OK now I know that you know you have lost the argument here. You have changed your comment that I was replying to. I added the word in capitals in your comment, that's what you said which as I said, is factually wrong. Just admit the error, otherwise you are just lying. It's in writing on this page.
Your logic is flawed too. There are all sorts of reasons why a clean athlete can be as fast as a previous doped WR holder, one being the talent they started with, and other obvious ones.
I don't know what pedantry you are trying to argue but my point is that the level Hull has achieved and the extent of her improvement isn't credible for a clean athlete. That's my view, however you choose not to agree. Also, when you take into account the previous wr of 3:50x - which was doped - there is no way a clean runner can attain that, whatever their level of talent. If it were so doping would have no significant effect on performance. But it does and significantly. Probably 6 or more seconds over the distance.
Lol - "That's my view"- that is the best thing you've said, but you explain every athlete's improvement by doping. That's always your view. Which previous WR "was doped"?
You are just plucking numbers out of the air here. Where does the 6 seconds come from? What scientific study?
She might be doping, and I have never said she is not. You're certain she is doping and accuse her of it, in an obviously defamatory way, so the onus is on you to prove it, and you haven't.
One thing you have not explained is this - if she was already doping, how do you explain the 5 second PB? She doped more? The drugs worked better? There's no obvious doping explanation for that.
So WADA has reason to be suspicious but we shouldn't talk about those reasons here?
You are just full of crap. Show where WADA has said they are 'suspicious' of her. Show it.
Testing someone based on performances is part of the duty, doofus. Stop trolling
It would be totally corrupt and unethical of WADA to say " we are testing x or y, because we think they are doping". Yes, their frequency could be dependent of activity, but that has nothing to do with suspicions. It is the way they do their job.
So let them do it , and once again, until tghen shut the F up and stop trolling
I was wondering if someone would use the mile times to post the actual improvement. I calculated a 5.8 second improvement for Hull. For Yared Nuguse, I calculated a 5.7 second improvement. Both were in modern shoes, on a fast track and dragged to an amazing time by the world’s best pacers. Hull had a major change in the type of training for the year prior.
Ellie St. Pierre went from a relatively slow 4:02.34 1500m runner to having a 4.3 second improvement in 8 months. But that improvement was run in the 2nd fastest indoor mile time in history!
Nikki Hiltz and Corey McGee had relatively big improvements in one year and they’re nearly senior citizens by some people’s standards. And both of these improvements came after running two rounds. It wouldn’t shock me if they ran even faster this year.
I choose to believe that most or all of these runners are not doping and there are several good reasons for the bigger improvements in the last few years. Thinking everyone is doping is a miserable way to be a fan in my opinion.
Clearing up some of mischaracterizations: Nuguse: Yes he went from 3:33.26 in Padova to 3:43.97 (3:27.38c). However, this happened at ages 23 to 24 in his first to second year as a pro. Padova was a B-level meet where he won uncontested and going away (indicating not a maximal time) as opposed to a glorified time trial in Eugene with Jakob as pacer. He also had battled injury problems from over a year into summer of 2022, whereas Hull has been healthy nearly 4 years in a row. The improvements also came in more waves than Hull, a 3:47.38 mile indoors (3:30.54c) in February and Oslo 3:29.02 in June.
Hull: Her major change in training came ahead of 2023, not 2024 to be clear. Your argument reads like it was this year. Last year she got to a consistent 3:57 level and Monaco was 3:56.42c.
Hiltz: Hiltz certainly has gotten better and deserves some scrutiny as well. Hiltz did run 4:01.52 in non-superspikes (likely a 3:59.5 type performance) in Doha in the third race in 4 days. Now Hiltz is running 3:55.3, which is significant. Last year's peak was 3:57.36c from that Monaco mile, so it's about a 2s improvement (and rounds too). Hiltz is similarly in the second year under a new system (Mike Smith Elite), but seems to have battled more injuries and personal struggles in '20-'22 than Hull who's had more of a linear improvement to her career.
McGee: Yes it was a huge time drop, but McGee had run a 3:58.99c level time in the Bislett mile the year prior. It felt like more of a quirk that McGee had never broken 4, and a 1.5s drop for an athlete who has long been competitive with 3:57-4:00 women consistently doesn't seem as alarming. Even at age 32.
St. Pierre: The significant thing was ESP was split between the 1500 and 5000 in 2019. She ran 4:02.34 in June, and then chose the 5,000 for USAs and Worlds breaking 15 in the Finals. She was also much younger than Hull like Nuguse (age 24). 2020 was her second year as a pro. 2019 was her first. In 2020 the switch was made to the 1500 and that Millrose Mile is worth 3:57.82c.
The issue is that all of those runners had significant and in some cases drastic improvements. It’s easy to pick and choose excuses for why each one may or may not be doping. Hull was training like a 5000m runner as a pro in Oregon and it showed in a very good 5000m time. In Australia for the last year+ she has been training as an 800m-1500m runner with much more speed oriented training. Her coach was a national class 800m-1500m runner. That drastic change in training plus committing immediately to being dragged along in lane 1 with a pacer for almost all of the race on a fast track is what led to the 5+ second improvement in the last year.
You are just full of crap. Show where WADA has said they are 'suspicious' of her. Show it.
Testing someone based on performances is part of the duty, doofus. Stop trolling
It would be totally corrupt and unethical of WADA to say " we are testing x or y, because we think they are doping". Yes, their frequency could be dependent of activity, but that has nothing to do with suspicions. It is the way they do their job.
So let them do it , and once again, until tghen shut the F up and stop trolling
WADA pays more attention to athletes who show red flags. Like 6 second improvements in a year.
I don't know what pedantry you are trying to argue but my point is that the level Hull has achieved and the extent of her improvement isn't credible for a clean athlete. That's my view, however you choose not to agree. Also, when you take into account the previous wr of 3:50x - which was doped - there is no way a clean runner can attain that, whatever their level of talent. If it were so doping would have no significant effect on performance. But it does and significantly. Probably 6 or more seconds over the distance.
Lol - "That's my view"- that is the best thing you've said, but you explain every athlete's improvement by doping. That's always your view. Which previous WR "was doped"?
You are just plucking numbers out of the air here. Where does the 6 seconds come from? What scientific study?
She might be doping, and I have never said she is not. You're certain she is doping and accuse her of it, in an obviously defamatory way, so the onus is on you to prove it, and you haven't.
One thing you have not explained is this - if she was already doping, how do you explain the 5 second PB? She doped more? The drugs worked better? There's no obvious doping explanation for that.
The previous doped wr was the 3:50x by the Chinese runners in the '90's. I have little doubt that the improvements since were also doped.
She has improved over 6 seconds in a year - that was stated previously in the thread. I didn't say she was previously doping but she is certainly doping to improve to 3:50x in a year. If you think she is clean then she would have been running 3:45 if she had doped.
This is always the pertinent point in this argument. Are we to believe she's clean and runs 3:50 so doped, 3:45? Seriously? So the men's marathon record, assuming it's not doped either, would be 1:56?
Nah... You and the useless Livs are the doping apologists. You tell young people they will never be winners if they don't dope.
I don't tell them that. I don't need to. They dope because they want to succeed. And it works, or no one would do it.
Yes you do. Hundreds of kids read these boards. You are telling young girls that they will never be able to run under 3:55 (or whatever) clean, and therefore will never be champion or in contention for world medals. But you have stated above, you are not a fan of the sport. You are just a cancer trying to ruin it for everyone else because you are frustrated with your own life.