we can pretty much assume they're all guilty of it. I hope this never happens though.

critical thought needed wrote:

If you need me to explain the difference between easy, difficult and impossible just let me know.

Also, what are you concluding "top 5 in world in any distance event" to mean? Top 5 runners now? Based off best marks this year? The top 5 fastest ever in each event?

why are you asking me like I made the statement? it's a quote from your favorite coach.

obviously he was talking about the top 5 in the world when he made the statement. since times have gotten faster since, it's only worse now.

would someone with his profile in the international running world have made a statement like that about a specific group of people without reason?

again, go on making stuff up for yourself. people like alberto count on your gullibility.

List of Victor Conte's clients:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030715173248/http://snac.com/athletes.htm

neutral observer wrote:

No, they don't. They make her a good national-level marathoner, not a first-tier international marathoner.

If she's not first-tier, then first-tier is very small, we're talking like 10-15 women in the entire world.

Road racers follow the money. Here is a list of the 10 highest paying marathons:

New York

London

Boston

Chicago

World Championships, Osaka

Istanbul Eurasia

Berlin

Seoul

Hamburg

Paris

You get third place at New York and Boston, you're taking home a lot of scalps. Sorry, you're just wrong about this.

Kara is undoubtedly first-tier when it comes to usa elite directors and race directors seeking to sell a narrative to their audience.

King Maker wrote:

Why does every athlete seem to be making such remarkable strides under Alberto that they were never able to make under their previous coaches? Not implying anything(seriously), what does he do so differently?

It's mostly the use of hypoxic chambers. They've figured out to adjust to a specific range of simulated altitude for a minimum duration per day (it must be at least 12 hours, not the 7-9 that most people get when they sleep in a chamber). This almost always results in a one-second-per-lap improvement if done correctly. Some people say it must be drugs, but these improvements can definitely be made without PEDs if the altitude simulation is orchestrated properly.

They aren't the only ones to have figured this out. Furthermore, a good recipe of hi-lo training at an actual high-altitude site can result in even greater improvements than they're currently getting, although it takes longer to see the benefits.

As far as the actual running itself, Al Sal does have them practice how to sprint and reduce foot contact time, which a lot of others don't do properly. Most of the day-to-day stuff is the same as what everyone else is doing these days, so it's nothing secret. Over 90% of it is their use of hypoxic chambers. The remainder comes down to a ton of perks and resources, though they do have to exactly know how to make use of those resources, at which Al Sal must be doing a good job.

Alberto's (and my) old coach, Bill Squires, said about coaching. "Get the horses together and let them run." By that he recognized the value and fast, serious, ambitious runners inspiring each other, challenging each other, and helping each other. Squires knew that out of earshot of the coach the runners talked about running and learned from each other as well as from the coach as the coach learned from the runners. It made a precious feedback loop. I watched this happen time and again at workouts when Alberto, Rodgers, Meyers, Hodgie, and others trained together. In my own coaching of the Greater Boston Track Club I call the principle, critical mass. But it is the same idea, you get the horses together and let 'em run.

Tom

ps my horses aren't as fast as Alberto's.

so is patti plumer. your point?

Maybe the odds are not as wild as we think. Maybe you really CAN take the fittest kid on the soccer field or the fastest kid in the gym class mile, give him world class training, and in 4 years produce a 13:37 guy and in 8 years have him down to 27:10. Maybe people with world class potential are more common than we think.

Rupp is kind of like the ultimate science experiment. Take the best runner at your school, give him the ultimate training with the ultimate resources, and see what develops. None of the other studs - Ritz, Hall, Webb, Teg, Solinsky - had Alberto freaking Salazar as their high school coaches. None of them had a 10 year plan mapped out at age 17, from which there has been little or no divergence.

This is like Seb Coe and his father all over again. This is what long-term planning and consistency produces.[/quote]

-------------------------------------------------------------

At about the same time Al attempted the same with at least one female athlete who, like Galen, was a soccer player and attended the same school. Didn't pan out so well for her, because she not only was a bit of a head case (re: running), but really just liked soccer a whole lot more. But I think it supports the idea that part of Al's success is gathering talent, and in the case of Galen, recognizing potential talent.

wefyrhiorfjkl wrote:

so is patti plumer. your point?

If you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas.

He is not breaking any rules except the unwritten rule of ethics which states unfair advantages are wrong. This is a page ripped straight out of Coach Ma or Lesse Virren, who were not breaking any rules at the time. That is why there is zero sanctions associated with these two. Anybody who thinks this is not the philosophy Al Sal follows needs only to look at the words that have come from his own mouth in the past.

Years of Coaching wrote:

Stolen Bikes -

I'll tell you this. The training definitely isn't the answer. As far as training technique and training methodology, Salazar actually knows less and has less coaching experience than other coaches. Runners training together??? Kara Goucher trains with who? male rabbits maybe? Yoder Begley? She used to have a hard time breaking 34 minute for 10K on the roads. Now she's on the verge of breaking 31 minutes.

Salazar's training isn't that effective.

