HRE wrote:
In hot water with whom? And yes, that's a possible explanation. But given the questions about the sport these days if I were in his place I'd be cautious about making myself look like an expert.
It is obvious to me that in your little world Ian Kershaw the pre-eminent expert on Hitler must be a Nazi.
Did it help? wrote:
How much improvement resulted?
17 minutes; from a 3:06 (and two other such not even "close but no cigar" times) to a 2:49 marathon.
It is of course difficult to say how much of this improvement was due to the "leg sessions" (and how much to better training) but I'm quite certain that without it the result would not have been such a huge resounding success for an "average to mediocre" runner.
HRE wrote:
In hot water with whom? And yes, that's a possible explanation. But given the questions about the sport these days if I were in his place I'd be cautious about making myself look like an expert.
TWO WEIGHTS AND TWO MEASURES
On the past, mr. HRE posts several times and said that if we can´t prove that Lasse Viren did took blood tranfusion, we shouldn´t doubt that he did because he wasn´t caught and he didn´t admit he did it. There no one should question if Viren perfromnces it´s done with the help of blood tranfusion.
Actually the same mr. HRE does suspect that western runners from the past decades did doping.
Once again two weights and two measures. One weight and measure for the Lydiard runners and another weight and measure for the others.
Jackanory wrote:
HRE wrote:I answered him too but he came back and said no one had answered him. Maybe your answer will satisfy him.
In talking about drugs, I want to repeat that I'm skeptical about the possibility of running as fast as people are doing now "naturally." I'm even more skeptical that there as many people capable of doing it as are doing it now so maybe there are some "natural" sub 2:05s (and that's just a ballpark number.) I also know that I could well be wrong. But here's part of why I'm skeptical.
I agree with you that East Africans as a group seem more physically suited for distance running than anyone else does. I think it's more upbringing than genetics but that's another discussion. For now let's just agree that they're better suited and leave it at that.
Because Africans are faster to begin with, "aiding" them will yield better results, i.e, faster times and higher placings. Faster times and higher placings currently yield significant finacial rewards; not MLB level rewards, but a coach or agent with a half dozen athletes in his fold who are placing in the top three at Berlin, London, Chicago, etc. is getting a cut of some pretty decent money and if some of those athletes are setting course records or world records that cut gets even better.
In every other human activity I can think of the chance of turning a decent profit leads to cheating, not by everyone but certainly by a significant number of participants and nothing has come along and showed that our sport is any different.
If I'm a coach or agent who is going to build a framework to drug my athletes for profit I'm going to look for the highest payoff and the lowest possibility of detection and Africans are much better candidates than westerners.
For one thing, they seem naturally faster and "aiding" a 2:09 guy down to 2:04 is going to yield a much higher return than "aiding" a 2:14 guy down to 2:09.
For another, we have extensive coverage, as that goes in our sport, of westerners. Americans, Aussies, Canadians, Brits, etc. are always turning up on Flotrack or in Runner's World Daily or similar places. They live around other runners who know something of their comings and goings and associations.
On the other hand, Africans generally turn up at their races a few days beforehand and vanish a day or two later so they're much more anonymous and mysterious.
None of this is to say that I don't think western athletes have used PEDs. We know that they have and I doubt we've caught the majority of them. But sort of to underscore my point, in most cases I suspect the athletes I do because I know someone who knows those athletes and has told me about some of the people those athletes are associated with.
Richard,
While it would certainly be foolish to discount the POSSIBILITY that PEDs may be (partly) responsible for the recent spate of sub 2-05 Marathons, the LIKELIHOOD is that the answer lies elsewhere .....
I see no reason to dismiss the reasons that Renato has given ....
* Younger runners moving to marathon in their prime
* Relative riches to be had from Marathon (compared to track)
* Running being the sole focus for Kenyan runners
* More volume of specific race pace training over extended marathon like distance
* Better modulation .... i.e. periods of recovery between big workouts
* Genetic / Environmental benefits for East African runners
It's not all about training methodology ... BUT it is part of the answer.
Another factor that's often overlooked is the running culture within Kenya .... large training groups (30+) of world class athletes training together .... by comparison, the best athletes of the 70s / 80s / 90s were training relatively alone.
