does anyone think Wang Junxia was clean?

Nutella1 wrote:

////????//// wrote:

The fact that there are no videos of this meet SCREAMS short track and/or false start line. Take the PED Rules out of the equation and these WR's are still not legitimate ones.

We have a winner.

Take the short track games in CHINA out of the book and you got a very good runner, but certainly no freak of nature.

Wang's 29:31 is 1:20min SLOWER than her 2nd best performance, which is no. 94 of all times. Ok it was run in the rain at World Championships, so I believe she could have run much faster that day - probably 30:10 or so. But fact is, she didn't!

Again, you take the short Beijing track out of the equation and you got:

14:51 5k, 30:49 10k, 2:24:07 Marathon

It was not a short a track. Where were the fast men's times at the People's Games? Where were the unusually fast times at the 1990 Asian Games, held on the same track? Jiang Bo ran 3:50.98 (leading several other crazy times) in Shanghai in 1997, on the same track that today holds their Diamond League meet.

As the Daily Mail wrote over 15 years ago:

"All 18 weightlifting world records in the lighter categories have been smashed. In swimming, Wu Yanyan set a world record by almost two seconds in the women's 200m individual medley and in the 400m medley, the 16-year-old Chen Yan broke the record set 15 years previously by East Germany's Petra Schneider who, later, was proved to be on drugs."

So you think they shortened the track, shortened the pool and lightened the weights?

You can bet your house that neither track was short.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

It was not a short a track. Where were the fast men's times at the People's Games?

We would have to compare the mens times with what Chinese man usually run. Remember, Chinese men aren't exactly known for being good distance runners (Their national records are 13:25/28:08). They were never competitive. So they may have run faster than usually but still rather slow compared to international competition.

I do not believe it was a short track.

I believe, for these selected events, they did not start at the correct start line and ran short of the distance in the women's 1500, 3000 and 10,000.

There was a video clip of the 1500 where they came trough 300m in 42s. Crazy fast - 3:32 pace

3:50 pace is 45.

3:57 pace (realistic) is 47

I think they moved them up 30m, ran 3:57 pace for three laps and kicked in the last 300. That would still be pretty fast. And that pace would take them through the first 270m in 42 seconds.

Five women breaking the 3000m WR in one race where 3 of them where no-names is a bit ridiculous.

One woman breaking 4 distance WR's in less than a week is a big flag.

I think it was a conspiracy specifically for races that Ma's army was in.

They didn't bother with any other events. Not to this level at least.

It's just a matter of common sense that it is absurd that these woman worked their life to run super fast only in this one week where no one reputable was watching and could never nearly replicate it again.

tgbb wrote:

That seems on par with Bekele's 4:55ish final 2000m in the Olympic 5000m, doesn't it?

It was a hair under 4:57, and that was a 5,000, but yes, it does seem comparable. Maybe even better than a 4:29 last 1600 in a 10,000. That's why I asked about women's known fast finishes.

Again, though, that 4:56.9 (and 3:57.0 last 1600) came off an opening 3K in a hair under 8:01, which is almost jogging for a guy with a 12:37 PR who was in great form, if perhaps not record form (and he'd already run, and won, the 10,000 in 27:01). Even before Wang launched that 4:29 closer, she had reached 8,400 meters in about 25:02, which is 29:48 pace -- 25 seconds under the pace of Bondarenko's WR at the time. Can you imagine a man already on pace to dip under 26:00 with four laps to go busting a sub-3:55?

So, there's really no comparison.

Why is it that the Chinese evidently never released any of the splits from any of those WR races?

On a second look, isn't Bekele's 3:57 closer to the world record than Wang's (look at the 1500m record since it is stronger than the mile). I see possibility for drugs and short tracks, but I also see plenty of possibility that she really ran those times.

The Ethiopian women are running almost 14 flat for 5000m so why couldn't Wang have really run her times? Especially if she was doing 140 mpw combined with abusive coaching. I don't understand why some of you can't accept that possibility. Do you run faster or slower with a dog chasing you?

what about the others? And why couldn't repeat them? Its absurd.

The Ethiopians own (about) 20 and 25 of the top 250 times ever run. Its called credibility.

worst poster wrote:

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_3000ok.htm

what about the others? And why couldn't repeat them? Its absurd.

The Ethiopians own (about) 20 and 25 of the top 250 times ever run. Its called credibility.

