What Grok thinks the likelihood of top runners doping is

He would have been most certainly the second Jesus had he not conspired unfaithfully and deceitfully against his dad in a court of law. But what he lacked in purity in domestic relations he more than made up for it in purity in the sporting arena I agree!!

To be a kind of Jesus of our sport you need a Haile Gebrselassie or Hicham El Guerrero type of leadership example. Jakob does not have that, neither does Fisherer, Shocker or Nuguse.

Only Josh Kerr stands closest to being a good example for the youth to follow. Mature, astute, calm minded, non volatile like Hocker and Jakob, stable and affable.

So what was he on in 1960 that made him 6 minutes slower than the fastest woman today?

5 minutes, Dumb: 2:15:16 and 2:09:56

You obviously can't count. It is more than 5 minutes. But you have nothing to say on why he was so much slower than the fastest women today if he were supposedly doping. But don't tax yourself - only trivia gets your attention. I can understand why you always use an unregistered name; to avoid the embarrassment of others recognising who you are.

Both men and women are faster today while running in supershoes.

Bikila didn't even wear shoes in Rome in 1960. The women's record for a barefoot marathon is PHAM THI BINH with a time of 2:45:34, some 30 minutes slower than Bikila.

In 1964, in Tokyo, Bikila ran 2:12:11.2 in Pumas. This is some 2 minutes slower than today's women's record, and some 12 minutes slower than today's men's record. If we add the 12 minute difference for the men to today's women's record, it is around 2:22:00, which compares to Joan Benoit and Ingrid Kristiansen in the 1980s.

So it's shoes that make all the difference between Bikila's era and today. You are aware that doping has spread throughout the sport since the 60's and 70's - in fact in all sports? But it hasn't made the fastest runners any faster? Strange how they nonetheless continue to dope. Chepngetich.

Bikila did run 3 minutes faster with shoes than without.

But no, not *all* the difference. There must be half a dozen to a dozen or more significant differences, e.g. things like better training and dedicated training made possible through professionalism, and pacemaking on flat courses in ideal spring or fall weather conditions, and synthetic materials to help regulate and control body temperature, and the availability of water and isotonic drinks and sugar tablets and gels during racing, etc.

While I don't doubt "doping" (whatever that means) has spread throughout "the sport" (whatever that means), not only since the '60s and '70s, but also since the beginning of the 20th century, not to mention as far back as the ancient Greeks, I'm always prepared to see any and all information regarding which doping has any proven performance effects on any runner's best marathon times, to help me separate and elevate it from mythical wives tales and rumors and conspiracies.

Right. It isn't doping that has led to faster times. Anything but. You left out divine intervention - which some runners have claimed. You're nothing if not consistent with your denial.

It is possible but that possibility remains speculative.

"Grok" responses like this must be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Some important questions: 1) What is the source of the data Grok consulted? 2) How does Grok evaluate the reliability and weights of the sources? 3) What is the method to arrive at percentages, given no quantities are measured or measurable?

If the source are sensational articles and discussion forums like letsrun and reddit, then Grok is just aggregating public opinions.

But what does Magic 8 Ball say?

Maybe try a Ouja board?

Oh good - it's been a while since we had a five page endless mind numbing thread wrecking back and forth between Rekrunner and Armstrong on whether EPO works.

I only ask for marathon performance data -- that should be possible to fit on one page.

It would be a change from your wrecking ball on Kenyan doping.

Why don't you post under your real name? Yes, to avoid the embarrassment of others recognising who you are.

Probably a stack of steroids, amphetamines, and whatever else was available in 1960. The Ethiopians (under the same Emperor who has been conquered by Mussolini 20 years before) had high-altitude training camps were guys like him (the star of the whole project to gain 'revenge' in Rome) were doing track intervals as part of 100+MPW, when all the other marathoners were running part-time and sometimes as low as 25 MPW.

It's accepted that blood doping was being used in the Tour de France by 1960. It's possible he may have been blood doping.

As far as your question is concerned - faulty logic there. If I took every drug available I wouldn't get within an hour of even the best clean women. It relies on the assumption that - "Bikila was the best runner in 1960". He was, but he probably wasn't the most talented by a long way. But taking peds + 2025 style training in 1960 would have been enough to take any b-level talent to Olympic gold. Just look at Manangoi, Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir etc, and the only advantage they had was doping.

Plus you're the only person on this board that assumes that shoes and nutrition make no difference - even seemingly for a barefoot runner compared to today's super cushioned carbon fiber kangeroo shoes.

So who is Crustylivs? Why don't you have the courage to post under your real name?

BTW, I said a registered v unregistered name. He always uses an unregistered name so that he isn't associated with his registered handle when he says things he doesn't want to be associated with.

Lydiard showed before 1960 that top distance runners could - and should - put in high mileage. Bikila practiced that in the hills around Addis Abiba.

Doping wasn't a known feature in distance running and especially marathon running in 1960. Steroids and 'speed' aren't great aids to endurance athletes. Blood doping in the sport came quite a bit later. This shows in that elite marathon runners were only just beating 2:20 in that era. If Bikila had doped like marathon runners do today he probably would have been running 10 minutes faster than at his peak. There's no way if he was doping that he would be so much slower than the best women today. It was also significant that we didn't see a sudden surge of Ethiopian champions in the sixties; the only other I recall was Wolde, who won in '68.

You said 6 minutes, but 5 is correct.

Your problem with such calculations: you don't know how to put it into your calculator.