Deanouk wrote:
He is certainly not Kenyan or East African, where the other 3 sub 1:42 800m runners originate from.
Botsuana is in East Africa? OK, when Brazil belongs to Europe this might be true too.
Deanouk wrote:
He is certainly not Kenyan or East African, where the other 3 sub 1:42 800m runners originate from.
Botsuana is in East Africa? OK, when Brazil belongs to Europe this might be true too.
Final assessment -
Coe - blood disorder due to blood transfusions
Radcliffe - EPO user
El Guerrouj - ran in EPO era, but never failed a drug test like Lagat, Kiprop, and other Middle Easterners or N. Africans
Deanouk wrote:
RFK wrote:
Snell was the best over 800m until Rudisha came around.
If Snell could have trained full time and run on a modern synthetic track, he could have achieved an amazing time.
Snell wouldn't have been able to touch Coe's time over 800m. Inferior 1500m endurance (3:29 to 3:37 mile equivalent) and he never had the natural speed of Coe - 45.5 relay leg compared to Snell's 47.9 for 440 yd relay leg (worth 47.6 for 400m). 2 secs + difference over 400m and 8 secs over 1500m is not going to be made up by a synthetic track.
If someone is superior over 400m and 1500m, then their peak potential over 800m has to be superior.
That's not to diminish Snell's place in 800m history due to his 2 Olympic titles. He was head and shoulders above his peers, and a great championship racer, but he never showed the potential to run a time faster than Coe or others up to Rudisha.
Another typical Coevett with his head way up Coe's you know what.
Forgets the fact Snell ran 20 years prior to Coe as an amateur, who had a job and ran on inferior tracks.
Snell > Coe over the 800m.
Deanouk wrote:
pooorooove it wrote:
Like you and your acolytes normally say here: link?
Prove it.
Idiot. Prove what?
Look in any of the books on Coe and it will tell you that he spent months in the spring of 1980 training in Rome. There is no need for a link. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of that period would know that.
If someone makes a sweeping (generalised) accusation, such as Coe had photos in a book with Conconi or thanked him or trained with him in Sestriere (all of which said poster has pulled out his a***), then the onus is on him to supply a link! He can't because he knows he's made it up!
I suggested the link was between Cova and Conconi, and backed it up with 2 links from a known Italian coach who knew and worked with both Conconi and Cova. I've backed up my statements with links. Now you go and do the same for Coe !
Where is the evidence that Aouita doped?
Don't provide me with the circumstantial evidence Coevett likes to regurgitate.
Josh Birnbaum wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
Idiot. Prove what?
Look in any of the books on Coe and it will tell you that he spent months in the spring of 1980 training in Rome. There is no need for a link. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of that period would know that.
If someone makes a sweeping (generalised) accusation, such as Coe had photos in a book with Conconi or thanked him or trained with him in Sestriere (all of which said poster has pulled out his a***), then the onus is on him to supply a link! He can't because he knows he's made it up!
I suggested the link was between Cova and Conconi, and backed it up with 2 links from a known Italian coach who knew and worked with both Conconi and Cova. I've backed up my statements with links. Now you go and do the same for Coe !
Where is the evidence that Aouita doped?
Don't provide me with the circumstantial evidence Coevett likes to regurgitate.
So making up evidence against Coe trumps the mountain of circumstantial evidence that Aouita doped?
Josh Birnbaum wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
Idiot. Prove what?
Look in any of the books on Coe and it will tell you that he spent months in the spring of 1980 training in Rome. There is no need for a link. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of that period would know that.
If someone makes a sweeping (generalised) accusation, such as Coe had photos in a book with Conconi or thanked him or trained with him in Sestriere (all of which said poster has pulled out his a***), then the onus is on him to supply a link! He can't because he knows he's made it up!
I suggested the link was between Cova and Conconi, and backed it up with 2 links from a known Italian coach who knew and worked with both Conconi and Cova. I've backed up my statements with links. Now you go and do the same for Coe !
Where is the evidence that Aouita doped?