I don't know about you, but I know plenty of runners and friends who only had one or two breakout performances. Same thing in other sports. Physiological performances aren't so simple and easy that you can expect them on a whim.

OK, 3:57.0 is 115.0% of 3:26.0. 4:29 (assume 4:29-flat) is 115.0% of 3:53.9. So at a glance, Wang's last 4 laps of her 10K and KB's last 4 of his 5K differed from the existing 1500 WRs by a very small amount indeed (Kazankina's record at the time Wang ran her 29:31 was 3:52.47, also s drug record but forget that for now).

This is equal parts fiction and and naivete. *Two* Ethiopian women have run 14:11 and 14:12, which is not "almost 14 flat" by any stretch; the next fastest is 14:28. And if you really think that the Chinese women under Ma were the only ones ever to run high mileage and suffer the lash of abusive coaching -- not that this has ever proven a successful motivating force in any sport to begin with -- then you are seriously deluded.

But even leaving all of *that* stuff aside, I remind you once again that there is a huge difference between closing fast off a slow pace and closing fast off a pace already far, far under WR pace. That is a fundamental, simple concept and I am at a loss to explain how you can simply keep ignoring it.

tgbb wrote:

I don't know about you, but I know plenty of runners and friends who only had one or two breakout performances.

Uh-huh. Now throw out every one of those runners and friends who have never broken, oh, 13:30/28:00 (men) or 15:00/31:00 (women) for 5K/10K on the track.

We all know recreational road racers -- let's say any male who has never run under 17ish for 5K and any woman over 20 -- whose PR is significantly faster than his or her next-best time. But if you do not understand the various reason this phenomenon is absent from world-class athletics in the absence of skullduggery, chicanery and shady dealings, then you really need to become more familiar with the sport if you hope to comment intelligently about it.

tgbb wrote:

I don't know about you, but I know plenty of runners and friends who only had one or two breakout performances. Same thing in other sports.

Right, like Zlatan Ibrahimovic scoring 4 goals against England. But what we're looking at here is an event where we had 10 breakout performances (10 out of 13 all time bests were run in the Chinese National Games 1993).

This is not like Zlatan Ibrahimovic scoring 4 goals against England, it's like all ten field players each scoring 4 goals against Englans, resulting in a 40-0 win for Sweden over England.

Oh, and then out of those 10 field players, 9 would never score a goal again, and one would have one more good match, and that's it.

Moron.

Nutella1 wrote:

tgbb wrote:

I don't know about you, but I know plenty of runners and friends who only had one or two breakout performances. Same thing in other sports.

Right, like Zlatan Ibrahimovic scoring 4 goals against England. But what we're looking at here is an event where we had 10 breakout performances (10 out of 13 all time bests were run in the Chinese National Games 1993).

This is not like Zlatan Ibrahimovic scoring 4 goals against England, it's like all ten field players each scoring 4 goals against Englans, resulting in a 40-0 win for Sweden over England.

Oh, and then out of those 10 field players, 9 would never score a goal again, and one would have one more good match, and that's it.

Moron.

How's it compare to the men's 800m in London? We saw there that a great athlete, in the right circumstances, can run virtually everyone to substantial PBs.

wtfunny wrote:

How's it compare to the men's 800m in London? We saw there that a great athlete, in the right circumstances, can run virtually everyone to substantial PBs.

Not even close.

All time Top 100 in the 800 in the London final are:

1, 9, 32, 63, 77

All time Top 100 in the 3000's during the Chinese National Games in 1993 are:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13

You see it now, right?

Are you trolling? Where did I say that every person who does high mileage will be successful? And do you deny that a person does not run faster when being chased?

How far under record pace is irrelevant. Your body does not say "you are only allowed to run X seconds below world record pace". You will run as fast as you have prepared. The current world record does not dictate that. Obviously, the record must have been a very weak record if she was able to close that fast. Most women's performances are weak. Do you not agree?

I'm not saying that she did or did not run those times. I'm only saying that it's not so crazy to accept that she might have really done it.

NYCRunner wrote:

wtfunny wrote:

How's it compare to the men's 800m in London? We saw there that a great athlete, in the right circumstances, can run virtually everyone to substantial PBs.

Not even close.

All time Top 100 in the 800 in the London final are:

1, 9, 32, 63, 77

All time Top 100 in the 3000's during the Chinese National Games in 1993 are:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13

You see it now, right?

