Elliot Giles 1:43.63, 2nd all time!

Sebastian Coe was the Tatyana Kazankina of men’s running.

Too may pages to read.

Has Coevett accused him of doping to the gills yet?

No, you have poor comprehension skills. I never said he wasn’t capable of faster times at 3 & 5 k, I wanted to hear what the rumour monger’s thoughts were about Coe having such fast 400 speed and relatively weaker over distance pbs. I wanted to see what this poster actually knows about someone who he is calling a cheat. My opinions as to what times Coe could run over 3 and 5k are completely irrelevant, but most known blood dopers have been distance runners, and I wanted to hear him explain how and why blood doping enables a miler to run 45.5 for 400m and why someone who blood doped didn’t make the most of it and run more over distance races?

It’s quite an easy concept and train of thought to follow.

Deanouk wrote:

No, you have poor comprehension skills. I never said he wasn’t capable of faster times at 3 & 5 k,

Deanouk: "And what sort of blood doping allows a miler to run a 45.5 400m, but nothing better than a 7:54 for 3k and 14:06 for 5k?"

Wasn't this your argument that Coe can't be a blood doper?

nbzeik wrote:

Tim Hutchins is wrong.

Tim Hutchings is just uninformed - and there is nothing wrong with that because why would he be privy to any real information on this topic.

His issue is that flippant comments he makes on-air and in articles get taken as lore by people looking to confirm their own biases/points of view. So people that want to believe that it is all trickery and magic spring loaded carbon fiber and David Copperfield walking through the Great Wall (some of you will be old enough to get that reference) sit there and hear it from him and go "yup - see it must be true". We all do this as humans but we need to catch ourselves sometimes - it's kind of in a nutshell how we dumbed ourselves down as a human race - we make points of view and the first person that confirms it leads us to locking it in as how it is with no further room for interpretation/discussion/reality.

One thing that is very interesting is the lack of marketing communication in terms of claims on these products (the track products). This is a very important thing to take into consideration. The first road "super shoe" was literally named after the performance benefit claim it provided - (4% increase in running economy). The next shoe was also names after the same benefit (a "%" benefit) - except they didn't attach a value to it because the number started getting really really high (if you want to know it's in the 7% ballpark). The Alpha was just called the Alpha because it isn't as good as the NXT (it's like 6%).

I'll tell you guys right now there is a reason no real claims (at all - even quantitative or qualitative) have been made with these products. It's not because it doesn't make you better (it does) - but because it's not really that sexy to say "reduces impact fatigue to allow to train and recover better and has benefits of smoothing out your gait". So the smartest thing to do is just say nothing (which is what happened) and let the minds of runners run wild with connections to the road product, theories of leaf-springs and carbon fiber and anything else they will convince themselves on (which we will because we are runners).

I read other threads claiming "3 seconds a mile for elites" - which you need to step back and put into context. 3 seconds at what mile pace exactly? Are we contending Jakob isn't really a 3.29 runner but essentially a 3.32 runner save for his spikes? End of the day you need to know that those figures are just hypothesis and theoretically based guesses.

Of course it's Letsrun so the topic of drugs has to come up. It's laughable that Giles and Farah are mentioned in the same sentence. One was coached by a guy now banned from the sports, trained with another who was found with a refrigerator full of drugs at his training camp, was caught at any airport with some things he shouldn't have in the bottom of his backpack and won back to back Olympic 5-10s despite being a decidedly average international caliber athlete for 1/2 his career. That's a big difference from a kid who clearly is talented, has been training for a year in spikes and road product that haven't beaten his legs up as badly as in the past and who caught fire right place right time and won a low level world tour meet in a great time. Guys - it does happen. Farah and Giles = zero comparison.

Let's give some benefit of the doubt and positive intent here and just be happy to see someone who has had to fight through adversity run really well.

If it were possible to run as fast indoors as outdoors, wouldn't there be more people running indoors to make a breakthrough? Wouldn't 1:42 800m runners break the world record to make a name for themselves? The qualifying times for indoors championships are slower as well, so those who just missed out on qualifying might be tempted to run indoors. Why doesn't this happen much? The most likely explanation is that running indoors is slower.

Are any indoor records very competitive, except the 3000m? Only a handful of people have run faster than 7:24.90 and that is only 0.56 seconds per lap slower than the outdoor time. There are very few people who could run faster than that outdoors, but many more who could better the other indoor records.

