Eamonn Coghlan implies that El G was dirty in interview

ventolin^3 wrote:

he ran a 3'44.9 in '97, worth 3'28-low

i figured he might go about 3'28-flat or perhaps just dip into the 3'27s in '98 & maybe plateau around that

to run 3'26-flat with a 53.2 finish was astonishing & i must admit that my immediate instinct was that he was doped

however, his longevity & still running 3'27 in '04 offers some evidence of innoncence

on balance though, that drop from 3'28-low to a 3'26 with poor pace to bell still tends to sway the argument more to doping than clean - i didn't see him as good enough to beat morceli's fantastic 3'27-low wr let alone absolutely destroy it !

aouita, morrcelli, komen, cacho, bekele, el-g. were all on the tour de france "nutritional" program. aouita coughed up the goods in australia a long time ago, the epo, the growth hormonem and the rest of the tricks.

basically there was little to no control and a 1"45 natural 800 m runner had no chance what so ever to win anything. with peds you can go 143 for sure and better yet, you recover and can go on and on.

a guy like aouita, who has the day's latest protocol, which was used by most of the top guys gets in how water for telling the "truth" to athletes wanting to compete with the africans. as in, you have to go to altitude, work your ass off and take what they are taking.

this is old old news. but the recent lance armstrong case allows people that are not inside the sport so see what's really going on, and believe that posts like this so ain't so much rumor after all.

today, there is a new bag of tricks, a lot of them "legal".

in that you follow guidelines set out and work the loop holes. it is all "fair and square".

but actually it is not fair and square at all today. you need to be connected with a program and people that know how to navigate the rules.

but that's sports, it's always been this way. you want to win. so you do what is necessary. and you rationalize your methods, you self-justify, you go into denial. it's an essential problem with the human condition.

aouita, morrcelli, komen, cacho, bekele, el-g. were all on the tour de france "nutritional" program. aouita coughed up the goods in australia a long time ago, the epo, the growth hormonem and the rest of the tricks.

basically there was little to no control and a 1"45 natural 800 m runner had no chance what so ever to win anything. with peds you can go 143 for sure and better yet, you recover and can go on and on.

a guy like aouita, who has the day's latest protocol, which was used by most of the top guys gets in how water for telling the "truth" to athletes wanting to compete with the africans. as in, you have to go to altitude, work your ass off and take what they are taking.

this is old old news. but the recent lance armstrong case allows people that are not inside the sport so see what's really going on, and believe that posts like this so ain't so much rumor after all.

today, there is a new bag of tricks, a lot of them "legal".

in that you follow guidelines set out and work the loop holes. it is all "fair and square".

but actually it is not fair and square at all today. you need to be connected with a program and people that know how to navigate the rules.

but that's sports, it's always been this way. you want to win. so you do what is necessary. and you rationalize your methods, you self-justify, you go into denial. it's an essential problem with the human condition.[/quote]

Can't say it much better than that...

Very well said. POD, maybe POTY.

Hmm... wrote:

All that longevity implies is that El G was on a highly sophisticated Moroccan government-sanctioned doping regime. Which is what a lot of people think. In "The Perfect Distance", middle distance historian Pat Butcher suggests that El G did a lot of "odd" things.

no

use some logic

his longevity means he had many years to be caught, at least since '95 when he ran his breakthru 3'31.16 in koblenz & was on everybody's radar

nonsense

he's gone 2.5s off hicham's indoor wr

& his training partner has run 3'28 & their coach has always had belief both of those guys are capable of very similar times, as the 10k already shows, meaning rupp couda expected not far off mo's 3'28 in his 3'50.9i

that is NOT a different stratosphere to hicham

nonsense

go fetch how many paced, fast curcuit 1500s he ran in in his peak indoor years of '81 & '83 ???

that's nonsense

any guy who can run 3'49i has to be a huge force outdoors

there have been dozens of elite guys who have run indoor mile & only 1 is faster

do you think coghlan was only 1 of those guys suited to indoor running but not outdoors ???

he was 5'10, which already is on the tall side for an indoor miler, so he had no physical advantages for indoors compared to some 5'5/5'6 elite guy who woud

read his quote :

he tried to win outdoors not chase the clock

he knew he wasn't the best but coud challenge for a bronze

why bother with 1500 when he coud challenge for gold over 5k ???

