Cheers to Bernard Lagat

some of you will be happy to hear this, but Lagat has ruined many American Championships for me! He continues to "rain on the american/my parade" GOD...I wish he would step a side!...the nightmare continues!

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

some of you will be happy to hear this, but Lagat has ruined many American Championships for me! He continues to "rain on the american/my parade" GOD...I wish he would step a side!...the nightmare continues!

I used to have a similar view of Lagat when I started following the sport a few years ago, but now I've embraced him. Lagat is such a nice likeable guy. He's my running hero and role model. I love the fact that he's a family man and a totally nice normal classy guy, but still manages to be so good into his late 30s.

I think his one run a day 6 days a week training regime is responsible for his longevity. In Kenya they often train so incredibly hard that most burn out, but those that survive have done such crazy training that they become very fast but at the expense of short careers due to the overtraining(think Daniel Komen). Whereas Lagat only runs once a day, and he's still world class at 38.

Lagat is evidence that if you want a long career you err on the side of caution and only do what will make you better and stay healthy, not more and not less. I've tried out high mileage and low mileage. I feel the most fit and run the best when I'm only running once a day for 60 miles a week, and Lagat makes me confident this will also prolong my running career. The man is an inspiration!

lsll wrote:

12:58 isn't otherworldly. It's an average elite 5k time.

This is letsrun logic at its best. 12:58 is absolutely otherworldly FOR A 38 YEAR OLD.

Zat0pek wrote:

Jeff, there are so many things incorrect in your defense of Lagat that there is no way to begin correcting them (like Lagat not using EPO when it was undetectable, the date of the picture with gap in his teeth [go back further and see what you find], and the impact of his EPO use on the differential between his performances then and now).

What are you talking about? Are you saying that a a man shouldn't slow in 1500m ability as he ages? He's on track to slow as much or more than Coghlan did.

Do you retract your statement that Lagat had "perfect teeth" before getting braces in 2011?

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 - post braces

Thanks for doing this. I was actually going to start another thread about this because its just dumb to use his teeth as evidence for doping.

TLW wrote:

lsll wrote:

12:58 isn't otherworldly. It's an average elite 5k time.

This is letsrun logic at its best. 12:58 is absolutely otherworldly FOR A 38 YEAR OLD.

And 3:58.15 for a 41 year old? Not otherworldly? Only 8.3 seconds off his best as a 30 year old.

TLW wrote:

lsll wrote:

12:58 isn't otherworldly. It's an average elite 5k time.

This is letsrun logic at its best. 12:58 is absolutely otherworldly FOR A 38 YEAR OLD.

Not it's not at all otherworldy for a guy that ran 3:26 in his prime. You're just trolling now. It's obvious by the way you ignored the rest of my post. How many seconds should someone lose from 31 to 38 in your mind?

m40 world record right now: 13:43 (mohamed ezzher, france, at age 40),age-graded: 12:58, age-performance:99,51%.

lagat´s 12:58 (38 years, 10months): age-graded 12:26, age-performance: almost 104%.

fake runner wrote:

m40 world record right now: 13:43 (mohamed ezzher, france, at age 40),age-graded: 12:58, age-performance:99,51%.

lagat´s 12:58 (38 years, 10months): age-graded 12:26, age-performance: almost 104%.

And Coghlan's 3:58.15 at 41 age grades to 3:43.3 indoors, 5.1 seconds better than El Guerrouj's world record.

TLW wrote:

This is letsrun logic at its best. 12:58 is absolutely otherworldly FOR A 38 YEAR OLD.

3:26 is absolutely otherworldly FOR A 26 YEAR OLD.

I'll bet those age-graded calculators are BS, especially at the top ranges. Not enough world class guys keep running late into life for them to have enough data.

TLW wrote:

lsll wrote:

12:58 isn't otherworldly. It's an average elite 5k time.

This is letsrun logic at its best. 12:58 is absolutely otherworldly FOR A 38 YEAR OLD.

