To go from where she was a year ago to 3:52 and amongst the best on the planet at age 31 is a fairy story. It suggests if she trained more effectively at a younger age she would have run in the high 3:40's. That is a once in a century prodigy. She isn't. Even the way she runs shows that. Another journeyman who has suddenly acquired freakish endurance. There is only one way to do that.
Based on what? Where are you getting those numbers from?
There's no precedent here. The athlete left the sport until 27ish, and you're comparing them to athletes who didn't leave the sport.
Above you write:
"Most runners at a top international level will not make the gains she has in a year. They are training and competing to their maximum to achieve what they have. That an athlete makes gains far in excess of what the best generally achieve points to something else in addition to talent and training. In a year she has gone from being mediocre to one of the best in the world, at over 30."
Most (all) other runners have a far higher training age - they're far closer to their genetic limit acquired through training. If you start later, your upside will be capped at a certain age, sure, but we don't really know what that age is.
She seemed to start training intensely again during lockdown (so mid to late 20s), having - importantly - kept her GPP up (through duathlons and hitting the gym).
Ostensibly, the only reason she got back into the sport was covid lockdowns giving her literally zero distractions. In any other time a 27 year old who fell out of the sport wouldn't be able to have a free run at basically training like a professional athlete as their one and only focus.
If you don't think that she would have been faster than she is today if she had trained to her optimum in her twenties then I don't know what planet you're on. She has gone from effectively being a recreational athlete to running 3:52 in a year at near aged 31. So she couldn't have been faster if she had dedicated herself to the sport in her twenties? Since training has to explain her success (if doping doesn't) then she would have had to be faster with longer and more focused training at a younger age - like just about every other top athlete.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Muir is the only athlete in that final that I think could have been clean. If she was doping I can well believe she would beat Bell and Hull and even Kipyegon.
The only??
Absolute clown post. Slander. Lies.
You can't prove otherwise. It is a fair assessment. The women's Olympic 1500 final in 2012 has been described as one of the dirtiest races in history. I would say this probably tops it (and the men's 800 final).
You can't prove otherwise. It is a fair assessment. The women's Olympic 1500 final in 2012 has been described as one of the dirtiest races in history. I would say this probably tops it (and the men's 800 final).
Everyone knew in real time that the 2012 race was a flaming fraud fest. And everyone was right. So certainly skeptics about the 2024 race should not be discounted.
It's Keely Power... Georgia has mentioned in interviews the impact of training with somebody at the top of her game.... Keely has dragged Georgia up a level
Of course officials are complicit, this has been going on for decades! I know because I used to compete at international level and heard people talking about it. At one event abroad somewhere in the 1980s we were told at a pre-event team meeting that there would be no drug testing and there was a very audible sigh of relief from some of the athletes.
Indeed but you will surely know that elite UK athletics in the 1980s was 'managed' by one official who is long since passed to the great Suitcase of Cash in the sky and the reconstructed UKA from 1997, at the latest, ensured this situation would not be repeated. that official's role in helping athletes of many nationalities evade doping tests has been thoroughly set out in Running Scared published around that time.
So you think a 30-year-old woman who is a prior to getting selected for the Olympics was doing very well in a lucrative cybersecurity sales position decided to risk it all including her health to inject herself with epo?
She has shared publicly the backing her employer has given her to put her career on hold to train. It would be absolutely mad to risk her future career and reputation, it would also compromise her training group (which includes Hogkinson) - so you must think they are in on it too?
It just doesn't make sense.
The only other option is that there's state sponsored doping going on or some drug that hasn't been banned yet but even then there would be some hint of that in the british press.
Notably, there's another example: British Sprinter (and accountant) Eugene Amo-Dadzie.
In his case he hadn't done ANY specialised training until his mid 20s. He ran 9.93 last year at 31, having incrementally chipped away at it (with the same improvement curve you'd expect to see in a notably younger athletes).
Given he has a young family, & a promising career in the profession (which he hasn't left), he'd be risking even more for far less upside.
Both of these display the same broken logic. They are based upon the assumption that I should respect the position of cybersecurity (Georgia), or perhaps as a "husband and father" (Eugene), as a reason they couldn't be doping. They wouldn't risk it.
Oh, you mean like how countless people throughout history have risked everything they have on a bet? Like how a Priest will abuse their position and molest a child? You mean no one would ever do something "that would affect their family" if they thought they could get away with it? No husband has ever cheated?
No, I know that I'm a human, and I'm not perfect. I like to think I have some ethics, but that is only where I draw the line. Other humans draw the line somewhere else and call it ethics as well.
When you run times at the very peak of human performance, you are suspect AUTOMATICALLY. Throughout time and currently people are doping. The best athletes are doping. You don't make a draft horse a Kentucky Derby winner by doping. So there is already a selection bias. The best are competing nonstop.
Only tech and drugs can explain the rest.
I also like the hand waving around alternate training techniques. Please reference case of Lance Armstrong.
I would bet every cent that I own that between Georgia Bell, Jess Hull, Gabriel Tual and Sedjati, that at least one of them has doped. I would also be willing to put a significant sum on the 4 team parlay.
I wonder how Muir feels. She has been at the top of 1500m for almost a decade and to watch a compatriot break her British Record after a year of running.
In everything I've tried to find out about Bell this is the thing that keeps making all the explanations seem to fall flat. It seems like everyone keeps touting Georgia's junior times (which don't sound all that impressive to me, given the women she's beating now) or her time on the bike but I just can't believe another British woman could beat Muir who has been absolutely dedicated to the sport.
I wonder how Muir feels. She has been at the top of 1500m for almost a decade and to watch a compatriot break her British Record after a year of running.
In everything I've tried to find out about Bell this is the thing that keeps making all the explanations seem to fall flat. It seems like everyone keeps touting Georgia's junior times (which don't sound all that impressive to me, given the women she's beating now) or her time on the bike but I just can't believe another British woman could beat Muir who has been absolutely dedicated to the sport.
That's the fallacy right there. A lot of people on this board are really, really into running and try really hard to get their times down and it's really hard for them.
But that's not how athletic performance works. Yes you have to work very hard to succeed, but there are talented individuals who are much more casual with their talents than you would be, who are simply better than you. They don't care as much as you, but they have a gift. As dedicated as Muir is, there are plenty of athletes who are more dedicated but slower, or less dedicated but faster.
That's not to say that they can reach the top without hard work, but the best aren't always the most dedicated. They are the ones who combine talent with dedication and luck. I'm not saying that Bell is or isn't doping, but you want to believe that an obsessive lifer like Muir is gonna be the best, and it's just not so.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Georgia Bell wins gold as the most obvious doper in the Olympics!
That title still belongs to one jess hull of australia.
I think Bell wins the title and gold over Hull. The 5 year layoff, her age, and narrow gap behind silver medalist Hull is just too impressive. Even Sedjati was like “Damn, that’s blatant!”
Indeed I do and he helped my career a lot by getting me races in the UK and abroad. He didn't need to help me evade testing as I wasn't doping ;-). It would be extremely naïve to assume that doping has been eradicated post-AN, it's just been driven underground and is more discreet and sophisticated.
Thanks for the book recommendation btw, I didn't know about that but will definitely get a copy now.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
add info
Unfortunately I simply cannot believe she (or Jess Hull) is clean. I also highly doubt that if anything is found, That Team GB will allow it to be exposed due to the implications it would have for her training mates…
All the doping agencies are independent of the NGBs. Team GB you refer to is some new brand for the BOA team of every sport. If a doping infringement is found the NGB doesn't have the decisive role in its announcement.
They're supposed to be independent. Doesn't mean they are in practice.