Sprintgeezer
Pretend for a moment that Merritt had NOT run 12.8 .. say he equalled the previous wr. Where would your argument be then?
IMO, you're argument that he's on PEDs rests entirely on the single mark of 12.8 .. and I don't think that's a reasoned claim at all.
IMO.
wtfunny--
Amazing! How is it possible for you to believe that my argument rests solely on his 12.80, when I have gone to great pains to describe his 2012 season and how it compares to not only his own previous seasons, but to the other top hurdlers' seasons since 2009, especially Oliver 2010 and Robles 2008?
My argument doesn't even require the 12.80, it's just icing on the cake!
IMHO there is no question about Merritt...the REAL question right now might lie with Pearson.
What do you think of her?
sprintgeezer
So let's pretend Merritt didn't even run last week. No wr, no pr, no run at all. you'd still say he's on PEDs?
Pearson, I'm not sure about. I'm an Aussie (now living in the US), and we're not the most unbiased of folks around when it comes to our athletes. But we also don't have a history of great women hurdlers.
I tend to lean towards not claiming an athlete's juiced without something more than "well, look at how good s/he is". The only exceptions I've ever had to that are Ben J, Flo Jo, and a number of the E. European and Chinese women athletes.
Otherwise, you may just as well say everyone's on drugs; imo.
Sprintgeezer wrote:As you have posted absolutely none of your thinking on 7 steps vs 8, you're apparently not serious about it, and so I won't waste my time providing you with the baseline you are requesting.
Instead, I would direct you to this brief synopsis:
http://www.hurdlesfirst.com/sevenstepping.htm
this link is drivel
it offers nothing except obvious of you gotta be strong & maybe switch blocks
I repeat: juicing can absolutely enable 7 steps rather than 8--more to the point, it can absolutely enable a quicker time over the first couple of hurdles while using 7 rather than 8 steps to the first. But I've said too much already
moron
it can absolutely be done clean
7 steps isn't issue
it's rhythm/technique after
aries nailed it
As to your point that "a record such as Merritt's is not without precedence"--it is NOT "the record" that is of primary importance, it is Merritt's performance history, which includes the record. In making your argument, you have exalted the importance of a single dimension of a single performance above the multiple dimensions of his performance history which were enumerated in my original post. Hardly convincing, wouldn't you say? Especially since I agree with you on that particular dimension, for reasons better than the reasoning that you yourself posted. Here is that agreement
f*cking drivel
aries had 12.8+ intrinsic in his london run prior to games
moron
he was nothing better in brussels except better weather/no clipping
Yes, there are definitely precedents for a record such as Merritt's--however, the less similar the scenarios are in those precedents compared to Merritt's scenario, the less those precedents say about whether or not Merritt is doping
drivel
On the second point, although there are many who believe that Edwards doped, I think it's reasonable to assume that both Edwards and Beamon were clean
moron
learn to read archives
EDWARDS WR HAD AN AUDIBLE CLUNK ON JUMP PHASE
HE MAYA GOT 20 - 30CM ADVANTAGE
HE HIT THE OLE LJ BOARD WHICH HADN'T GOT BURIED ENOUGH IN REVAMP
beamom had likely close to 3.0 as anything below 3.0 was rounded to 2.0
On the first point, forget about Beamon and Edwards. They are athletes in different events, both jumps--everybody knows that if you get lucky with a puff of wind in a jump, you will sail. (I'm not saying that is what happened with them, I'm just pointing out one dimension in which your chosen comparisons are wanting; there are other such dimensions as well as this one.) It would be much better to instead use athletes in the 110mH event, which would be the most direct comparison
drivel
There are 2 kinds of scenarios at the top of the 110mH: guys who have consistently good performances, and for whom the "exemplary" one is not much better than the average of their best--guys like Robles, Liu, Oliver, and Johnson. In order, their exemplary performance is ahead of the average of their next-best 3 performances by .03, .04, .03, and .01
Merritt is ahead by .13
drivel
