Not every race can be a WR or a banger. We are also 3 months out from the Olympics, why would you expect him to be peaking right now?
Not every race can be a WR or a banger. We are also 3 months out from the Olympics, why would you expect him to be peaking right now?
Killeriottt wrote:
EPO is not going to be the great equalizer. Cheptegei is very talented as an endurance athlete. So is his countryman Kiplimo. But suddenly they both became world beaters during the Pandemic. Who is currently better than those 2? It is not clear that anyone is better than those 2. Cheptegei improved his 5000 by 22 seconds AFTER he was already a world champion and seasoned world class runner. Continue to have your head buried in the sand: perhaps this is like altitude training for you.
Of course:
- EPO is not going to be the great equalizer.
- Cheptegei is very talented as an endurance athlete.
- So is his countryman Kiplimo.
- They both became (? continued to be?) world beaters during the Pandemic.
- Who is currently better than those 2? It is not clear that anyone is better than those 2.
- Cheptegei improved his 5000 by 22 seconds AFTER he was already a world champion and seasoned world class runner.
I know what EPO is not going to be. Do you have any facts about PEDs that are relevant for performances like Cheptegei's?
alien wrote:
Not every race can be a WR or a banger. We are also 3 months out from the Olympics, why would you expect him to be peaking right now?
No, you need to think like the OP! Doesn't run a WR every time out? Must be doping. Runs a WR every time out? Too consistent - must be doping.
Killeriottt wrote:
EPO is not going to be the great equalizer. Cheptegei is very talented as an endurance athlete. So is his countryman Kiplimo. But suddenly they both became world beaters during the Pandemic. Who is currently better than those 2? It is not clear that anyone is better than those 2. Cheptegei improved his 5000 by 22 seconds AFTER he was already a world champion and seasoned world class runner. Continue to have your head buried in the sand: perhaps this is like altitude training for you.
Huh? World xc champ over defending champ in arhus, Doha 10k champ, oslo 5k champ, wr holder in road 5/10/15k...BEFORE the pandemic...this doesn’t qualify as “world beater”? The guy ran 27:5x as a 17yo.
huh...? wrote:
Killeriottt wrote:
EPO is not going to be the great equalizer. Cheptegei is very talented as an endurance athlete. So is his countryman Kiplimo. But suddenly they both became world beaters during the Pandemic. Who is currently better than those 2? It is not clear that anyone is better than those 2. Cheptegei improved his 5000 by 22 seconds AFTER he was already a world champion and seasoned world class runner. Continue to have your head buried in the sand: perhaps this is like altitude training for you.
Huh? World xc champ over defending champ in arhus, Doha 10k champ, oslo 5k champ, wr holder in road 5/10/15k...BEFORE the pandemic...this doesn’t qualify as “world beater”? The guy ran 27:5x as a 17yo.
I already addressed this. Work on your reading comprehension.
Killeriottt wrote:
huh...? wrote:
Huh? World xc champ over defending champ in arhus, Doha 10k champ, oslo 5k champ, wr holder in road 5/10/15k...BEFORE the pandemic...this doesn’t qualify as “world beater”? The guy ran 27:5x as a 17yo.
I already addressed this. Work on your reading comprehension.
Work on your persuasion.
I cannot easily teach a monkey to fly a plane and persuading some of you dullards appears no easier.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Halberg was a 1500/5k runner and Olympic champion over the longer distance. His best 1500 was 3.38x, while his best 5k (in 1961) was 13.35. He was therefore running over 4 min for each 1500 in the 5k. Hence, a differential of over 20 seconds between his best 1500 time and his 1500 splits for the 5k seems reasonable.
Cheptegei, whose best 1500 is only fractionally faster than Halberg's from 1958, has a differential of only 7 seconds or so. If that doesn't raise alarm bells, nothing will.
It doesn't raise alarm bells, so I choose your latter option "nothing will".
Training and competition has changed a lot since the '60s. It's long past time you updated your knowledge of track since the '70s.
If we don't have a representative 1500m time for Cheptegei, then the principle of "garbage in, garbage out" applies.