Don't provide me with the circumstantial evidence Coevett likes to regurgitate.
There isn't any proof that Aouita doped. Coevett wants to play this silly game of accusing Aouita of doping, therefore, people are going to accuse his idol of doping. But yet he and his side-kick get all bent out of shape if their heros are accused of doping on these threads. It's either both Aouita & Coe doped or neither one did. Coevett needs to be fair about this and decide which way he wants to go or the Aouita vs Coe debate will just get more hostile.
Coevett wrote:
I don't really argue with Canova much, apart from when he calls me an idiot for putting East African domination down to doping. I never accused him of being inconsistent, I don't think.
As far as the Marathon times improving since the 90's, two of the top three times were set recently by '90's track runners' who if we assume were doping to the gills with EPO back in the full throttle days are likely still benefiting today even if they long ago stopped. Marathon runners competing 2 or 3 times a year don't get tested nearly as often as track stars, and that might be a reason why Africans have been moving en masse to the roads (as well as prize money). Despite this, a number of East African marathoners have been busted, male and female.
EPO wasn't a free for all in either of their careers. In fact, they wouldn't have been able to take in competition where the effects are most potent like those of the 90's as Boulami discovered.
15 years later, Kipchoge set the marathon World record and you are saying he benefited for those days, maybe you could say he benefited more than runners who appeared after him but how could he benefit more than the guys who could use unrestricted and in comp for the entirety of the 90's or whole careers and still beat the best of their times by over a mile if EPO and blood doping was the biggest key?
And how could he do it 10 years after the ABP came in? How can the benefits of a drug be stronger 10-15 years later when dosages have steadily declined to the benefits felt by athletes who could use large dosages for all their careers in the 90's and still be a mile off the world record?
Does EPO have a multiplication life where the benefits get stronger every year after use rather than a half life where benefits decrease as time goes on like every other known drug on the planet?
Your argument makes no sense here. Fair enough on you not accusing Canova for being inconsistent, I apoligise for that comment.
Josh Birnbaum wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
Snell wouldn't have been able to touch Coe's time over 800m. Inferior 1500m endurance (3:29 to 3:37 mile equivalent) and he never had the natural speed of Coe - 45.5 relay leg compared to Snell's 47.9 for 440 yd relay leg (worth 47.6 for 400m). 2 secs + difference over 400m and 8 secs over 1500m is not going to be made up by a synthetic track.
If someone is superior over 400m and 1500m, then their peak potential over 800m has to be superior.
That's not to diminish Snell's place in 800m history due to his 2 Olympic titles. He was head and shoulders above his peers, and a great championship racer, but he never showed the potential to run a time faster than Coe or others up to Rudisha.
Another typical Coevett with his head way up Coe's you know what.
Forgets the fact Snell ran 20 years prior to Coe as an amateur, who had a job and ran on inferior tracks.
Snell > Coe over the 800m.
No, I’ve already stated that the difference in track does not make up the 2+ sec difference at 400m or 8 sec o er 1500m.
Coe began his career as an amateur, (athletes only got trust funds in 82) and was only a full time athlete for 1 year (1980) during his career. The rest of the time he was either a student or worked for the Sports Council.
Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that prolonged exposure to high levels of EPO, and high RBCs, have some sort of long-lasting benefit decades afterwards, even after they long ago stopped, wouldn't it stand to reason that this is by far the best explanation for some nations at high altitude naturally producing many athletes with superior endurance ability, these athletes having a life long exposure to low-oxygen induced EPO stimulation naturally. Wouldn't this long-lasting after the fact effect render the use of synthetic EPO unnecessary, not to mention, ineffective?
Ahoy matey wrote:
Coevett wrote:
I don't really argue with Canova much, apart from when he calls me an idiot for putting East African domination down to doping. I never accused him of being inconsistent, I don't think.