apart from allen, these guys have crap 100 speed ( allen ran close to 20.1 )
allen shouda run low-12.8 in his brussels 12.92 in '96 in good weather, but moron, you didn't see this race to understand this event
By itself, this fact doesn't really prove anything, because the other scenario, where an athlete has one disproportionately excellent time, has been proven possible in the 110mH by other top hurdlers like Arnold, Jackson, Kingdom, and Nehemiah. In order, their exemplary performance is ahead of the average of their next-best 3 performances by .13, .08, .07, and .11
idiot
learn
it has been a weak event with non-entities like liu/robles with little elite speed wr'ing/golds
renaldo wouda had it at 12.80 on slower '80s tracks for sprinters, & aries with lesser speed but on quicker sprint tracks now, but obviously better than liu/robles, destroyed it
Notice that Merritt is at the very top of this range compared to his peer group--so even though a one-off is possible in the 110mH, a one-off of this magnitude, though not specifically unprecedented in his peer group, is HIGHLY unlikely
idiot
the talent hasn't been there
a huge reservoir of 12.9 guys but less than handful of 12.8ers show this event was weak
aries brought speed to technique
trammell was possibly as good few years ago
Further, the ultimate conclusion that he is not doping rests on the assumption that none of the peer group to which he is being compared was doping
utter drivel
The first group of 4 is not a good basis of comparison, as they didn't exhibit the huge one-off performance
moron
event has been stagnant since 12.93
the wr shouda been at worst 12.80 before aries
he has just got towards a "proper" wr & he had faster sprint track
The best comparisons in the second group are Arnold and Nehemiah. I offer no opinion on their status, which should probably be accepted as clean, in the absence of any decent argument to the contrary. So, Merritt's performance is left in the highly unlikely category, however not suggesting juicing based on that fact alone
utter moron
no one but an idiot woud compare arnold to skeets
skeets wouda had close to 12.80 on quicker tracks for sprint
hitting wooden hurdles already cost close to 0.01s/hurdle compared to today's synthetic health/safety ones
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Ahh, the glory days. It was amazing up there.
Do you remember the old track at the CNE? That was a LONG time ago, but that's where it was when I was running Optimist as a little kid.
And like you, although I was there, I never saw anybody doing any roids whatsoever--unlike at the old Gold's Gym on Eglinton east.
On another note, it looks like that excrement Wigand has been flushed from this discussion.
Ha! I ran there a couple times before they built Metro TFC.
Wild, low ceiling, smelly and sand everywhere but that bouncy
Track was fast; saw Ian Clark run 8:04 for 3000 when he was in grade 12.
If you were an optimist then did you run under Charlie with Ben and those guys?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Hey Wigand--
I just realized that you're the same moron who expressly claimed that "East Africans have a distinct physiology when it comes to O2 delivery"--a claim which, of course, you never substantiated when asked to do so, because it is laughably indefensible:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4423544&page=4Nice work, buddy! That's right up there with things like more oxygen in Rieti producing faster sprint times.
What a joke you are.
First link off of google.
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/1/18.fullI didn't think it was that hard.
No, actually you're the joke. All you've done this thread is look at an amazing season and have made a conclusion based on what? That he had a better season than Allen in 1996? Johnson was running 12.9 hitting hurdles and we all knew he was just a inch or two too short. Now Aries, 10cm taller, is clearing hurdles at 12.8. He's Allen Johnson plus 10cm.
Why is it always the subelites that are the most obsessed with drugs? Even my friends who have been busted weren't anywhere near as into the subject of drugs as non-Olympians such as yourself are. And they were on it.
What's that smell in this thread?
Oh yes, the scent of the vent.
C3PO--Zooomm!!!
Wigand--
I might respond later--if it appears your thread merits any response, that is.
Wigand--
F*U*C*K*I*N*G EXCELLENT!