Lagat has shown himself to be an "otherworldly" athlete. He's never been an "average elite". He was a WC fer crissakes.

I competed in track and cross-country for two different universities, one NAIA and the other NCAA DI in a BCS conference. I had a law school classmate who after graduation went to work for the NCAA as an investigator. Later he worked directly for the NFL, and then went to work for two NFL franchises. Through a combination of both my sport and my profession, I have been very fortunate to get to know a good number of world-class and professional athletes in a variety of different sports. Because of my profession, I am regularly provided a large amount of information because those giving it to me know that it is privileged and cannot be divulged. So, in this summary don't expect many details or names because you won't get any. Rather, I will distill and explain more generally my understanding of the subject into a few main principles. In a separate post, I will provide a few selected examples not as anecdotal evidence but rather as examples or illustrations of the concept.Here goes:Principle #1: The cheaters are (almost) always ahead of the testers.The hardest thing for people to understand is that negative test results truly don't mean a thing. They really don't. Whether or not an athlete has never tested positive is absolutely, completely and totally irrelevant. Marion Jones passed 162 drug tests during a period of time when she was using a designer steroid, EPO and HGH. I have seen guys take the medicine chest one day and test clean the next. The multiple reasons for this (use of undetectable substances, masking agents, cycling the drug use, pre-testing and monitoring done by sponsors or even governing bodies to assist with avoiding detection, etc.) are many and beyond the scope of this simple post. Just like in the BALCO scandal, there are labs who create undetectable drugs for the sole purpose of evading testing. Remember, in BALCO the only way the designer steroid that Regina Jacobs and many others were using was discovered was because a syringe containing a tiny amount of the drug was provided to WADA. From there, they created a test and went back and tested previously tested samples that had been frozen and preserved. Had it not been for Trevor Graham providing that syringe, we still wouldn't know about that designer steroid. You can rest assured that there are other substances out there that were created for exactly the same purpose that we still don't know exist, and may never know exist.The key point to understand here is that when someone tests positive, that is the exception not the rule. The rule is that it is normal and ordinary for drug cheats to test negative. A positive test usually results from either absolute stupidity or just sheer bad luck. It is critical that you understand this. As the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”Principle #2: Doped up athletes are good for business.Doped up athletes run faster, jump higher, set records, perform more consistently, defy the aging process and are generally more exciting to watch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if doped up athletes are more exciting to watch and attract more fans, TV viewers, and revenue, then those who profit from that increased revenue are more than willing to, at the very least, turn a blind eye to doping but are far more likely to even participate in, and possibly even encourage, the doping and avoiding detection. This includes everyone from the athletes themselves to the governing bodies to sponsors to the media to agents to sponsors and even teammates and spouses. The motives to dope are many and large. Agents work on a commission, so a bigger contract for the athlete means a bigger commission for the agent. One way to get a bigger contract is to perform better and one of the most certain ways to perform better is to dope. Pro teams make money by selling tickets and through TV contracts. If you want to sell more tickets and attract more eyeballs to more TV sets, then doped athletes will unquestionably help your bottom line. I could go on and on.It is also true of governing bodies. As I have posted before, our own governing body performed pre-testing prior to the 1984 Olympic Trials and Olympics in order to aid our own athletes and avoiding detection: http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-...-irving-dardik. Even though I've posted before, it's worth repeating here:

It's not just the East Germans and Moroccans whose governing bodies are more than happy to help their drug athletes avoid detection.

The bottom line is that there is a tremendous support system in place that encourages, fosters and promotes athletes doping. Athletes ascending the performance ladder are surrounded by coaches, teammates, spouses, agents, sponsors, teams, and governing bodies who all benefit from their doping. And, of course, the athletes themselves benefit.

Principle #3: You should never be surprised by who tests positive.

