Elliot Giles 1:43.63, 2nd all time!

Btw, IS Tom Courtney your dad?

Deanouk wrote:

When Coe set his indoor record ...it was run on a wooden track with little energy return

Did you ever run at Cosford? Compared to an outdoor track it was like a trampoline or springboard!

Sovietvest wrote:

I should add ikloper, that I am not a British fan who thinks Brits have never doped. Whilst I believe the current crop of athletes are the cleanest we've ever had, I've heard too many stories about doping in the 70s, 80s and 90s to be under any illusions. In particular, I have been told from multiple sources that one of the biggest names was a blood doper from the late 70s up to the point blood doping was officially banned.

Lol, you mean you've read on these forums several times that Coe doped.

I looked at track spikes for my kid the other day and the difference in the soles of the dragonflies(?) over the other spikes was noticeable. The carbon fiber and special foam may be very limited compared to the road shoes but that could account for a second or two, which would make this performance more in line with Giles's former pr and indoor pr.

The kids in that clip, though in better shape, indicate the relatively higher level of fitness in the Western world in the 1950s-70s than today. As a matter of fact, the presidential physical fitness test was begun because kids in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe did far, far better on certain tests than American kids. But obesity has run rampant through Western Civ. since 1980, and today's kids are far more sedentary than in the past. However, in athletics, kids are being asked to do more earlier than ever before, and that has been reflected in fast rising standards in track and field at the hs and college level in the past 20 years. There were years in the 1990s when no American kids ran under 9 or very few did, in the 3200m/2 mile, and a 30 year gap opened up between the last kid in the 1960s to run sub 4 in hs to Alan Webb. But since then there have been maybe eight kids to break four and countless to run in the 8:40s and 8:50s, as well as some in the 8:30s (or converted from 3k) and one 8:29. Now the shoes are figuring big time, and maybe also a lack of drug testing.

Sovietvest wrote:

I should add ikloper, that I am not a British fan who thinks Brits have never doped. Whilst I believe the current crop of athletes are the cleanest we've ever had, I've heard too many stories about doping in the 70s, 80s and 90s to be under any illusions. In particular, I have been told from multiple sources that one of the biggest names was a blood doper from the late 70s up to the point blood doping was officially banned.

And its pretty clear from your name, Sovietvest, that you are an Ovett fan, which would explain the target of your hardly cryptic comments. It is very easy to start a rumour and say 'I've heard stories' etc, but if you really have then perhaps you should put up or shut up!

And if you take what you said literally, then he stopped blood doping after he got it benned in '85, and then as a 'clean' athlete ran his fastest ever 1500 in 86 and was still running 1:43.3 at 32 in 1989, when also not doping!? Have I got that right, or have you just made up s*it?

Coevett wrote:

Sovietvest wrote:

I should add ikloper, that I am not a British fan who thinks Brits have never doped. Whilst I believe the current crop of athletes are the cleanest we've ever had, I've heard too many stories about doping in the 70s, 80s and 90s to be under any illusions. In particular, I have been told from multiple sources that one of the biggest names was a blood doper from the late 70s up to the point blood doping was officially banned.

Lol, you mean you've read on these forums several times that Coe doped.

You're right to call me out - I'm guilty of listening to rumours. In my slight defence, these were actual conversations with real people (remember them?) who were around at the time and named the coaches involved and clinics used. Point I was making to ikloper is that we Brits aren't all naive and some of us recognise that our former athletes weren't all paragons of virtue.

That said, if only I could DM you I'd tell you all about a certain Swiss clinic ;-)

Flo'da boy wrote:

In Torun. Breaks Coe's indoor record, now only behind Kipketer

LRC's recap with video of last 400:

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/02/great-britains-elliot-giles-runs-143-63-for-800-2-all-time-at-copernicus-cup-in-torun/

Who cares. He probably couldn't even break 1:42.54 outdoors.

Great so he peaked in the indoor season at a time when nobody gives a crap.

Cool.

Yay.

