POLL: Does anyone think Makhloufi is clean?

Have to agree with you, SprintGeezer. People resorting to splits are suppressing some telling facts of the story with this race--Makhloufi's form, his acceleration, his lack of visible fatigue even at the end (despite what some are saying).

I recognize why people say the rest of the field underperformed, but part of the reason for that is because a lot of the field tried to match Makhloufi's 1200-1400 speed, which is extremely difficult--regardless of your 800 time--to maintain for 300 meters after a 400 right around 56 seconds. The degree to which a lot of runners collapsed in the final 100m is testament to how grueling Makhloufi's sprint pace was.

People are writing, "Oh, but he slowed down to 14 seconds"--that's undeniable, but he was not pushed that final stretch in the least. Meanwhile, what was the final 100 for Kiplagat, who put up a pretty valiant effort to hang with Makhloufi?

Another thing: some people are citing Makhloufi's 1:43 800 performance as an aid to his victory. But no one is talking about how he took his 800 time down *3 seconds* this year.

faster than lightning wrote:

If Makhloufi is dirty for running too fast at the end then Manzano is also dirty. Centrowitz is semi-dirty, finishing fast, but not as fast as the first.

Accusers on letsrun are total fools. They believe rveryone is dirty except the person you are hoping will win.

This ^^

With one added twist: apparently Makhloufi is also dirty by default because he's Algerian. And so is Iguider because he's Moroccan. Now let me think... which country has had the most doping suspensions in track and field... hmmm...

Poss clean... wrote:

I looked up his PRs on IAAF site. Ran world junior XC and nothing special.

In 2009 he ran 3:34

In 2011 he ran 3:32

In 2012 he ran 3:30.

Nothing suspicious about these times by themselves. I have no idea whether he doped or not but from the surface of it, it would not appear like he has made progress at a rate which isn't commensurate with hard work alone. I could be completely wrong but the numbers don't raise suspicion.

THERE ARE LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS

from iaaf

800 Metres

2012 1:43.88 Porto Novo 29/06/2012

2011 1:46.32 Maputo 13/09/2011

1500 Metres

2012 3:30.80 Monaco 20/07/2012

2011 3:34.4 Alger 09/07/2011

2010 3:32.94 Monaco 22/07/2010

2009 3:34.34 Roma 10/07/2009

we are talking THREE YEARS OF steady-state journeyman transforming into GOAT finisher.

Do I *think* he's dirty? Yes. Is there definitive proof of this? Of course not. It's nothing more than a hunch. Until there's a lot more evidence implicating him, it's still just speculation and a hunch.

But that being said, I also think Lance Armstrong is dirty. As far as I know, he's never tested positive, either. But it's my hunch that Lance is dirty.

Thanks for all the work on splits. Interesting stuff. I agree that part of the reason why Makhloufi looked so good was because the others underperformed slightly. I disagree with you slightly about whether he could have gone faster or not. (Whether or not he looked easy in the final 100m is really a moot point. What we do know for sure is that he wasn't pushed and had won the race with 100m to go.)

Moreover, while a discussion of splits is interesting, it is not conclusive either way and certainly not the only bit of evidence. The improvement compared to last season is a factor. The anecdotal evidence is relevant. Our knowledge of the heritage and background of other proven drug cheats is also relevant.

What is your explanation for their underperformance then? Either there is a phsycological impact (they choked) or there is a physiological impact (they were too tired after the semis or they timed their peak wrong or something). Personally I think there was a bit of choking ("how can we beat this doper...") and also they just could not live with his 1200-1300 split. It destroyed them.

quote]deanouk wrote:

You're right about how I feel about Makhloufi and whether or not he cheated. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, like I am with some runners, but that doesn't justify the OTT criticism and mud slinging that is going on on these boards.

[/quote]

Personally I don't mind the mud-slinging, although I admit that there are doubts either way. The reality of the situation is that the mud-slinging is not just on these boards though. Steve Cram's commentary was tantamount to mud-slinging. The way that none of the other athletes congratulated him was tantamount to mudslinging. The IAAF trying to stop him starting the race on a pretext is mudslinging.

The other thing is, the anonymous voice of Letsrun has track record of being proved right. When Rashid Ramzi won gold in Helsinki and Beijing, the consensus of the message board was immediate, just like it is today. At that time too, there were people who defended Ramzi, who accused us of mudslinging etc. I just hope we get proved right about Lance and Carmelita.

Given that the mainstream media is often a bit too hesitant to make drug accusations, I think the onus is on forums such as this one to discuss openly our suspicions, even in the florid language of letsrun.

quote]deanouk wrote:

What I do know is that I am far more confident that some illustrious runners from the last 20 years were more likely to have doped than Makhloufi.