The most surprising thing about a positive test is that someone actually slipped up and got caught. However, as to who that someone is there should be no surprise. The reason for that is that the incidence of drug use is so high and the risk of detection is so low. The high probability of any one athlete out of a population of athletes with a very high incidence of drug use simply means that you cannot be surprised when someone turns out to be a drug cheat. Negative tests mean nothing, and activism against drug use means nothing. That said, while no one can be above suspicion because the incidence of drug use is so high, there are certainly those who are suspected more than others (see Principle #5 below).

The very best quote I've ever seen regarding this point was by KevinM when he said in reference to Floyd Landis that "When the Amish kid tests positive, no one can be above suspicion."

Principle #4: Cheaters are extremely skilled liars

There are a lot of reasons for this. Many truly do not believe they're doing anything wrong because "everybody does it" and they are surrounded by people supporting and protecting them in their drug use. It's a little bit of a chicken and egg question; do they only lie after beginning to cheat or is it because they are liars that they cheat? I've never fully answer that one to my satisfaction. All I know for sure is the drug cheats are some of the most magnificently skilled liars I've ever encountered.

Principle #5: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

When you've had a peek inside that world, he learn that otherwise very subtle or innocuous things can mean a great deal. There often isn't any one telltale sign of cheating, although there can be (like Lagat's recent braces, acquired in his late 30s despite previously having previously flawless teeth; a prominent sign of HGH use). It's usually a combination of a variety of factors, including competition patterns, performances, the company they keep, and a lot of other things. It's usually not one thing, but rather an overall picture that emerges based on a myriad of factors. You cannot simplistically look at performances and know who doped and who doesn't. Performances are just one of many factors that paint picture.

Principle #6: Logic means nothing , and everything.

This is the part that most people can't get past. They apply logic to PEDs ("it doesn't make sense that they would use PEDs because . . .") PED use doesn't conform to our logic. A lot of human behavior defies logic. If logic governed human behavior, all we'd have to do is point out to an alcoholic that drinking that much is ruining their life and they'd stop. I know this sounds nuts, but logic and what makes "sense" or "adds up" will get you nowhere in understanding the world of PEDs. It ain't about logic. It's a special kind of warped behavior with its own rules and sick rationalizations.

But on the other hand, logic is everything. To the athletes and the enablers with which they are surrounded, it is only logical to use if "everyone's doing it", it helps them make more money, there is very little chance of detection, etc.

In the world of PEDs, you can believe very little of what you see. It's a world that operates on its own sick rationalizations that are foreign to the vast majority of people on the outside looking in at that world. There's always a wizard or two behind the curtain creating an illusion for those looking in so they don't see the reality. In the world of PEDs, what you see is often nothing but a carefully crafted mirage.

Example #1: The college freshman.

When I transferred to an NCAA DI school, there was another transfer student who was a sophomore. He was transferring from another, smaller, NCAA DI school.He was an excellent runner and the state cross country champion in a large, competitive state with only one division. During his freshman year at his previous school, he contracted mono near the end of indoor season and missed a large block of training during the late winter and early spring. His previous coach thought the team was in the running to win a conference title, so he put my teammates on steroids to help get them back in time for the conference meet. They worked, of course, and he won the conference title despite missing a large block of training at a crucial time. He described the effect of the steroids with almost hushed reverence about how sudden and dramatic the impact was. He went off to steroids after the conference meet, never used them again and transferred.

The moral of this parable is that a college coach in a non-revenue sport was motivated to put a college freshman with mono on steroids to get him to perform at the conference meet. If the motivation is sufficient to cheat for a college freshmen in a nonrevenue sport to win the conference title in a mid-major conference, one can only imagine how great the motivation to cheat is for athlete on the verge of making a national team, moving from the minor leagues to the major leagues, setting a record, getting a contract, getting a medal or winning a real championship.