Did you even read that paper? Are you even CAPABLE of reading?
It proves that you are a complete MORON.
I repeat: It proves that you are a complete MORON.
Let me repeat, in case you didn't understand: It proves that you are a complete MORON.
One more time: YOU ARE AN UTTER, TOTAL, AND COMPLETE MORON.
Here's some advice: read the paper.
More advice: when trying to prove a point, cite references that SUPPORT your point.
Hilarious, I've never, ever seen anybody auto-flame so badly!
Your post did indeed merit a response, but obviously not for the reason you thought it would. ROTFLMAO
You remind me of frilled-neck lizard or a European toad. They both puff themselves up to make themselves look bigger than they actually are as a defensive mechanism.I think the implications of Ethiopians at 3000m above sea level having the same hemoglobin concentration and oxygen saturation as sea levelers are quite clear. And:
Both the Andean and Tibetan populations had mutations related to the HIF-1 pathway as well, but all three groups differed in both genotype and phenotype. One difference in phenotype had to do with hemoglobin, the part of the blood that transports oxygen. Ethiopians and Andeans had hemoglobin levels that were higher than low-altitude populations, but the Tibetans had average levels.
The researchers also discovered a variant in the Ethiopian groups in a gene involved in mitochondrial function. Mitochondria regulate the production of ATP, the chemical cells use for energy, making this gene another interesting candidate for playing a role in adaptation to high altitude.
No distinguishing physiological traits, however, have been identified in high-altitude Ethiopians[4,5]. Hemoglobin levels and oxygen saturation in high-altitude Ethiopians living in the Ambaras area (3,530 meters) have been reported to not significantly differ from those in low-altitude residents in the United States [4,5]. The variation in high-altitude physiology among populations originating from different geographic regions suggests that there may be different biological mechanisms playing a role in high-altitude adaptation in these populations.
Our analysis has produced several candidates for involvement in high-altitude physiology, including CBARA1, VAV3, ARNT2 and THRB, three of which have not been previously implicated in genome-wide high-altitude studies. Each of these genes has a biological function that may play a role in the response to hypoxia, and two of them (THRB and ARNT2) play a role in the HIF-1 pathway, which was previously implicated in Tibetan and Andean studies [8-13]. Our combined results suggest that the genes and genetic variants contributing to high-altitude adaptation in Ethiopia are largely distinct from other high-altitude regions and arose independently through convergent evolution due to the strong selective force of hypoxia.
Thanks, Google.
Wigand--
FIRST, LET US NOT FORGET THAT THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT MERRITT, AND ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT 7 VS 8 STEPS.
*********************
With that out of the way, I consider your latest response to my flame.
I read through the article to which you initially linked. Its contents assessed physiologic adaptations to high-altitude stressors among 3 populations, including select Andeans, Tibetans, and Ethiopians.
The paper reports that "Represented by a single study, the Ethiopian pattern is distinguished by levels of hemoglobin concentration, oxygen saturation, and arterial oxygen content comparable to those of healthy sea-level populations." Whereas the Andean population showed an increasing response with increasing altitude, the Tibetans only showed a response when living above the altitude at which the Ethiopians lived. In total, the Ethiopian population was the same as the Tibetan population, but with a 10% higher arterial oxygen content for the same altitude. Their arterial oxygen content was likely the same as the Andean sample for the same altitude, but using a lower hemoglobin concentration.
These results are relevant only to patterns of adaptation to the high-altitude stressor of hypobaric hypoxia. The study indicates that the Ethiopian population, within the limits of the study and compared to only 2 other groups, showed a different pattern of adaptation to this altitude-related stressor, which in shorthand means a different phenotype of arterial oxygen content. This would suggest a different physiologic adaptation, but does not suggest that they have an intrinsically different oxygen delivery physiology. The author, in a companion paper, explicitly limits this different physiology to those situations requiring adaptation to high-altitude conditions: "Ethiopians must have unique ADAPTATIONS [emphasis mine] of oxygen uptake or delivery that result in the absence of an hypoxemic stimulus to increase red blood cell production and hemoglobin concentration despite their high-altitude residence."