Kosmin wrote:

If it were possible to run as fast indoors as outdoors, wouldn't there be more people running indoors to make a breakthrough? Wouldn't 1:42 800m runners break the world record to make a name for themselves? The qualifying times for indoors championships are slower as well, so those who just missed out on qualifying might be tempted to run indoors. Why doesn't this happen much? The most likely explanation is that running indoors is slower.

Are any indoor records very competitive, except the 3000m? Only a handful of people have run faster than 7:24.90 and that is only 0.56 seconds per lap slower than the outdoor time. There are very few people who could run faster than that outdoors, but many more who could better the other indoor records.

Happy to answer this for you. But first a quick question - when you write this stuff do you think about it first beyond just a surface level? Do you ever try and answer the question yourself, pull up some facts/figures etc - put the pieces of the puzzle together for yourself? I mean I am going to do it for you but you know, any entertaining of that? No? Sigh.

It's not that running indoors isn't fast - in fact we have seen glimpses of how fast it's possible to run indoors over the years (Kipketer 1.42.6, Komen 7.24.9, Kejelcha 3.47.0) - the problem has always been there has been little to no incentive to actually get in shape to run fast indoors. Why is that? Where is the money in track? It's certainly not in the indoor circuit. The best runners in the world (the ones capable of running 1.42 - btw how many "1.42" runners do you think there are out there?!) aren't interested in getting into shape for maybe a max of 4 top indoor meets in Jan/Feb when it may compromise an outdoor season which in the past has consisted of 14 Diamond League meets where the appearance/prize money is markedly higher than indoors.

So let's put ourselves into Donovan Braziers shoes and remove Covid. This is Olympic year. Brazier is your 1.42 runner. He might run 3-4 meets before Tokyo - probably win them and with appearance money as a 1.42 guy make 80-100k. If he wins Tokyo his Nike deal goes up x2. His appearance money also skyrockets in the big cash meets like Zurich, Brussels and Monaco post Tokyo. Why on earth would you ever compromise that to get in shape and maybe run 1.42 indoors? What do you think these guys are - just machines who get in "1.42" shape by not doing any sort of training? Brazier is fine taking a few weeks out of a heavy block and getting fresh enough to run 1.44 and make a few thousand running indoors but I promise you he will be back into the grind by the end of the month.

What I just described is the situation every single regular World Championship/Olympic year for any top athlete capable of running times like 1.42 over 800m. Even in the weird years without a major championship you still have the Diamond League and other top meets in Europe where also the levels of competition are just that much higher and hence lead to faster races. So again, unless all the top 800m guys got together and said "hey let's all try and break the WR indoors and fight it out for like 80% less prizemoney and compromise our chances to make a living in big money races in the summer" then this will always be the case.

Why are indoor qualifying times slower? Simple - to make sure participation at a World Champs is still high enough for it to be legitimate. Every athlete that runs at an outdoor world champs will have qualified in the window for the indoor world champs so if they all wanted to go then an easier qualification time would be pointless. However a vast majority of them don't bother to actually go and that means they still need to fill fields because if they don't they might as well not even bother having the events.

Why is this season different? Why so many good indoor performances? Number of things. 1) Athletes have hardly raced in the last 12 months. 2) Track footwear has improved and is reducing fatigue and improving form on harder surfaces (tracks) 3) with no guarantee of Tokyo and even a full season of Diamond League meets again, those appearance fees and reduced prize money are now very meaningful. Track&Field is a brutal sport - a lot of good athletes and not a lot of money to go around - even for the very best.

I'm tired, this discussion is remedial. Ciao.

only one explanation wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

No, you have poor comprehension skills. I never said he wasn’t capable of faster times at 3 & 5 k,

Deanouk: "And what sort of blood doping allows a miler to run a 45.5 400m, but nothing better than a 7:54 for 3k and 14:06 for 5k?"

Wasn't this your argument that Coe can't be a blood doper?

You have clearly used 7:54 and 14:06 as part of your argumentation that Coe can't be a blood doper. Even though for you those times say nothing about his capabilities. Hypocrite.

Fair point about the outdoor season being longer and more financially lucrative. I agree there would be no reason for any of the 1:42 runners to target the world record in a typical year.