[/quote]

Like who? This might well be the case, but it has no impact on Makhloufi.

quote]deanouk wrote:

As I said on one of the threads on here, if he now goes on to run a 3:27 somewhere before the end of the summer, then I might very likely revise my view on his authenticity. What he did yesterday is in keeping with the form of a 3:30 athlete. Yes, he put in a 12.4 100m split (which is an incredible turn of speed) but this was after 1200m. He then slowed quite dramatically afterwards, and not through choice until maybe the last 10m.

I remember Ovett ran a 12.0 100m stretch in the 77 World Cup 1500m in a similar overall time to Makhloufi's (Ovett ran 3:34.4) at 1300m, which to me is more impressive as he had to run a further 100m before doing it. Ovett also slowed, with a last 100m of 13.1. And that was a pb for Ovett at the time. He had never run as fast as that before and there was no suggestion before that race that he could do that to the likes of Walker & Wessinghage. It was truly incredible, but made the more so because Wessinghage at that stage was not the runner he was to become in 1980 (3:31.5) and Walker wasn't the athlete he'd been in 76.

Coe also ran a faster 100m stretch than Makhloufi, when he ran the last 100m in Moscow in 12.1. Again, more impressive than the Algerian's burst, because it came after 1400m, an additional 200m further on in the race than when Makhloufi "exploded"

Coe's 12.1 came after a 12.9 round the curve, Makhloufi's 12.4 came after a 13.8 after the curve.

I repeat, Makhloufi's run was not as awesome as it looked or what people are suggesting. It's not his fault that everyone around him ran poorly.

And again, stats don't lie. They are about the only way one can compare 2 different races (to an extent). Certainly it is a more accurate way than stating Makhloufi demolished some 3:28 and 3:29 runners, therefore he must be doped.

[/quote]

The stats don't lie, I agree. There have been more extraodinary middle distance performances in hitory which we think of as clean. Coe was pushed to the line in his final 100m in Moscow. Makhloufi wasn't really pushed even from 200m to go yesterday.

Harry--

Your post is the first legitimate attempt I have read, that attempts to explain the relative difference between Makhloufi and the field.

However, the question that I put to deanouk on another thread still stands: what was the source of Makhloufi's singular immunity to the conditions that affected the rest of the field?

The suggestion that "the field underperformed" must at once be questioned. "Underperformed" relative to what standard? Relative to their own PB's? That isn't a good standard, because conditions are not directly comparable.

The perversity here is that the real reference standard for performance in that race is the performance of Makhloufi himself! It is only according to Makhloufi's performance that the entirety of the field "underperformed" in this race.

Is it more reasonable to suggest that every other athlete "underperformed" relative to Makhloufi, or that Makhloufi "overperformed" relative to all the other athletes? Makhloufi is clearly the EXCEPTION. IMHO it is unreasonable to use an exception as a reference standard. For one thing, it is not informative--if the average performance of the field is used instead, both over- and under-performances can be evidenced and analyzed.

By choosing the exceptional outlier as the reference standard, one is assuming what one is trying to prove, if one is trying to prove that he is clean. In fact, such a move neatly makes the very suggestion that he must justify his performance a non-sequitur! It totally forecloses consideration of the issue, before it has even begun.

It is that foreclosure of dialogue that I reject entirely.

The field didn't "underperform", Makhloufi "overperformed", and it doesn't matter where that overperformance was most manifested--near the end of the curve of Blake's 19.26, or between 1200-1400 of Makhloufi's 1500m. And you're absolutely correct IMO that Makhloufi could have gone much faster in the last 100, as well, which would have only amplified the degree of his overperformance.

Again, deanouk--what is your explanation for Makhloufi's singular overperformance?

Getting Real wrote:

I mean this was WAY-Y-Y more obvious to everyone than Ramzi.

And it was obvious from the semi on.

The most unanimous "doesn't pass the sniff / eye test" run since Ben Johnson.

This!

You can slice and dice his PRs any way you want and compare them to American runners, and accuse the critics of being racist or egocentric, but the bottom line is it just doesn't pass the sniff test for so many.

It's the same as with the 16yo Chinese girl swimmer -- the moment I saw her pull away with ease over a single length of the pool, it raised my eyebrows as something that is just not normal. I mean, Kiprop has never looked that good. Did El G ever make it look that easy??

I'm not convicting the guy; merely defending people's right and tendency to be suspicious.

Aquafina wrote:

If you dont at least suspect something you don't have a working knowledge of the history of the sport.

Thank you.

When you've been watching the sport for 40+ years, you become able to spot certain things.

Mike Honcho wrote:

My take is that he is dirty because

1. He claims he was "injured so badly he had to stop running"

2. Because it was a "Rashid Ramzi" flashback all over again; he just looked to easy

3. The guy really came out of nowwhere, as where manzano has been consistent all the way from indoors.

4. Not to put a finger on North African Arabics, but theyve already had some dirty runners...Laalou, Selousi, Ramzi..need I go on?