Richard,
Your subsequent posts on PEDs suggest that you're just plain ignoring the FACTS. .... please let's get back to a sensible discussion on training methodology
I understand your skepticism, but at the risk of sound naive, there are some significant changes in the profile and training of the athletes, that can explain an improvement in the times (and at what cost):- Marathon runners are younger than before, entering the marathon at the start of their professional careers- These East African athletes are fit enough to tolerate Renato's higher volume of intensity. (Perhaps they are trading some longevity though, for a chance to win).- I don't know so much about doping control. Is Africa harder to control? If they are doping more, why wouldn't doping authorities suspect this, and go after these easy targets (like you said, go for the highest payoff)?- There are so many East African athletes capable of incredible marathon performances, that such a large scale doping program doesn't seem feasible, and wouldn't go unnoticed for so long.Assuming Gebresselassie is clean (which I do), I think it is likely that a handful of other East Africans would be able to produce similar performances as an aging Geb. Assuming someone like Ryan Hall is clean, having Africans capable of beating him by 2-3 minutes doesn't seem too unusual.
HRE wrote:
I answered him too but he came back and said no one had answered him. Maybe your answer will satisfy him.
In talking about drugs, I want to repeat that I'm skeptical about the possibility of running as fast as people are doing now "naturally." I'm even more skeptical that there as many people capable of doing it as are doing it now so maybe there are some "natural" sub 2:05s (and that's just a ballpark number.) I also know that I could well be wrong. But here's part of why I'm skeptical.
I agree with you that East Africans as a group seem more physically suited for distance running than anyone else does. I think it's more upbringing than genetics but that's another discussion. For now let's just agree that they're better suited and leave it at that.
Because Africans are faster to begin with, "aiding" them will yield better results, ...
Actually it seems to me, too many people bat their eyelashes.A handful of people like to restate history with their own bias, and use this as a basis to make new predictions.
little one wrote:
So Canova says:
1) He is an absolute expert on EPO and know one asks why he has researched it in such depth and felt the need to know so much about the drug. No one bats an eyelash.
2) Then he says my athletes have never taken EPO.
3) Then he says EPO doesn't work so don't worry about whether we are using it or not.
4) Then he admits 25 years after the fact that Italian athletes who scooped up all those medals he has previously claimed to be an ASSISTANT coach of, were cheating their asses off with illegal blood doping. No one bats an eyelash.
5) Then he says don't worry, that cheating "we" were doing didn't work either, they ran faster after they stopped that form of cheating.
6) 15 years from now if Canova lives long enough, he will say "oh by the way, those Kenyans I was coaching 15 years ago were taking EPO, but don't worry it didn't work and we found they actually ran faster when they went off the EPO".
7) Then he will say the the new super duper drug of the 2020s when he will search out the right ginea pigs who will run 1:57 in the marathon, "my runners are not using that drug, but don't worry, the new super duper drug doesn't work either".
8) He will say the reason is this new really modern training we are using that uses super duper precise race specific pace training down to the 1/100 of a second is why 25 guys are now running 1:57 in the marathon and is way better than the training he was using back in 2012. By then, all their training will be done at 1:57 marathon pace plus or minus 1% and hence the name super duper specific race pace training as opposed to the outdated 2012 regular specific race pace training plus or minus 5%
rekrunner wrote:
I understand your skepticism, but at the risk of sound naive, there are some significant changes in the profile and training of the athletes, that can explain an improvement in the times (and at what cost):
- Marathon runners are younger than before, entering the marathon at the start of their professional careers
- These East African athletes are fit enough to tolerate Renato's higher volume of intensity. (Perhaps they are trading some longevity though, for a chance to win).
- I don't know so much about doping control. Is Africa harder to control? If they are doping more, why wouldn't doping authorities suspect this, and go after these easy targets (like you said, go for the highest payoff)?
- There are so many East African athletes capable of incredible marathon performances, that such a large scale doping program doesn't seem feasible, and wouldn't go unnoticed for so long.
Assuming Gebresselassie is clean (which I do), I think it is likely that a handful of other East Africans would be able to produce similar performances as an aging Geb. Assuming someone like Ryan Hall is clean, having Africans capable of beating him by 2-3 minutes doesn't seem too unusual.