There are 21 men aside from Kipketer who have run 1:42.67 or faster though. It's not comparable to 7:24.90 (only El Guerrouj has run faster, once - 7:23.09). There were a lot more runners who were faster than the 1500m indoor record.

If a runner broke the world indoor record, won the world indoor championships and won several other indoor races (perhaps breaking the record twice, or the 1000m record), would they really receive 80% less prize money than if they were top 5 outdoor?

You focus a lot on Brazier, but he isn't a good example. My reasoning was that there were several runners who could run faster than 1:42.67, but who were unlikely to beat Kipketer or Rudisha.

Your argument on slower qualifying times seems to be question begging:

"Why are indoor qualifying times slower? Simple - to make sure participation at a World Champs is still high enough for it to be legitimate."

Why would participation be lower? The indoor and outdoor qualifying times for 800m and 1500m are 1:46.7 and 1:44 and 3:40 and 3:33. Wouldn't you expect some 1:45/46 and 3:35-3:39 runners to target indoors? They wouldn't be jeopardising outdoors because they wouldn't expect to qualify. It might be more financially lucrative for them to do well indoors and it might be a stepping stone to outdoor success in subsequent years. If nothing else, the championship experience would be valuable.

I think the reason these runners don't target indoors is they realistically expect to be slower indoors, therefore missing the indoor times as well.

What about the NCAA? Are the indoor championships considered less desirable than the outdoors? Or are they considered equally good? Are indoor performances closer to outdoor performances?

Thanks for all the replies, Deano. To summarise, either I have lied about speaking to coaches and athletes who were around at the time, or I am telling the truth but am an idiot for being open to the possibility they were telling the truth. Apparently, I should be swayed by your utter certainty on the issue. Although you clearly imply I’m just a BSer.

This came up because I said that I don’t think Giles has doped and his early potential plus the new spikes make his recent time perfectly plausible. A poster suggested that I was biased because I am a Brit. In response I said that I wasn’t blind to our doping past and was even open to the possibility some of our biggest stars may have doped. I added some third party rumours that I HAVE heard repeatedly from multiple sources (it’s the Let’s Run MB ffs) to add some spice. Sorry it incensed you so much. My knowledge of Ovett’s career probably matches your knowledge of Coe’s and I absolutely love him as a runner. Doesn’t mean I need to be totally blind to the possibility that in a time when drug taking was rife in the sport he, and lots of his competitors, may all have been at it.

One last point. These discussions have always taken place at the training track, in the pub and in the stands. The difference is that when they take place in real life, the language and tone is a little different. I wonder if you would adopt a different time if I was stood opposite you? “Put up or shut up”? Really??

So I'm trying to figure what exactly is your agenda here. You want to vehemently and emphatically show that running indoors is much slower than outdoors? And in doing this it shows what exactly - that Giles is actually a 1.41.5 athlete?

The reality is that nobody knows at what speed the net benefit for running indoors might be better than running outdoors.

We know the benefits of running indoors - no wind, banked curves. We also know the negatives are the tightness of the curves and having to run them twice as much as outdoors. The speed of running matters because clearly there is a speed at which the tightness of the curve and the amount of curves run creates a net negative impact. And we can make an educated guess on this because the 400m world record is 1.49 seconds slower than outdoors and yet over 800m the record is only 1.76 seconds slower despite being twice the distance.

Quite simply there will be a speed of running where the negative impact of the turn radius is low enough that the benefit of banking and benefit of climate conditions create a net zero/positive impact. It is impossible that this point doesn't exist.

But again there is no scientific data to this because it's almost impossible to take into account individual athlete nuances etc - so we just have to use common sense.

Is it common sense to think that Donovan Brazier (who just ran 1.44.22 indoors) is actually in true (outdoor) 1.42.5 shape right now in the middle of his heaviest training phase? If that is the case then what are we expecting from Brazier this year - 1.40.5 come outdoors given how much "slower" indoors is to outdoors? Let's check back in and see if that reality happens. Or maybe Brazier is actually in true (outdoor) 1.44 shape right now trending towards 1.42.0/1

come outdoors given where he is with training etc I think scenario 2 is far more likely than scenario 1.