I think you missed his point.

tgbb wrote:

All time Top 100 in the 800 in the London final are:

1, 9, 32, 63, 77

All time Top 100 in the 3000's during the Chinese National Games in 1993 are:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13

You see it now, right?

I think you missed his point.[/quote]

No. He was arguing that if there's one person that runs great it can have a huge impact on everyone else. Yes, in London the 800 was very fast for everyone but they essentially got a PERFECT rabbit they could draft off for much of the race.

Now in the 3000 drafting doesn't have that big of an effect anymore yet the results were SHOCKING. Much, much more impressive than the mens 800 in London.

If you take the Beijing 3000 for face value and don't believe it was short, then IT WAS NOTHING SHORT OF THE GREATEST RACE IN HUMAN HISTORY, men or women.

But is wasn't, because it was short.

Nutella1 wrote:

tgbb wrote:

All time Top 100 in the 800 in the London final are:

1, 9, 32, 63, 77

All time Top 100 in the 3000's during the Chinese National Games in 1993 are:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13

You see it now, right?

I think you missed his point.

No. He was arguing that if there's one person that runs great it can have a huge impact on everyone else. Yes, in London the 800 was very fast for everyone but they essentially got a PERFECT rabbit they could draft off for much of the race.

Now in the 3000 drafting doesn't have that big of an effect anymore yet the results were SHOCKING. Much, much more impressive than the mens 800 in London.

If you take the Beijing 3000 for face value and don't believe it was short, then IT WAS NOTHING SHORT OF THE GREATEST RACE IN HUMAN HISTORY, men or women.

But is wasn't, because it was short.[/quote]

Nope. A runner can drag the other runners in a 3000m just as well as in a 800m race. You said it yourself - by being a perfect rabbit. No one claimed that there was significant drafting advantage in a 3000m. However, there might actually be such an advantage. Maybe a drafting expert can tell us how much drafting helps in a 3000m.

tgbb wrote:

Where did I say that every person who does high mileage will be successful?

You didn't. What you did do is suggest that 29:31, 3:50, etc. were are possible because of the high mileage Ma's runners were logging. All I did was point out that there's nothing unique about this. Try this:

* Extremely successful distance runners virtually ALWAYS come from a background of high mileage.

* Not ALL high-mileage runners are wildly successful.

If you need to, draw yourself a Venn diagram to put all of this together. (I won't go into detail about the fact that the mileage levels you cite aren't necessarily accurate anyway, considering the source[s].)

tgbb wrote:

And do you deny that a person does not run faster when being chased?

I'm sorry -- I missed the part about carnivorous animals chasing the Chinese ladies around the track in Beijing. Can you post a link, please?

tgbb wrote:

How far under record pace is irrelevant. Your body does not say "you are only allowed to run X seconds below world record pace"...

Really? You're saying that it's just as easy to close in a monstrously fast time off a super-fast pace as it is off a modest or slow pace? Interesting idea!

tgbb wrote:

I'm not saying that she did or did not run those times. I'm only saying that it's not so crazy to accept that she might have really done it.

No, you don't have to be crazy, just stunningly ignorant.

tgbb wrote:

A runner can drag the other runners in a 3000m just as well as in a 800m race.

Wang broke the 3,000 record that stood going into 1993 Beijing Games by about 15 seconds, or two seconds a lap. She broke the 10Kmark by 42 seconds, or almost 1.7 seconds a lap.

How many men in the London 800 final ran personal bests by 3.4 to 4 seconds?

You are really going out of your way to look as foolish as humanly possible. I desperately wish for the sake of you and humanity as a whole that you were trolling, but you plainly are being quite sincere.

Uncivil Engineer wrote:

Why is it that the Chinese evidently never released any of the splits from any of those WR races?

I believe the 400 splits were published in T&FN at the time.

I have got to love how many people are denying the track was short in this case

We are discussing China here, a nation that has a notorious reputation for pladgerism, lying, cheating, etc. to not only the rest of the world, but their own citizens. Someone mentioned the shanghai track was taken down almost immediately after which screams short track specifically for those games and the same thing could have happened with that Beijing track in 97 (you guys have to realize there was no diamond league back then AND that was 15 years ago so anything could have happened to that track)

"Nope. A runner can drag the other runners in a 3000m just as well as in a 800m race"

A) we are talking MUCH slower paces - less benefit from the draft

B) we are discussing female athletics which have a notorious reputation for having the lead few so much further ahead of everyone else. Mental issues are the reason here.

I also believe that entire army was dirty for other reasons.