The biggest change since 1958 is doping, but despite your acceptance of its "prevalence" you are unable to perceive that it has any effect on performance. Possibly that is because you have no knowledge of history and don't remember how athletes use to run when they trained on 100mpw, as Halberg did, but didn't have access to any of the pharmaceuticals you can get over the counter in Kenya today.
It is quite unbelievable that an athlete who can run 12.35 for the 5k, has never run much faster than 3.40 for the 1500 - 3.37 is his best. His pace is scarcely slower over the longer distance than it is for the shorter event. That is not in anyway explained by talent, training, nutrition or equipment. But superhuman endurance is easily explained by doping. You will never see what you don't wish to see. The dopers' friend.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I don't know how to get it through your thick skull that not racing does not equal couldn't race faster.
Cheptegei rarely runs under 5,000 meters in a race. Until he decides to focus on the 1,500/3,000 like Geb and Bekele did at points in their career his PBs there are going to look pedestrian. Unlike those guys he is a frequent road-racer with serious aspirations on the road from 5 KM to HM. So, it's unclear if he'll ever spend time chasing 7:25 and 3:30-low marks that he can assuredly achieve.
He has raced 1500 over the years. He just never improves his time over the distance. He is far slower in that event than any previous 5k world record holder or world champion that I can recall in the last 40 years - D2 level. There is nothing assured that he could achieve 3.30. Unless he dopes for it.
When athletes show phenomenal endurance off relatively poor speed - which has become increasingly common in recent years - I don't see revolutionary training methods (there aren't any) but drugs. That's where the real revolution is occurring.
surveysays wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
How does someone who is capable of stringing three 1500's at around 3.44 each only run 3.37 as his best over the distance?
Because he wouldn't have been able to stringing three 1500s at around 3.44 each if he had run the 5000m at this Ugandan season opener.
Or he wouldn't consider doping for the Ugandan season opener. Save it for world championships and record attempts.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
He "does not try to compete"? So he enters just to lose? How does someone who is capable of stringing three 1500's at around 3.44 each only run 3.37 as his best over the distance? You would think he would be capable of a little faster than that - like around 3.30. That is unless his focus is in doping for the longer races and his record attempts.
Of course you won't "draw too much significance" from such an anomaly in his resume, because to do so could lead to conclusions you wouldn't wish make, as our chief doping apologist.
He entered to test his speed in preparation for Tokyo.
Not only would I -- I do think he is capable of something a little faster than 3:37, if 1500m was a goal, and he trained better for it. I wouldn't say as fast as 3:30, since neither Geb nor Bekele ran that fast.
The 1500m is not his event -- this is what makes any attempted interpretation insignificant.
If the 1500 is not his event maybe he is training for the wheelchair Olympics, because next to his 5k time that's what it looks like.
Anyone who can string three 3.44's together should be capable of 3.28, given the natural margin imposed by depletion of aerobic capacity over the longer distance. That runners are now running longer distances at a pace scarcely slower than they do over the shorter distances is testimony to the extraordinary benefits of modern pharmaceuticals.
Killeriottt wrote:
I cannot easily teach a monkey to fly a plane and persuading some of you dullards appears no easier.
Have you ever tried to teach a monkey to fly a plane?
Are you even trying to persuade anyone to share your thoughts?
It looks like you are just sharing your unsubstantiated thoughts and feelings and hoping for it to stick.
I could be persuaded by facts. Facts are neutral, and are the building blocks of the thoughts of non-dullards.
Encompassed within your private thoughts is a notion that PEDs is more likely turn a low-speed 3:37 runner into a high endurance 12:35 and 26:11 runner.
Is there any tangible historical precedent in the modern era in the real world that would support such thoughts, or that would suggest such a PED exists, outside the magical realm of ancient Aremorica in 50 BC?
One way to persuade is to point to a statistically significant pool of low speed, high endurance runners and demonstrate a likely role of PEDs in making that more likely.
I quickly scanned the list of all sub-12:50 runners, and found no one was as slow as 3:37. Some 12:50 runners ran in the 3:35 and 3:36 range. I'm aware of only one athlete in this group associated with PEDs.