All down hill from here on out from him.

Referring to long-founded rumours within the sport is not 'starting a rumour'. Saying that I've been told various stories by athletes and coaches is not making stuff up - unless you 're alleging those conversations never took place and I'm a liar. Of course, you can choose to believe that THEY made stuff up.

If - and this may be the case - you have never speculated about any athlete doping or ever referred to widespread rumours in the sport, then I personally applaud you - you are a better person than me. I'd add, if that is true then this probably isn't the place for you, is it?

Quick search through the MB reveals that Deano has indeed speculated widely (and perfectly reasonably) about East and North Africans doping during the EPO years.

So Deano - it's OK for you to speculate that athletes were dirty based upon the times they ran and the people they were associated with - again, perfectly reasonable - but I apparently should ignore it when an Olympic athlete tells me that Coach A told him that he was the one who taught Athlete B and his coach how to blood dope. Ditto, when another international athlete tells me about the Swiss clinic that was used later in the same athlete's career, I should dismiss it?

Frankly, I've got an open mind. Maybe the rumours are true, maybe they come from jealous athletes or coaches who want to make themselves appear more important than they really were. My level of confidence in an athlete being clean tends to be influenced by what kind of a person are they. What kind of moral code do they have? Have they lied or cheated in their personal life or career? Have they been caught telling lies or being disingenuous? Based upon that - just to illustrate my point - I would say my level of confidence in Cram is VERY high; with Ovett, although he is my running hero, I have an open mind, and I would not be shocked if he blood doped; but my confidence in Coe is low.

It's odd how it appears that none of these so called coaches and athletes make these accusations here, even anonymously. It's always the same usual doping apologist trolls trying to downplay rampant North and East African doping.

One minor American runner and a Finnish gutter tabloid in 83 upset at Coe apparently snubbing their World Championships. Considering Coe's high profile and the fact he banned Russia, you'd think something more tangible would have come to light by now other than third rate trolls on LetsRun claiming 'they heard it from others.' As Deano pointed out, your claims usually don't even make sense - such as that Coe stopped doping in 86 (after he played a part in having it banned) and proceeded to run some of his best times despite being well past his prime.

1. Did you really just write that you were surprised that athletes and coaches from the 80s and 90s don't visit the LR MB?!?!? I'd be astonished if they came here.

2. Maybe it is usually apologist trolls who make allegations about Coe on here. But I'm not one of them and the rumours I've heard come exclusively from within the UK athletics community (which - granted - like most communities loves a bit of gossip).

3. My claims "usually" don't make any sense?? What other claims of mine are you referring to?

4. Coe was indeed instrumental in the intro of out of competition testing - I don't know if he campaigned specifically for blood doping to be banned. My understanding is that the ban came as soon as there was confidence in the testing (see final point). Might he have been keen for it to be banned because a) he only did it because he thought others were doing it and wanted a level playing field and b) he was concerned about the risk to health? Is that really nonsensical?

5. Coe ran 3:29 in Rieti - a super fast track (the Monaco of its day) - there is no way he was the same athlete he had been between 1979 and '84, when under the right conditions he would have run 3:28.

6. The first test for blood doping was conducted by Franke on samples from the 1980 Olympics. He found 20% had doped including 16 gold medallists. This wasn't something only Lasse Viren, Maaninka and a couple of Italians were doing. Why should we be so confident our guys weren't at it too.

I doubt it’s drug testing that causes the high schoolers to run that fast

You mention how the 90s there were barley any sub 9s but those kids weren’t running the right mileage for it and just sort of sucked above a mile

Ps these super talented kids do exist and the only drugs I’ve heard of one of them doing were weed

Apologies - point 6 above was b@ll@cks: Donike, not Franke and it was a test for testosterone!

Hypocrites. Deano and Coevett you are both full of it.

As I said, if you are so confident that such 'rumours' are true, then you should name the coaches and athletes and distant relatives that confirmed all this to you. I still reiterate the point that it is very easy on an anonymous message board to say, 'Swiss Clinic' or 'Italian Clinic' or 'Norwegian Clinic', which have all been mentioned on here btw, but more difficult to give proof, it would seem!