Significantly, the author in a cited paper stated that "The Ambaras highlanders had an average oxygen saturation of 95.3 ± 0.2% with a range from 88 to 99 (n = 209) that was slightly lower than that among Ethiopian migrants residing near sea level (207 m in Cleveland) who had an average oxygen saturation of 96.7 ± 0.2% (n = 48) (t = 4.1, df = 255, P < 0.05). That is, the Ambaras Ethiopian sample exhibited clinically minimal but statistically significant arterial hypoxemia despite residing at 3,530 m (11,650 feet), where the partial pressure of inspired oxygen is one-third lower than sea level." "Statistically significant" means that they're not as different after all, as they exhibit the same type of response as does the Tibetan population.
Although the physiologic difference is limited by the studies to adaptive situations, it will be interesting to see if it does, indeed, result in a different physiology of oxygen diffusion into the blood. The author states that "The mechanism for achieving the high oxygen saturation is unknown. The flow of gas along the oxygen transport chain is proportional to pressure differences and conductance between the links and thus suggests there is high conductance from the lung to the blood. Hypothetically, this could result from higher diffusion from alveoli to pulmonary blood and/or higher oxygen affinity for hemoglobin. The latter could potentially result from a mutant form of hemoglobin, lower 2,3-diphosphoglycerate or respiratory alkalosis secondary to marked hyperventilation. Because all had normal hemoglobin A by electrophoresis, the possibility of a high oxygen affinity variant of hemoglobin can be excluded (24). Future study of Ethiopian samples spanning the inhabited altitude range from sea level to ≈4,000 m are necessary to confirm and explain these findings."
So they rule out a different form of hemoglobin, but leave open other possibilities.
Regarding whatever it was that you quoted from Google, the statement that "The variation in high-altitude physiology among populations originating from different geographic regions suggests that there may be different biological mechanisms playing a role in high-altitude adaptation in these populations." confirms that it is limited to high-altitude adaptation.
Further, in whatever you quoted, the statement that "Hemoglobin levels and oxygen saturation in high-altitude Ethiopians living in the Ambaras area (3,530 meters) have been reported to not significantly differ from those in low-altitude residents in the United States [4,5]." appears to be explicitly contradicted by the cited paper above, which again stated that "...the Ambaras Ethiopian sample exhibited...statistically significant arterial hypoxemia despite residing at 3,530 m".
I repeat once more: this is expressly limited by the authors to high-altitude adaptation, even as quoted in your Google reference: "Our combined results suggest that the genes and genetic variants CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH-ALTITUDE ADAPTATION [emphasis mine] in Ethiopia are largely distinct from other high-altitude regions...", and even at that, are only distinct with respect to the 2 other high-altitude populations studied.
None of this in any way indicates that their oxygen delivery physiology in anything other than high-altitude adaptation situations is any different from anybody else's, let alone that even if it were, that it would lead to enhanced athletic ability in endurance events.
Don't get me wrong--I'm a firm believer that they are "just better", for whatever reason. I acknowledge that they might even have a different, athletically-superior oxygen delivery physiology--but the studies you are citing do not support any such proposition as far as I can tell.
Again, DID YOU EVEN READ THE PAPER, OR ARE YOU RELYING ON INTERPRETATIONS YOU FIND OF IT ON THE WEB?
You might want to try COGNATING instead of GOOGLING.
More fuel to the fire, given Merritt's 2013 performances to 24 June:
" Synopsis: He is ahead of second by .07 Nine (9) guys are sandwiched into the next .07 Ridiculous."
This year he is so far not only NOT in the lead, he is only tied for 9th overall.