On a sidenote, about a half dozen didn't have any 1500m times -- I wonder how that is even possible. Doesn't everyone run their lifetime potential personal best in every event, so we can perform these kinds of comparisons when forming our ideas about the powerful extra-human properties of PEDs?
Apparently, your thought process is purely hypothetical and theoretical conjecture, as you have provided no likely candidate predecessors with such traits you think is more likely with PEDs, nor have you provided any facts that show such a PED even exists.
I find that unpersuasive.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The biggest change since 1958 is doping, but despite your acceptance of its "prevalence" you are unable to perceive that it has any effect on performance. Possibly that is because you have no knowledge of history and don't remember how athletes use to run when they trained on 100mpw, as Halberg did, but didn't have access to any of the pharmaceuticals you can get over the counter in Kenya today.
It is quite unbelievable that an athlete who can run 12.35 for the 5k, has never run much faster than 3.40 for the 1500 - 3.37 is his best. His pace is scarcely slower over the longer distance than it is for the shorter event. That is not in anyway explained by talent, training, nutrition or equipment. But superhuman endurance is easily explained by doping. You will never see what you don't wish to see. The dopers' friend.
A lot has changed since 1958. The question is not whether doping has a perceivable effect on performance, but the question is to what extent has doping played a role, if at all, in the best performances of the best runners. I have few doubts about the former, with select drugs, under select conditions for selected athletes, but that doesn't help prove the latter.
I can perceive facts, if you can provide any.
Taking for granted that prevalence is high, and assuming powerful effects are significantly visible in many examples -- you have yet to show me some of the best examples where we can perceive such powerful effects on non-Africans. We cannot deny that non-Africans have abundant access to pharmaceuticals "because Lance" and because, according to one survey, prevalence among World Champion athletes is likely more than 44%. How is it that the best non-African is Baumann, who was busted 2 years afterwards for steroids, who is nearly 20 seconds slower, in a race where he took 5th, losing by more than 12 seconds? Surely there were no shortages of 3:37 1500m non-African runners during the EPO-era, before EPO tests and before WADA. In light of all this power and prevalence, how is it that Solinsky (3:36 runner) is the first sub-27:00 10000m runner, and only Rupp (3:34 runner) could achieve the same milestone?
These are historical facts.
If you knew anything about the sport since 1970, and how athletes have specialized, it is completely believable that a 5000m/10000m/cross-country/road specialist would not have demonstrated his full potential in an event he has only run 3 times since 2016. This has nothing to do with talent, training, nutrition or equipment, and everything to do with a faster 1500m never being a goal.
You say you can easily explain performance with doping, but also seem unable to accompany that explanation with facts.
Armstronglivs wrote:
He has raced 1500 over the years. He just never improves his time over the distance. He is far slower in that event than any previous 5k world record holder or world champion that I can recall in the last 40 years - D2 level. There is nothing assured that he could achieve 3.30. Unless he dopes for it.
When athletes show phenomenal endurance off relatively poor speed - which has become increasingly common in recent years - I don't see revolutionary training methods (there aren't any) but drugs. That's where the real revolution is occurring.
...
If the 1500 is not his event maybe he is training for the wheelchair Olympics, because next to his 5k time that's what it looks like.
Anyone who can string three 3.44's together should be capable of 3.28, given the natural margin imposed by depletion of aerobic capacity over the longer distance. That runners are now running longer distances at a pace scarcely slower than they do over the shorter distances is testimony to the extraordinary benefits of modern pharmaceuticals.
I'm embarrassed for you.
First you suggest that 3:30 would only be possible if he dopes for it -- implying that he hasn't ever doped, as his best is 3:37. But then suggest he has been doping all along due to some demonstrated super human endurance.
You are adding a lot of faith to the discussion, but pathetically, no facts. Sadly, you have only persuaded yourself.
Here are two areas where you can start adding facts:
- Is 3:37 representative of Cheptegei's 1500m potential?
- Are drugs as revolutionary as you want to believe?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
He has raced 1500 over the years. He just never improves his time over the distance. He is far slower in that event than any previous 5k world record holder or world champion that I can recall in the last 40 years - D2 level. There is nothing assured that he could achieve 3.30. Unless he dopes for it.