As far as the Marathon times improving since the 90's, two of the top three times were set recently by '90's track runners' who if we assume were doping to the gills with EPO back in the full throttle days are likely still benefiting today even if they long ago stopped. Marathon runners competing 2 or 3 times a year don't get tested nearly as often as track stars, and that might be a reason why Africans have been moving en masse to the roads (as well as prize money). Despite this, a number of East African marathoners have been busted, male and female.
EPO wasn't a free for all in either of their careers. In fact, they wouldn't have been able to take in competition where the effects are most potent like those of the 90's as Boulami discovered.
15 years later, Kipchoge set the marathon World record and you are saying he benefited for those days, maybe you could say he benefited more than runners who appeared after him but how could he benefit more than the guys who could use unrestricted and in comp for the entirety of the 90's or whole careers and still beat the best of their times by over a mile if EPO and blood doping was the biggest key?
And how could he do it 10 years after the ABP came in? How can the benefits of a drug be stronger 10-15 years later when dosages have steadily declined to the benefits felt by athletes who could use large dosages for all their careers in the 90's and still be a mile off the world record?
Does EPO have a multiplication life where the benefits get stronger every year after use rather than a half life where benefits decrease as time goes on like every other known drug on the planet?
Your argument makes no sense here. Fair enough on you not accusing Canova for being inconsistent, I apoligise for that comment.
You old number geeks only understand numbers and nada about physiology.
And numbers need work too as you are using incomplete data sets. What was wind readings during these races? The pollen count? the temperature? Dew point? Pacing?Breakfast? Competition difference from 1960's New Zealand to 1980's Europe
Physiology questions across eras
What differences of modern training and life did Coe and Snell have? Interuptions in training? Understanding of speed? Diet?
It is stupid that declare one athlete as superior to another generation using times and taking track condition only.
The 400 record was 44.9 when Snell was competing, different time and different understanding. Snell would have been faster at 400, 800 and 1500 20 years later whether he ran on a dirt track or not as the understanding of speed had progressed.
He was limited by his era compared to Coe. This is like saying Snell would never beat Josh Kerr or Isaac Yorks as they have faster 1500 and mile times than Snell 50 years later. Futile number bias.
rekrunner wrote:
Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that prolonged exposure to high levels of EPO, and high RBCs, have some sort of long-lasting benefit decades afterwards, even after they long ago stopped, wouldn't it stand to reason that this is by far the best explanation for some nations at high altitude naturally producing many athletes with superior endurance ability, these athletes having a life long exposure to low-oxygen induced EPO stimulation naturally. Wouldn't this long-lasting after the fact effect render the use of synthetic EPO unnecessary, not to mention, ineffective?
Ahoy matey wrote:
EPO wasn't a free for all in either of their careers. In fact, they wouldn't have been able to take in competition where the effects are most potent like those of the 90's as Boulami discovered.
15 years later, Kipchoge set the marathon World record and you are saying he benefited for those days, maybe you could say he benefited more than runners who appeared after him but how could he benefit more than the guys who could use unrestricted and in comp for the entirety of the 90's or whole careers and still beat the best of their times by over a mile if EPO and blood doping was the biggest key?
And how could he do it 10 years after the ABP came in? How can the benefits of a drug be stronger 10-15 years later when dosages have steadily declined to the benefits felt by athletes who could use large dosages for all their careers in the 90's and still be a mile off the world record?
Does EPO have a multiplication life where the benefits get stronger every year after use rather than a half life where benefits decrease as time goes on like every other known drug on the planet?
Your argument makes no sense here. Fair enough on you not accusing Canova for being inconsistent, I apoligise for that comment.
And here comes Rekrunner to completely wreck this thread. Imagine if Calculo/Ventolin was still posting here too?
At least this thread is guaranteed to get to 1k posts now.
Deanouk = idiot wrote:
Before you call me an idiot, bear in mind that I am Portuguese, I am way more knowledgeable about non-UK athletics than you are ans also, you have no flipping idea what "Caucasian" means, if you think Joaquim is one.
This is evidence of your ignorance:
"Where do you think most Brazilians originate from? Clue, they speak Portuguese!"