"His average finishing position this year is something like 1.2, because he won literally all his races except one. Last year it was 2.5 Ridiculous."
This year his average finishing position, including his semi-final at nationals or not, is 2.0
"He went under 13 8 times this year, zero times before in his career. Ridiculous."
This year he hasn't gone under 13 ever, and has come only within a quarter-second of 13.
"He had the 8 of the top 10 performances this year, and all top 7. Ridiculous."
This year he has zero performances in the top 10.
"His best last year was equal to something like his 10th best this year. Ridiculous."
His best so far this year is equal to only his 15th best in 2012.
I will update this thread again later in the year, after he records more marks in the hurdles.
So far this year his average of his best performances is something like .40 slower than his average for the average of his top 10 last year--0.37 to be exact.
Merritt 2012 should be wiped off the history books, and he should be stripped of not only his WR but also his Olympic medal and any other victories he had, which were many.
Totally disgusting. So much for the "7 steps" bullcrap that people were throwing around.
I can't stand Merritt. Merritt, Blake, Jeter, and Bolt are probably all equally disgusting, but for some reason Merritt 2012 stands out as the most disgusting season in recent history.
Hey sprintgeezer, I hope you add an analysis of his 2014 season to this thread. So far (mid-July now) he has only 1 result on the iaaf list, 13.78 (-0.4) from May 3, finishing third in that race. That result ties him for 106th in the world this season, so far.
sprintgeezer died
Aries Merritt progression:
2006 13.12
2007 13.09
2008 13.24
2009 13.15
2010 13.61
2011 13.12
2012 12.80
2013 13.09
2014 13.78
2012 was almost a full 3 tenths faster than any other year for him.
He ran under his 13.09 11 times that year.
But not once before or after that year.
Interesting that the PED of choice now does seem to make an actual 0.50 improvement in the 100m/110mH, and more of an improvement than that in the 200m.
Is Merritt injured this year?
Also, Sprintgeezer is alive and well, and living in Paris with Jacques Brel. But I doubt that he will update this thread.
Six other years with a time within .03 of 13.12. He attended the University of Tennessee from 2003 to 2006, coinciding at least in part with Justin Gatlin. Hurdlers get injured and the steps do matter. Dayron Robles, David Oliver, and Liu Xiang are just a few prominent examples of high hurdlers who fell way off due to injury or other reasons. As far as ventolin's contention that he was particularly fast and hence likely to drop the time a lot, the only non-hurdles times I saw were 21.3 outdoors and 21.46 indoors, from pretty many years ago. So, no, Merritt does not seem to have that, say, Lemaitre like speed (10 flat or a bit better) that would figure to bring large drops in the hurdles. But that he's had one Wunderjahre and not done that great since doesn't indicate anything in itself particularly suspicious in the hurdles.
The 110 hurdle is probably the most inconsistent event in track and field, if the slightest thing is off you can go from great to average. Jackson, Johnson, Foster for example were almost outliers in terms of their consistency. If you look at the IAAF top-10 list, you see that guys are all over the place. And, btw, Merritt is a 10.2 100m sprinter which is definitely fast enough for hurdles. Also, there have been some great hurdlers whose flat speed was so slow that they could not make their college 4x4. Trumell and Skeets were world class 100m sprinters and said that there speed was not a big advantage. The hurdles looks like a sprint, but it isn't. However, in the 400m hurdles, I think your 400m flat speed is a major factor.
I am alive and WELL indeed, because I never doped.
Don't believe the lies.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I am alive and WELL indeed, because I never doped.
http://www.iaaf.org/competitions/iaaf-world-championships/news/aries-merritt-hurdles-kidney-disease?utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=merrittDon't believe the lies.
I suppose you need all types for balance ...... but this is why those who immediately jump to the conclusion that a great performance has to have been a due to drug use need to back off a notch.
Having said that, there are folks who also think that PED's are the rare exception ... and they need to amp it up a notch.