Same with Elliot Giles - but are we expecting him to destroy Brazier now that he just ran 0.5 seconds faster indoors? His circumstances are totally different to Brazier - he's not the world champion who is guaranteed to start in any outdoor race he wants with a max appearance fee. It's very possible that he is much closer to his peak shape right now (because every race now matters - indoors or outdoors) and hence the outstanding performance. I would be willing to bet that Elliot Giles, as good a talent as he is and and good a performance as that 1.43.6 indoors is, will ultimately not end up running much faster in his career. I think he will be a 1.43.1/2 athlete which clearly is awesome - it's just not inline with what a 1.43.63 indoor performance is if running indoors was so much slower than outdoors

But maybe you know best. Happy to be proven wrong. I'll remember this thread and we can check in after the summer.

SS

Soviet Vest, I'd be interested to know exactly what level of athletics you reached to have top coaches and athletes from Coe's era divulge inside information to you that he was doping. In another thread you mention that you are a low ranking track official.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

So I'm trying to figure what exactly is your agenda here. You want to vehemently and emphatically show that running indoors is much slower than outdoors? And in doing this it shows what exactly - that Giles is actually a 1.41.5 athlete?

.... maybe you know best. Happy to be proven wrong. I'll remember this thread and we can check in after the summer.

SS

So I'm trying to figure what exactly is your agenda here. You want to vehemently and emphatically show that running indoors is exactly the same as outdoors?

This is probably an unfair characterisation of your position just as you unfairly characterised mine. This seems like a matter of emphasis.

My assumption is not that indoors is any particular amount slower than outdoors, but that it is some amount slower.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that the differences in world records provide a fairly good indication of the difference between indoors and outdoors.

People are arguably running fast now because they haven't had racing opportunities, but wouldn't that have happened in the past to some athletes? (Some missed training and racing due to injury, illness or weren't picked for teams etc., but then suddenly get in good shape during indoor season - why would that be so rare that it hardly ever had an impact on indoor times?)

Anyway, I asked three questions:

1) Why wouldn't anyone who had beaten the indoor time outdoors just run the indoor record (e.g. anyone in the top 20 800m, but in the 1500m many more could have run than the record - the times held by Morceli and El Guerrouj were very weak compared to the outdoor times).

You sort of answered this with your example of Brazier, but I don't think that would apply to everyone. I think there were low 3:3xs 1500m runners who knew they were unlikely to be competitive in outdoor championships who if could replicate these times indoors could have broken records and won titles. I think if your position were correct, we'd expect to have seen some athletes doing this.

2) Why don't runners who are faster than indoor qualifying times but slower than outdoor qualifying times focus on indoors? They aren't missing out on much outdoors and would gain very experience running internationally indoors.

3) What sort of differences are seen indoors and outdoors in the NCAA? Do people who are unlikely to qualifying outdoors say to themselves: "Indoors is just as quick as outdoors, so I might as well focus on indoors, where I have a chance." If a lot of athletes did that, perhaps we'd see smaller differences between indoor and outdoor times at NCAA than amongst professionals, at least for those who are quite at the top.

Is the differential smaller between indoor and outdoor smaller for NCAA athletes? If not, I doubt the financial incentives outdoors are a significant factor. Do coaches consider outdoor titles and performances more prestigious? But are they so prestigious that even people with very little chance of outdoor success should prioritise outdoors to the detriment of their indoor season?

It will be interesting to see how fast people run in the summer. How fast would Giles have to run in order to convince you that outdoors are significantly faster? 1:42?

My agenda is pretty simple actually and it's two fold.

There is an implication that spiked footwear is taking average runners and turning them into world beaters, and this narrative is being emphasized by people saying that this must be the case because running indoors is much slower than outdoors.

I'm saying 1) - the footwear is helping but in different and less dramatic ways than is the perception (driven by guys like Tim Hutchings who as a commentator is doing the sport and the athletes a disservice by saying things like "spring loaded carbon super spikes" and 2) we are seeing great times run indoors not just because of footwear but because of global circumstances which have athletes in completely different and unique circumstances from the past and because indoor running has never ever been a focus of any top athlete, ever.