but a 3'49i shouda been able to muster a 3'47 outdoors if he'd kept that form

ukathleticscoach wrote:Avoided 800m

that is nonsense

he also avoided the 1k, a race very close to the 800 & much closer to it than the 1500

he spent years walloping the 1k wr holder in fast 1500s, a guy who also ran 3'43 for the mile

why did he avoid the 1k when it was a distance he couda very closely challenged the wr holder & his wr ???

ventolin^3 wrote:

Hmm... wrote:

All that longevity implies is that El G was on a highly sophisticated Moroccan government-sanctioned doping regime. Which is what a lot of people think. In "The Perfect Distance", middle distance historian Pat Butcher suggests that El G did a lot of "odd" things.

no

use some logic

his longevity means he had many years to be caught, at least since '95 when he ran his breakthru 3'31.16 in koblenz & was on everybody's radar

Typical of you. You suggest EL G was doped and then when someone agrees, you then criticise them and tell them they're wrong.

And how many different handles can you use on one thread? There are at least 4 on here.

ventolin^3 wrote:

go fetch how many paced, fast curcuit 1500s he ran in in his peak indoor years of '81 & '83 ???

Coghlan was involved in enough 'fast paced' races over 1500 and a mile during his career.

79 Oslo Mile - 4th (3:52.5), won in a WR 3:48.95

80 Zurich 1500 - 9th (3:40.0), won in 3:32.19 (3rd fastest of all time)

81 Stockholm 1500 - 5th (outside 3:35), won in 3:31.95 (3rd fastest of all time)

81 Oslo Mile - 8th (3:56.5), won in 3:49.25 (3rd fastest of all time)

81 Brussels Mile - 8th (3:53.3), won in 3:47.33 (New WR)

83 Oslo Mile - 5th (3:51.59, 3:36.2 for 1500m en route), won in 3:49.49.

There were several opportunities in 81 & 83 to run the sort of times you suggest he could have run in a 'fast paced circuit race'. Not only did he come nowhere near such times, but he came nowhere near winning, which was apparently his raison d'etre outdoors.

He was soundly beaten every time and came nowhere near 3:30 or 3:47.

He was also training for the 5000 in the year he was in his best shape. Look at his close at the end of that race, off a fairly brisk pace for the time.

Copw;l wrote:

I had lunch with Coghlan last year. He's a great guy, brilliantly hilarious and a wealth of stories and experience.

The only contradiction in his statement was that he would be afraid of doing a workout after a race in fear of breaking down, yet this is the guy that struggled with an Achilles injury most of his career - thus his mindset was warped on preservation.

Heck of an athlete. Tough as nails. Wicked kick. Gutsy winner.

ya, exactly,exactly, exactly.

and remember, every athlete goes nuts with injuries.

an injured athlete is not a sane person.

most of the coulda woulda shoulda originates from injuries.

coe and ovett injured just before their prime.

walker was never the same after calf issues, same as moorcroft. bayi had malaria was his bug-a-boo, ryan mono,

it's a lottery out there. that's why you want to enjoy it and not waste time sulking about lost medals. that's why i put dixon on top. he could win and not really cry too much if he blew a big final, like the 5000m in montreal where a couple of blood dopers beat him.

and quax was blood boosting too, but with altitude training. while dixon used the old ways and more than anything, a lot of talent to be in the running for medals.

osi wrote:

Also, the 1st paragraph says that it's only 'likely' that women would get a greater benefit. Only one chemical has been shown to work like that it says.

Check the GDR records how come their women were beating the top USA sprinters and not there men. Don't quote the odd exception the difference is obvious. Go to the distances and see the difference there - even more pronounced. Why do you think Ma never bothered with Chinese men

EC does not hint that he took drugs

learn to read

i asked for fast-1500s in either '81 or '83

there is no gold medal for a mile race

the answer :

just 1 :

that was a 3'38+ in '81 when his outdoor season was a disaster, probably due to developing shin splints which kept him out of all of '82

as for '83, his best ever indoor year, he didn't even run an actual 1500 outdoors !

& as pointed out, he had spent the previous few months since finish of indoor season training for 5k & a 3'51 with a 55.7 finish was pretty respectable for a guy training off mostly tremendous amounts of 5k endurance work, which he had no choice but to do as there was always the possibility moorcroft couda turned up in helsinki in 13-flat shape

Jealous scum

Can't run a 3:44 mile plus a 60 second 400