i don't get into all this drug garbage. i simply do not think it's logical to suggest that all the improvement in times from 1984 to 2004 are due to drugs. times improved between 1948 and 1968 and there weren't really any performance enhancers then.
and i never said they trained harder; i said they trained smarter and more seriously. today, we have studies done by doctors to show what sort of training works best. coaches have masters and doctorates in exercise physiology. we have more years of cumulative training experience behind us. etcetera. we know how to train more effectively than people did 20+ years ago.
i have no doubt that emil zatopek trained as hard (or harder) as, say, bob kennedy; i just think bob kennedy knows a more effective way to train than emil had available to him. just like radcliffe has more knowledge available to her than joan benoit did.
if you think anyone who thinks that runners can improve without drugs is "an idiot" and should "f*** off", that's your perogative. but i think you should realize that the women's 5K WR is well under 29:00 pace. it probably hasn't been on 30:00 pace since i was 17.
and i also find it rather strange that you seem to think that kristiansen's times are not tainted and neither are benoit-samuelson's and yet the athlete's of today are on drugs. why then, for 15 years, were their times untouchable? and why then do you think that those that did touch (and surpass) them must be on drugs?