5. Because he was already in hot water with the IOC & IAAF.

If he does get caught, distance running will now be the dirtiest event, as where this will be the second time a gold medalist gets stripped of his title in the olympics

+1 to this post as well.

faster than lightning wrote:

If Makhloufi is dirty for running too fast at the end then Manzano is also dirty. Centrowitz is semi-dirty, finishing fast, but not as fast as the first.

Accusers on letsrun are total fools. They believe rveryone is dirty except the person you are hoping will win.

This argument is BS. Observing what just doesn't look right in the winner has absolutely nothing to do with who finished behind him. I have no doubt this message board would be full of these same discussions had Centro and Manzano finished at the back of the pack -- that the injustice affected two of our own only adds fuel to the fire.

deanouk normally makes great sense in his analysis. those splits do not tell the tale exactly. not this time.

Makhloufi took out several guys as fast as ovett, like a man slapping around boys.

once Makhloufi could see it was more than wrapped up he eased up.

i thought he could have closed in 51 flat if he had wanted.

with another sub 13 100m in the straight.

Just to pile on what sprintgeezer wrote above, the "how" is what is important with Makhloufi. In all three of his 1500m races at this Olympics, he won by a significant margin. In two of those cases, the heats, he didn't need to win, and should have been practicing the logical (and expected) strategy of conserving energy.

Does it make sense for the guy with the sixth fastest time in the field to purposely lay waste to everyone in the heats? In the 3:42 heat, I can see it, because it was extremely slow. But when you run 3:35 in a 3:36 semi-final heat loaded with talent? There's no excuse for such a flagrant waste of energy. After all, isn't that why he dropped out of the 800m? So why conserve in that case, but be wasteful elsewhere?

Round 1 - last 400m (hand timed from video)

=======

13.96

13.25

13.32

14.01

-----

54.54 (3:35.15 won by 1.4 seconds)

Round 2

=======

13.53

12.94

12.31

13.45

-----

52.23 (3:42.24 won by .68 seconds)

Round 3

=======

13.33

12.51

12.69

14.22

-----

52.77 (3:34.08 won by .71 seconds, easing up last 80m!)

Finally, I see a lot of people on here defending Makhloufi by saying the rest of the field just happened to suck. Yes, all FIVE of the guys who are faster than Mahkloufi ALL sucked, in ALL three rounds, in slow races, and in fast races. ALL of the major players sucked except a nearly unheard of Algerian who ran the final "injured", and recovers almost instantly from back-to-back 12.x surges delivered from 300m out in two of his three rounds.

MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME.

I posted this in another thread but I'll post it again.

This guy looks suspicious because he made a move with 300 to go off an average pace and took a 3:29.xx guy in Silas Kiplagat and made him look like a high schooler that last lap. Silas was so rigged up he let two Americans pass him. The time says 3:34 but he destroyed a group of 3:29-3:31 guys like Chepseba, Willis, Kiplagat, and Gebremedhin with an insane surge that can logically be explained by doping.

Look at some past 1500 finals.

2000: Ngeny, El G, and Lagat all right on each others heals. Very close race. Even if they're all doping, all three blew away the field but couldn't drop each other.

2004: Lagat and El G all the way to the end. Very very close race between two GOATS doping or not. Neither could drop the other.

2008: Ramzi obliterates the field and eases into the win. Later found to be on drugs.

2012: Makhloufi does the same as Ramzi to a world class field. No doubt in that last 300 who was going to win.

You figure if others were doping they would at least have been able to hang on a little bit. Manzano ran kind of a dumb race but evenly picked it up over the last 300 and was fortunate to have everyone else go with the superhuman effort from 300 out. That's why he won silver and why I'm not too suspicious of him.

As someone else said, if watching that race doesn't naturally raise your eyebrows to this guy then you don't have eyebrows.

common--

EXACTLY.

Thanks for doing the legwork.

Makhloufi's performance these Games has been disgusting.

Worst of all, he shows no evidence of the concept of shame. Even though he might not share the entire world's moral foundation, his participation in the Games should require a concession to the Olympic moral foundation.

Clearly, he has made no such concession, and as a result, actually feels no shame whatsoever.

It's disgusting to me, and I'm a guy who has come to grips with the fact that there is "reasonable dosing" going on among all the top athletes.

I await his suspension, which will come a day late and a dollar short for Leonel Manzano, the REAL 1500m OLYMPIC CHAMPION.

i m afraid for you guys , that leo who will be tested positive instead of makhloufi.

Menace wrote:

He is a bullshit motherfvcker as far as i'm concerned

yep

GB, China and the US have stringent drug testing procedures.

The USA just chooses to ignore them.

Is Leo clean? Is anybody clean. Shut up!!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

He's totally juiced.

It's not THAT he won, it's HOW he won.

The only other plausible explanation would be that his ability stood out only because the entire field running poorly, as some poster upthread suggested.

That is a far less likely possibility than the possibility that Makhloufi is juiced.

And shades of Yusuf Kamel, in the personality department.

He's an a-hole and a scumbag, the two go hand-in-hand in certain cultures.

And, he's proud of it.

+1