The Shumacker guys, well, they've trained together in the past. Their improvement? not training technique either.

Thus, let's remove training techniques, solid training plans, methods, or whatever off the equation because that isn't the reason.

Doyou have a better answer, idiot?

original variety wrote:

neutral observer wrote:

No, they don't. They make her a good national-level marathoner, not a first-tier international marathoner.

If she's not first-tier, then first-tier is very small, we're talking like 10-15 women in the entire world.

You get third place at New York and Boston, you're taking home a lot of scalps. Sorry, you're just wrong about this.

This wasn't the main point of my original post, which said, correctly, Salazar has not yet coached a marathoner to the same kind of success that his athletes have had at distances up to the half-marathon.

But, since you ask, the IAAF considers top-tier to be top 30 worldwide by time for a given calendar year. If you ever have the chance to work with an athlete of this caliber you will find that when they reach this bracket the regulations change with regard to drug testing, athlete representation and national federation involvement.

Last year, for example, in addition to the World Half bronze, Ritz was ranked 5th in the 5000 m and 14th in the 10000 m. Outstanding. Kara herself was ranked 8th at the half-marathon last year but only 54th in the marathon. In 2008 she was ranked 11th at 10000 m; she did end up ranked 27th in the marathon in 2008, so strictly speaking you are correct that she managed to cling on to the bottom rung of the top tier that year but you wouldn't seriously contend that such a standing is on the same level as making the worldwide top 10, would you?

It's a good result, no doubt, and 3rd place in two domestic marathons is also very good, but they are nowhere near the same caliber as her WC medal or 10000 m and half-marathon rankings or those of Salazar's other athletes.

Which brings me back to my original speculation, that it will be very interesting to see if Salazar is able to break through in his coaching with Dathan in New York.

Stolen Bikes Ride Faster wrote:

Seriously though, from what I understand he has his athletes do everything to the edge of the law/rules. Constant blood work. Thyroid levels a little low/high...bam, thyroid meds (all registered with WADA, IAAF, USATF, etc). Testosterone levels a bit below what the rules allow...bam, testosterone meds (all registered with WADA). Altitude tents, Alter-G, etc, etc.

Everything they do is within the rules, but they push right to the limit of the rules.

I don't know about "thyroid meds," but I'm a bit skeptical about your assertion that WADA permits "testosterone meds" to be administered to boost testosterone levels up to "what the rules allow." In fact, I'm not aware of any maximum testosterone levels under current WADA rules. What's your source for this information?

I do wonder about some of the other performance-enhancing practices, especially so-called "altitude tents," which I think are more accurately described (in most cases) as nitrogen-doping mechanisms used to stimulate EPO production. I'm very interested in finding out which runners (especially, although not exclusively, American and British runners) are using them. They may not be banned, but I'm confident that they enhance performance, and I'd rather cheer for athletes who don't rely on such devices. I really don't think that they're good for the sport.

It's immediately obvious that almost no one here has any idea what they're talking about. But continue speculating as you wish.

To answer the original question: Salazar inspires athletes to believe they're absolutely as ready as they can be, builds a group that works off one another, and trains athletes to run quickly (a strangely neglected aspect of most coaching ). Most of the success of his athletes is attributable to those things (and yes, that includes altitude tents, GS, ect). Does this include so called unfair advantages? really though, the whole idea of talent is an "unfair advantage"; the entire conceit of "unfair advantages" is the last resort of the petty, jealous, and unsuccessful who want to believe something other than their own mediocrity held them back. All the altitude tents, masseurs, thyroid medicine, and such can't do a thing for an athlete who doesn't work hard and show up when it matters, and Salazar does an exceptional job making sure his athletes do both those things.

NONE of what you write necessarily negates the possibility that Salazar's athletes are using PEDs which provide the frosting on the cake. After all, Ben Johnson and other PED users may have worked hard and believed in themselves, but these are necessary but not sufficient for stellar performances. Yes, talent is an advantage. But PEDs, confidence, hard work and talent may lead to great achievement.

look. there's no proof of Salazar's athletes using PEDs. I have no doubts he's been connected to some people (although elite athletics is a small enough world I doubt anyone isn't). Since there's simply no way for Salazar and his athletes to defend themselves (not failing tests just means better doping in this worldview) it's kinda an empty accusation with no way of determining guilt or innocence.

For the accusers, there's the pleasure of making an irrefutable claim that allows them to be the imperious critic. And to then mock anyone who could believe that someone isn't as naive and foolish -- all this with no proof. If the claim isn't falsifiable, don't make it, because it's pointless and intellectually vapid. So please either list the failed tests (which would mean Salazar's athletes were violating current rules) or stop posting the endless PED spam.

I guess there is no proof that Lance Armstrong has failed drug tests, is there? This doesn't change reality. Salazar himself was a doper as an athlete. Why would he be above suspicion as a coach? Just because he has his athletes use PEDs doesn't necessarily mean he is not a good coach. It may actually corroborate his entitlement to such approbation in some eyes.