Your moral compass also seems to be somewhat inconsistent, because I seem to recall Cram was having some kind of affair while married to his first wife, and also Ovett admitted on national tv to being paid to run at a national championships when the same was not offered to the rest of the field, including Coe.

You also specifically state that said athlete was blood doping in the late 70's and early 80's until it was banned. Well, Coe was instrumental in getting blood doping banned in '85, so the question has to be asked, Why would he call for the practice to be banned if he had benefitted from it? Isn't that like cutting the hand that feeds you? And what sort of blood doping allows a miler to run a 45.5 400m, but nothing better than a 7:54 for 3k and 14:06 for 5k?

Moreover, using your words literally, you claim he was therefore not blood doping when he set his fastest time over 1500m in 86, and when he was still winning medals at the World level in 89 and running a 1:43.3 800m at almost 33! I'm sorry, but it is no stretch of the imagination to think that anyone who can run such times clean at 32, would have been capable of something like 1:41.7 when 24!

Furthermore, with Coe's profile as it has been since he retired, the UK press would have pounced on him if there was even a whiff of doping in his past. You seem to know lots of people who personally know what he was up to, and certainly they could make a lot of money from revealing their evidence to the press, yet clearly they haven't done so, for some strange reason!?

That you are so confident Cram is clean, which would lead one to suspect that you knew him personally or perhaps trained with him (;0), is also a bit of an anomaly. His career surely shows he is more likely to have blood doped. After all, he couldn;t break 23 secs for 200m, or 48 for 400m, but had the incredible over distance endurance (the fundamental benefit of blood doping) to run 1:42 for 800m. I can't recall another 1:42 man with such slow 400 speed. He also was able to sustain his endurance to running a WR over 2000m. Now, I personally don't believe Cram blood doped, but playing Devil's Advocate tends to highlight the contradiction in your faith in one having doped and the other being totally clean.

Deanouk wrote:

And what sort of blood doping allows a miler to run a 45.5 400m, but nothing better than a 7:54 for 3k and 14:06 for 5k?

Like the other poster said, you are a hypocrite.

On the bit quoted above you defend Coe by implying that poor guy couldn't run better than 14:06 for 5k, how could he be blood doping?

Convenient, huh?

Four years ago though, something else was convenient and you wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

As an example, Coe's pbs for 3 and 5 k were 7:54 and 14:06. Anyone who believes that was all he was capable of are not very astute or knowledgeable

Hypocrite.

Oh, it was here:

That's a long list of circumstancial evidence.

Yes, Coe was instrumental in getting out of season random testing introduced, when he produced a government White Paper on behalf of the Sports Council (in conjunction with Colin Moynihan) , calling for such changes. He called for blood doping to be banned too, before it was in 1985.

qgb wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

And what sort of blood doping allows a miler to run a 45.5 400m, but nothing better than a 7:54 for 3k and 14:06 for 5k?

Like the other poster said, you are a hypocrite.

On the bit quoted above you defend Coe by implying that poor guy couldn't run better than 14:06 for 5k, how could he be blood doping?

Convenient, huh?

Four years ago though, something else was convenient and you wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

As an example, Coe's pbs for 3 and 5 k were 7:54 and 14:06. Anyone who believes that was all he was capable of are not very astute or knowledgeable

Hypocrite.

Oh, it was here:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7642538&page=14

No, that is not hypocrisy, I was clearly playing Devil's Advocate with someone who is claiming rumours as evidence of drug use.

Of course Coe was capable of much faster times for 3k and 5k than that, but the fact remains he was not as good at those events as he was over 800m, which is not a renowned distance to benefit from blood doping. Coe's ability to run 1:41 sits well with his 45 secs 400m speed and 3:29 endurance. Cram's 1:42 ability does not appear reflective of someone with 48 sec 400 ability and a 4:51 2000m pb.