HRE wrote:I answered him too but he came back and said no one had answered him. Maybe your answer will satisfy him.
In talking about drugs, I want to repeat that I'm skeptical about the possibility of running as fast as people are doing now "naturally." I'm even more skeptical that there as many people capable of doing it as are doing it now so maybe there are some "natural" sub 2:05s (and that's just a ballpark number.) I also know that I could well be wrong. But here's part of why I'm skeptical.
I agree with you that East Africans as a group seem more physically suited for distance running than anyone else does. I think it's more upbringing than genetics but that's another discussion. For now let's just agree that they're better suited and leave it at that.
Because Africans are faster to begin with, "aiding" them will yield better results, ...
Carlos Lopes was 40 secs quicker over 10000m than Rob De Castella. De Castella ran sub 2.08 and sevral 2.08 times. so logically if Lopes had developed the same level of endurance he would have been able to run about 2m 45s (2.05) over the marathon distance. Interesting that Antonio thinks De Castella's training was very poor but seems a bit of a fan of Lopes' training.
mo'pak wrote:
Carlos Lopes was 40 secs quicker over 10000m than Rob De Castella. De Castella ran sub 2.08 and sevral 2.08 times. so logically if Lopes had developed the same level of endurance he would have been able to run about 2m 45s (2.05) over the marathon distance. Interesting that Antonio thinks De Castella's training was very poor but seems a bit of a fan of Lopes' training.
Exactly. And Deek was on or about 65KG in 1n LA. Carlos
probably under 60KG.
Yes, there are MANY factors which could account for the faster times we've seen in recent years. Off the top of my head the times COULD be the results of:
Improved training
Professionalism, i.e., being able to do nothing but train and race without needing to hold down a regular job.
Significant financial incentives, from races themselves and from sponsors, for setting records or bettering certain marks.
The increased fixation on times today compared to the past.
The "normal" progression of records, i.e., setting new records is part of the sport, naturally those records will be faster than the previous ones.
The awareness of what sorts of future performances are realistically possible that comes with a new record, i.e., nobody was going to run a 3:43 mile in 1950 no matter how well trained or talented he was. It was an inconceivable time then. But the progression of the record in increments over the ensuing decades brought a previously unthinkable mark into realistic range.
Greater depth, i.e., it is rarely possible today for the winner of a major marathon to break away from the field somewhere past the 15 mile mark and "cruise" home as Shorter and Rodgers often did. You need to push as hard as you can the whole way now so naturally you'll go faster.
Lighter shoes.
Legalized pacemaking as well as professional pacemakers.
The introduction of a group of competitors who possibly are either more gifted for running than past populations have been.
PEDs
There are probably some factors I'm missing but it doesn't matter. What I've been saying is that because there are numerous factors which COULD affect performance it is impossible to know the extent to which any given factor is actually responsible. Picking one factor, say improved training, as some are doing here, and saying that's why people are faster flies in the face of the Scientific Method which surprises me because people now are so interested in being "scientific" about running.
And while I've expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of some current times because of the presence of PEDs in the sport, I HAVE NOT claimed that I'm correct. I'm saying that it's as incorrect for me to attribute the improvements to PEDs, and I'm not, I'm just using them as another possibly major factor, as it is for anyone else to attribute the performances to better training, or, for that matter to pacemaking, money, lighter shoes, etc.
Jackonry wants to get back to discussing training methodology. That's fine but we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of training methods over different eras very well simply by looking at the times the methods produced if other possible perfrormance factors in those different eras are also different, as they most certainly are. To do that scientifically, you'd have to identify as many variables as possible and then measure the effects of those variables in isolation, something that cannot happen in the real world.
So as always, we're left with various opinions which allow us to do 46 pages or so on these sorts of topics with no real conclusions drawn or any real end in sight.
HRE wrote:
Jackanory wants to get back to discussing training methodology. That's fine but we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of training methods over different eras very well simply by looking at the times the methods produced if other possible perfrormance factors in those different eras are also different, as they most certainly are. To do that scientifically, you'd have to identify as many variables as possible and then measure the effects of those variables in isolation, something that cannot happen in the real world.