Example #2: The highest placing non-American

In 1987, a good friend of mine, himself a former national-class runner who raced "B" meets in Europe, was coaching at a JUCO. Also at this JUCO was a coach from the former Soviet Union. My friend called me one night in 1987 to tell me that the Soviet coach told him that there had been a rampant rumor in Europe before he left that, due to public perceptions about drug use in sport, an edict had been sent out by a governing body that the "highest-placing non-American in the 100 meters" was to fail his drug test at the upcoming Olympics in Seoul to send a signal.

We laughed about it at the time and said, "well, we'll find out in about a year if it's true."

At the 1988 Olympics, Ben Johnson, "the highest-placing non-American in the 100 meters" failed his drug test.

The moral of this parable is an illustration of the amount of complicity which exists with coaches, governing bodies, sponsors and the like. The US is a major part of the television market for the Olympics so throwing an American under the bus would be bad publicity and bad for business. However, growing public suspicion over the use of drugs in sports demanded that a major figure be thrown under the bus to create the false impression that testing actually "works" thereby restoring some public confidence and keeping them watching, which in turn keeps the advertising rates up.

Example #3: The drug test results reveal, uh, an "injury", yeah, that's it, an injury!

In the 1990s, a popular and well-known US athlete just missed making a national team by one place. The winner of that selection race was tearing up the track and setting records all over the place. The individual who missed making the team by one place went to Europe, ran a few PR's then returned home during the break in competition while the international championship was conducted.

Only a couple of days before the international championship was to begin, the athlete who just missed making the team by one place got an urgent call from our governing body.

"We need you on a plane to [name of city were championship is being conducted] immediately. [Name of winner of the selection race] isn't going to be able to compete and we need you to take their place." Surprised and delighted at being able to compete, the athletes who missed making the team by one place finally asked why the winner wasn't going to be able to compete. The response by the governing body official was as direct and blunt as can be: "He/she can't compete because they tested positive for [name of a major PED] at the selection race and we don't want to take a chance on them testing positive during the [name of international championships]. We just got the B sample back confirming it."

Of course, this positive test result never saw the light of day.

The moral of this parable is that even when athletes do test positive, governing bodies are not above covering up those results in order to protect the image of the sport and its stars.

The second moral of this parable is that when athletes suddenly perform poorly or withdraw from major championships, the reasons given may, or may not, be true. The increased frequency and sophistication of testing at events like the WCs and Olympics just as often result in withdraws or poor performances (because the athlete is off the substance earlier to avoid detection) as do injuries or inability to handle the pressure on such a large stage.

http://www.tracktalk.net/drugged-gills-t7931.html

Doping

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz2wXFlV7-Q&t=22m21s

Testing has changed in this sport since the days of BALCO. It takes a number of things to go your way to come up clean and now the bio passport and retesting stored samples is turning the tide.

There are governing bodies that still have a role in this, but they aren't countries that are long with a history of democratic rule.

No, it was very high in the pre-out of competition era. It's come down quite a bit.

This is perfect?

Do you want to let everyone know who it was and who took the spot back in 1995 or should I? I remember that, too, but the fox isn't watching the hen house anymore. You think that Nike and USATF wanted Justin Gatlin taken down at the Kansas Relays when he could have just gotten a virus like like 1995?

coach d wrote:

TLW wrote:

Lagat ran 3:26 in the EPO era of the sport - meaning that the most powerful drug in endurance sports ever was undetectable and widely used.

Do you really think this time is natural? Please tell me you are not that naive.

El Guerouj ran 3:26:00 in 1998, which would be the EPO era. But Hicham and Bernard both ran 3:26-low in 2001, after there was a test. And CERA was not available then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQjjLgT-WHA

The first test available from the Sydney Olympics was ineffective and many athletes passed the test and later admitted they were taking it! Marion Jones for a start.

The improved test didn't emerge until 2006, but even that won't be 100% full proof if you know when to come off it before a test.

Fully agree!

lets run praises a African claiming to be an American and bashes our real American rupp that runs consitant low 13:00 over and over and good races after good races.. what a joke