I'm not denying the perception is that running indoors is slower - this is primarily why nobody cares about peaking for it and why there is an outdoor diamond league (amongst other factors such as stadium sizes, timing with respect to competing with other sports for viewership etc) and not an indoor one - but just because its the perception it doesn't mean its the reality. And I am agreeing that at some point it is undeniably more beneficial to run outdoors based on, as I just mentioned, physical factors such as running speed and track geometry etc. And I have shown that there have been glimpses throughout history that this perception may in fact not be reality - Kipketer running 1.42.67 with no special prep, later going on to run 1.41.11 (I know he did nothing special because he literally told me so in a 1-1 conversation).

I mean what else do you want. All your other points about qualification times for events and NCAA are so tied up in nuances that it's impossible to even really have a point of view on either way. But I suspect you know that and it's part of your "irrefutable" logic which is a smart tactic but nothing more.

Because of that I'm only going to bother with one question - that of Giles because the thread is about him. But I don't know how you think Giles supports your POV?! If indoors is significantly slower than outdoors then surely Giles is in 1.42.5 shape running at Monaco in 20 degree weather right now no? And that's only a second which isn't really significant. And assuming he's not in peak racing form physically and might be in 4 months time, what's that worth - 0.5 seconds? I don't know - you tell me mate. But based on those pretty conservative guesses, we think Elliot Giles is a 1.42.0 800m guy?! Yeah I'm not buying that sorry.

Your problem in bringing him up, is that even if he "only" runs 1.43.0 this summer which would be outstanding and would put him 4th on the UK all-time list behind Coe, Cram and Elliot - all legends and Olympic medalists, then your POV/theory/argument is shot to sh$t because it only points to about a 0.6 second difference and that would be with a training plan that I would almost guarantee is pointed towards peaking in summer (because of the Olympics).

Basically in order for your contentions to be right, you need him to quite simply run as far under 1.43.63 as possible which would show how much slower it is to run indoors even given the time of year and how we know that correlates to a pro athletes training periodization.

GOOD. LUCK. Again, let's check in and see what the situation is come September.

Coevett wrote:

Soviet Vest, I'd be interested to know exactly what level of athletics you reached to have top coaches and athletes from Coe's era divulge inside information to you that he was doping. In another thread you mention that you are a low ranking track official.

I have no credentials to impress you: I'm a very low ranking official - I do it under sufferance; a very poor athlete; a low ranking team manager; a very, very low ranking coach and a very enthusiastic fan. I attend at least 20 events every year, from junior leagues to open meetings to Diamond Leagues. If you'd like to grill me in person, I'm sure it can be arranged - just let me know.

I agree with all this. I would only add that there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest an even wider range in the speed of indoor tracks compared to outdoor. Thus, if anything, some indoor tracks are faster (rather than slower) than most outdoor ones, in events 800m and above.

I think Giles would have been hard pushed to have bettered his recent time on an outdoor track, even with favourable weather conditions.

Interesting piece by Sean Ingle.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/feb/22/super-spikes-seismic-shift-athletics-track-nike-air-zoom-victory-tokyo-olympics

Deanouk wrote:

You also specifically state that said athlete was blood doping in the late 70's and early 80's until it was banned. Well, Coe was instrumental in getting blood doping banned in '85, so the question has to be asked, Why would he call for the practice to be banned if he had benefitted from it? Isn't that like cutting the hand that feeds you? And what sort of blood doping allows a miler to run a 45.5 400m, but nothing better than a 7:54 for 3k and 14:06 for 5k?

You lose your credibility more and more. Everybody knows you think Coe could have run something like 13:20 and here you have him as a 14:06 athlete because it fits to your argumentation.

I always remembered this thread - now we are basically getting towards the end of the outdoor season I thought we could, well, revisit this topic. How fast would Giles have to run to convince me outdoors is significantly faster than indoors? Well what was our conclusion if he actually ran slower?

Elliot Giles 1.43.63 indoors - 1.44.05 outdoors

Current world outdoor lead is 1.42.91 by Amos in Monaco - current world indoor lead is 1.43.63 by Giles.

So after all of this and sure, we might see something great in the last 2-3 key races this season (Berlin, Zurich, Brussels) - but as of today Elliot Giles hasn't run faster outdoors and the outdoor best time of this season is only 0.72 seconds faster than the indoors, despite a racing schedule maybe 3-4 times as large.

Sooooo, yeah - if you are out there - where you at? Let me repeat my original take - there is very little difference in optimal 800m running conditions between indoors and out. You're welcome.