So as always, we're left with various opinions which allow us to do 46 pages or so on these sorts of topics with no real conclusions drawn or any real end in sight.
No real conclusions OBVIOUSLY. If there was broad agreement everyone would be using the same training method! ..... BUT the dialogue does help each of us to appreciate better the issues at hand. I've found the different viewpoints interesting ... for those with an open mind it helps refine our thinking further.
HRE wrote:
we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of training methods over different eras very well simply by looking at the times the methods produced if other possible perfrormance factors in those different eras are also different, as they most certainly are. To do that scientifically, you'd have to identify as many variables as possible and then measure the effects of those variables in isolation, something that cannot happen in the real world.
So as always, we're left with various opinions which allow us to do 46 pages or so on these sorts of topics with no real conclusions drawn or any real end in sight.
It's very straight forward to me. You're introducing variables that don't exist and don't mean anything, no wonder it's confusing to you.
It's ironic you say one of the most well known coaches in the world should be ignorant about what causes faster times, and yet you know better.
Isn't it strange that you would know better?
If training doesn't mean anything, then why train. This proves Lydiard was wrong, because he said people should train to improve? I don't recall Lydiard saying that blood doping was the best way to improve.
Bob Wildes wrote:
[quote]mo'pak wrote:
Carlos Lopes was 40 secs quicker over 10000m than Rob De Castella. De Castella ran sub 2.08 and sevral 2.08 times. so logically if Lopes had developed the same level of endurance he would have been able to run about 2m 45s (2.05) over the marathon distance. Interesting that Antonio thinks De Castella's training was very poor but seems a bit of a fan of Lopes' training.
Agree. Absolutely. Lopes could have doneen better.
Lopes 10000m-marathon resistance index is weak, is not good. Carlos Lopes could do 2:05 approximately.
First thing I want to say it´s that I appreciate Bob Castella and I have no problem to admit that I prefer Pat training to Lydiard typical. BUT IF THE CONTEXT IS PAT AS A GOOD ALTERNATIVE TO LYDIARD TYPICAL OR TO MODERN TRAINING I SAY IT`S NOT REALLY. Despite Pat training is non-linear and uses intervals different than typical Lydiard is not very good. In alternative to Lydiard i know several other training methods from other coaches with non-linear periodisation and with combined training variants on the same phase fo training are better than the Pat one. But i know the Lydiardist sees pat as a good option. It´s so obvious !
However I think that Pat training still isn´t the modern training really that we need as today´s referential ro influence. I know why, but it would take too much time to say why and lso I will go out of the main issue. Might be one day I will say what I don´t like on Pat training. I repeat, for the actrual training standard, Pat training is not good.
Lopes could have done 2:05-2:04 eventually, but not with his 80s training method, and less with Pat training, and impossible with Lydiard training, but with MODERN TRAINING, training that didn´t existed in the eighties.
See what did to this guys in the 84 LA Olympics. He smashed them all.
Alberto Salazar, the very strong Japanese Toshiko Seko and Takeshi Soh with so many rich Lydiard-japanese training , Castella (this one too), Steve Jones, Rod Dixon, John Tracy, Charlie Spedding (hello Hodgie_san !) , Juma Ikanga, Pete Pfitzinger (that one too despite his non-linear season periodisation) , in the olympics. He did win over them all.
2 months before the Olympics he did break the 10000m world earlier Henry Rono record, but unfortunately for him on that day other portuguese did better than him on the same run, Mamede.
6 months earlier he did win the world cross country champ, 2 months after the Olympics he did 2nd in Chicago marathon win over Castella once again, and finally on Mars of the next years he did win the WCCC once again and 1 ½ months later he did break the marathon world record.
This proves among other things that Lopes training, it´s one of the best of world of today, but one of the best of that period, good enough to win world class competitions on a short period of time. It´s possible to be on the top dueing long periods or almost all season if you get out of “aerobic first” and linear periodisation.
Lopes he didn´t care too much about marathon, he isn´t a typical marathon runner as Castella seems to have been or Ikanga, or Bill Rodgers, or Shorter they did. I don´t know how many marathons Castela did run, but Lopes, did run complete just 5 marathons the entire career and he did his first marathon only with 33 years old.