LOL
What an idiot you are. And ignorant too.
LOL. Well, you certainly aren't posting under a consistent handle name, which would lead someone to suspect that you really aren't confident about your own comments.
I doubt you are 'way more knowledgeable about non- UK athletics' than I am. And I don't see how being Portuguese would impress me enough to consider that you must be more knowledgeable!
I gave a clear definition of what 'Caucasian' means and even offered both meaning and provenance of Joaquim's name.
To be clear, the main language of Brazil IS Portuguese, so I fail to see how stating the obvious (it's called sarcasm) shows ignorance.
You've just got a bee in your bonnet because you didn't do your research before mocking me for insinuating that Cruz was Caucasian. He clearly has (from his name) European roots.
Josh Birnbaum wrote:
Forgets the fact Snell ran 20 years prior to Coe as an amateur, who had a job and ran on inferior tracks.
Snell > Coe over the 800m.
Didn't Coe run a 1min 45 800m on a badly kept cinder track in the middle of winter or something in 1981? I think it was the world record for 800m on cinders at the time.
Deanouk wrote:
LOL. Well, you certainly aren't posting under a consistent handle name, which would lead someone to suspect that you really aren't confident about your own comments.
Registration is not compulsory.
And who is Deanouk? You are as anonymous as I am and you may have several registered handles and also post under inconsistent ones.
Deanouk wrote:
I doubt you are 'way more knowledgeable about non- UK athletics' than I am.
Just a hunch.
Deanouk wrote:
And I don't see how being Portuguese would impress me enough to consider that you must be more knowledgeable!
Not trying to impress you. Being Portuguese means I am familiar with the "discovery" and colonisation of what is now Brazil. Also familiar with the slave trade. I also happen to have met hundreds of Brazilians over the years as their presence in huge in Portugal.
Very few were what one would call white/Caucasian.
Deanouk wrote:
I gave a clear definition of what 'Caucasian' means and even offered both.
You don't have the authority to define something that is in the dictionary:
1.
a. Of or relating to a racial group having light-colored skin; white.
b. Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and parts of South Asia. No longer in scientific use.
2. Of or relating to the Caucasus region or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
3. Of or relating to a group of three language families spoken in the region of the Caucasus mountains, including Chechen, Abkhaz, and the Kartvelian languages.
n.
1.
a. A person having light-colored skin; a white person.
b. A member of the Caucasian racial classification. No longer in scientific use.
2. A native or inhabitant of the Caucasus.
3. The Caucasian language family.
Only someone who doesn't want to recognise it won't see African features on Joaquim Cruz's face.
Deanouk wrote:
and even offered both meaning and provenance of Joaquim's name.
Irrelevant.
I guess you would say that Michael Jeffrey Jordan is also Caucasian, going by his name...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Michael_Jordan_in_2014.jpg/220px-Michael_Jordan_in_2014.jpgYup. Caucasian.
Deanouk wrote:
To be clear, the main language of Brazil IS Portuguese, so I fail to see how stating the obvious (it's called sarcasm) shows ignorance.
So you are saying that because the main language is Portuguese then the dominant DNA is Portuguese? Have you heard of Haiti? How about Cuba? Honduras?
Your ignorance and arrogance know no limits.
Deanouk wrote:
You've just got a bee in your bonnet because you didn't do your research
I don't need research to prove any of the points I have been addressing above.
Deanouk wrote:
mocking me for insinuating that Cruz was Caucasian.
Because Cruz is not Caucasian.
Deanouk wrote:
He clearly has (from his name) European roots.
I didn't say he doesn't have European roots. But once again, because of the name? See Michael Jeffrey Jordan above.
Joaquim Cruz is obviously of mixed race, as are most Brazilians.
You should stick to what you do best, measuring how many extra nanometres Coe ran on any given lap.
Ol Calculo wrote:
You old number geeks only understand numbers and nada about physiology.