Very interesting for the methodological debate, to understand that Lopes marathon training is poor. Basically he was a cross and road runner specialist, that did very well on track to get speed that able him to run long distance and he did well on track as well despite his lack of speed and lack of outquick for track events, that just on his late career decided to run the marathon and did some success, olympics and WR.
It's really obnoxious when someone makes up things that another person never said and then criticizes the person for saying the things that have been attributed to them. That's what you've just done so I won't reply to any of your comments until you manage to respond to something I wrote rather than to something you've decided I've written.
HRE, this is a dated discussion but gives some useful information: http://www.kenyarunners.com/pages/167372/index.htm
Antonio Cabral wrote:
Might be one day I will say what I don´t like on Pat training.
That would be very interesting, thank you.
Thanks Bob. I actually read that many years ago and forgot it. And yes, it's certainly possible that I've underestimated how fast an unaided human can run a marathon. But every time I start to believe that I remind myself that in every other sport where using illegal performance aids can bring big money you have a problem with athletes using those illegal aids. Maybe Manners is correct and there is something more ethical, at least that regard, than there is in the general population.
Similarly, I asked Nobby years ago if he thought PEDs contributed to Japan's fast marathon times. I don't recall his exact answer but it was along the lines of,no, the dishonor being caught would bring would so great that no one would ever risk doing it.
HRE wrote:
we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of training methods over different eras very well simply by looking at the times the methods produced if other possible perfrormance factors in those different eras are also different, as they most certainly are. To do that scientifically, you'd have to identify as many variables as possible and then measure the effects of those variables in isolation, something that cannot happen in the real world.
So as always, we're left with various opinions which allow us to do 46 pages or so on these sorts of topics with no real conclusions drawn or any real end in sight.
Meanwhile 1:44 Peter Snell is a good result and Lydiard is good.
Antonio Cabral wrote:
wetcoast. Sorry, i did miss one little detail on that interview, but you are the responsible because you don´t wanted that i said nothing about the Lydiard subject.
Didn´t no one told you yet that i´m a Lydiardist ? Go on and search on the files, i did sign for the Lydiard Foundation few years ago, but it´s all in secret.
I can´t be more specific because i´m on the secret department and i got the diploma. The test was about "how to be a catch Lydiard coach" and o got an A.
Antonio,
I have no doubt you are very knowledgable and intelligent. But for god's sake do you really have to act like a 15 years old? Why do you want to act like such an a$$hole? What gives?
limited training wrote:
What many people say and do are two different things.
Wait. Are you talking about Canova?
Into hospital today for one of my hand operations.
On this whole drugs thing. A few points.
1. It is well known if you want to go somewhere to train with a guarantee you won't be tested you go and train in Italy or Greece. This is a simple fact.
2. Renato Canova destroys athletes after riding them as cash cows for a while. This is evidenced in proof just by taking a look at his athlete bioography. Two athletes have careers longer than three years one of which Mosop who moved to marathon in his mid 20s, a pre-emptive strike.
3. It appears as if Renato started coaching Mosop AFTER Mosop appeared and was passed to Renato from some Italian Athlete manager. How much this agent/coach/major sponsor in Adidas all work together in this Kenyan money making extravaganza.
4. Renato's coaching system is one that is designed around something other than developmental coaching. Renato's program has nothing to do with development. It is about short term gains only rapid gains only.
5. So Renato cherry picks his athletes from Iten or through his Italian agent friends or whatever. Whoever survives the early training is a candidate. Renato then drives them to a few fast times before they disappear.
6. The training approach Renato uses is the one we used to shake our heads out. It is unsustainable training. 3 years and the athlete is dead in the water. Just take a look at US college system. Same same.
7. And this training approach fits perfectly with PEDs. In fact this approach is driven from the usage of PEDs. Notice how it doesn't require a development aspect, it requires competing as much as possible (which is in the interest of the COACH/AGENT/SPONSORS AND NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE ATHLETE)
-------------------
So Renato, i see you as part of the 'evil' of this sport. You use athletes for your own gain and in the process destroy the.
If you had a conscience you should be ashamed.