And numbers need work too as you are using incomplete data sets. What was wind readings during these races? The pollen count? the temperature? Dew point? Pacing?Breakfast? Competition difference from 1960's New Zealand to 1980's Europe
Physiology questions across eras
What differences of modern training and life did Coe and Snell have? Interuptions in training? Understanding of speed? Diet?
It is stupid that declare one athlete as superior to another generation using times and taking track condition only.
The 400 record was 44.9 when Snell was competing, different time and different understanding. Snell would have been faster at 400, 800 and 1500 20 years later whether he ran on a dirt track or not as the understanding of speed had progressed.
He was limited by his era compared to Coe. This is like saying Snell would never beat Josh Kerr or Isaac Yorks as they have faster 1500 and mile times than Snell 50 years later. Futile number bias.
I agree to a large extent that it's pointless to compare great athletes of different generations. Coe and Snell were separated by 20 years and a lot changed in that time, just as a lot changed between the era of Coe and the likes of Kipketer and Rudisha. The whole 'beauty' of this thread - Coe Vs Aouita - is that they had almost parallel careers, with Aouita only 3 or 4 years older, and yet they never met once. I can't think of any other two great runners who we can seriously debate the question - 'who would have won?' - without the problem of different eras being involved.
Coevett wrote:
Ol Calculo wrote:
You old number geeks only understand numbers and nada about physiology.
And numbers need work too as you are using incomplete data sets. What was wind readings during these races? The pollen count? the temperature? Dew point? Pacing?Breakfast? Competition difference from 1960's New Zealand to 1980's Europe
Physiology questions across eras
What differences of modern training and life did Coe and Snell have? Interuptions in training? Understanding of speed? Diet?
It is stupid that declare one athlete as superior to another generation using times and taking track condition only.
The 400 record was 44.9 when Snell was competing, different time and different understanding. Snell would have been faster at 400, 800 and 1500 20 years later whether he ran on a dirt track or not as the understanding of speed had progressed.
He was limited by his era compared to Coe. This is like saying Snell would never beat Josh Kerr or Isaac Yorks as they have faster 1500 and mile times than Snell 50 years later. Futile number bias.
I agree to a large extent that it's pointless to compare great athletes of different generations. Coe and Snell were separated by 20 years and a lot changed in that time, just as a lot changed between the era of Coe and the likes of Kipketer and Rudisha. The whole 'beauty' of this thread - Coe Vs Aouita - is that they had almost parallel careers, with Aouita only 3 or 4 years older, and yet they never met once. I can't think of any other two great runners who we can seriously debate the question - 'who would have won?' - without the problem of different eras being involved.
We all know what Coe is doing these days - what about Aouita? Is he coaching? Involved in Moroccan athletics or anything like that?
I thought you always wanted rational discussion.
Coevett wrote:
And here comes Rekrunner to completely wreck this thread. Imagine if Calculo/Ventolin was still posting here too?
At least this thread is guaranteed to get to 1k posts now.
One of these days I'd like to visit Morroco wrote:
We all know what Coe is doing these days - what about Aouita? Is he coaching? Involved in Moroccan athletics or anything like that?
Sacked for the third time, I think, from a national coaching role. Seems his 'secret methods' don't transfer well to others.
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2018/09/252970/uae-athletics-federation-dismisses-moroccan-olympian-said-aouita/rekrunner wrote:
I thought you always wanted rational discussion.
Coevett wrote:
And here comes Rekrunner to completely wreck this thread. Imagine if Calculo/Ventolin was still posting here too?
At least this thread is guaranteed to get to 1k posts now.
Fair enough, I was a bit mean there.
I would have thought that anything that gives you the ability to train hard for several years would have long lasting effects.
Look at somebody like Gatlin. Whether or not he has been clean for the last few years, the benefits from the steroids, even if not providing any long lasting physical benefits themselves, surely gave him benefits he still enjoys from the years of extreme training they enabled?
Where did I state Aouita doped?
I stated that Canova said Cova had links with Conconi and allegedly carried out blood transfusions.
Please learn to read what I wrote rather than ask me questions about things I never stated.