When athletes show phenomenal endurance off relatively poor speed - which has become increasingly common in recent years - I don't see revolutionary training methods (there aren't any) but drugs. That's where the real revolution is occurring.
...
If the 1500 is not his event maybe he is training for the wheelchair Olympics, because next to his 5k time that's what it looks like.
Anyone who can string three 3.44's together should be capable of 3.28, given the natural margin imposed by depletion of aerobic capacity over the longer distance. That runners are now running longer distances at a pace scarcely slower than they do over the shorter distances is testimony to the extraordinary benefits of modern pharmaceuticals.
I'm embarrassed for you.
First you suggest that 3:30 would only be possible if he dopes for it -- implying that he hasn't ever doped, as his best is 3:37. But then suggest he has been doping all along due to some demonstrated super human endurance.
You are adding a lot of faith to the discussion, but pathetically, no facts. Sadly, you have only persuaded yourself.
Here are two areas where you can start adding facts:
- Is 3:37 representative of Cheptegei's 1500m potential?
- Are drugs as revolutionary as you want to believe?
Great post.
rekrunner wrote:
Killeriottt wrote:
I cannot easily teach a monkey to fly a plane and persuading some of you dullards appears no easier.
Have you ever tried to teach a monkey to fly a plane?
Are you even trying to persuade anyone to share your thoughts?
It looks like you are just sharing your unsubstantiated thoughts and feelings and hoping for it to stick.
I could be persuaded by facts. Facts are neutral, and are the building blocks of the thoughts of non-dullards.
Encompassed within your private thoughts is a notion that PEDs is more likely turn a low-speed 3:37 runner into a high endurance 12:35 and 26:11 runner.
Is there any tangible historical precedent in the modern era in the real world that would support such thoughts, or that would suggest such a PED exists, outside the magical realm of ancient Aremorica in 50 BC?
One way to persuade is to point to a statistically significant pool of low speed, high endurance runners and demonstrate a likely role of PEDs in making that more likely.
I quickly scanned the list of all sub-12:50 runners, and found no one was as slow as 3:37. Some 12:50 runners ran in the 3:35 and 3:36 range. I'm aware of only one athlete in this group associated with PEDs.
On a sidenote, about a half dozen didn't have any 1500m times -- I wonder how that is even possible. Doesn't everyone run their lifetime potential personal best in every event, so we can perform these kinds of comparisons when forming our ideas about the powerful extra-human properties of PEDs?
Apparently, your thought process is purely hypothetical and theoretical conjecture, as you have provided no likely candidate predecessors with such traits you think is more likely with PEDs, nor have you provided any facts that show such a PED even exists.
I find that unpersuasive.
You're not here to be persuaded. Quite the reverse.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're not here to be persuaded. Quite the reverse.
You are adding a lot of faith to the discussion, but pathetically, no facts.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
He has raced 1500 over the years. He just never improves his time over the distance. He is far slower in that event than any previous 5k world record holder or world champion that I can recall in the last 40 years - D2 level. There is nothing assured that he could achieve 3.30. Unless he dopes for it.
When athletes show phenomenal endurance off relatively poor speed - which has become increasingly common in recent years - I don't see revolutionary training methods (there aren't any) but drugs. That's where the real revolution is occurring.
...
If the 1500 is not his event maybe he is training for the wheelchair Olympics, because next to his 5k time that's what it looks like.
Anyone who can string three 3.44's together should be capable of 3.28, given the natural margin imposed by depletion of aerobic capacity over the longer distance. That runners are now running longer distances at a pace scarcely slower than they do over the shorter distances is testimony to the extraordinary benefits of modern pharmaceuticals.
I'm embarrassed for you.
First you suggest that 3:30 would only be possible if he dopes for it -- implying that he hasn't ever doped, as his best is 3:37. But then suggest he has been doping all along due to some demonstrated super human endurance.
You are adding a lot of faith to the discussion, but pathetically, no facts. Sadly, you have only persuaded yourself.
Here are two areas where you can start adding facts:
- Is 3:37 representative of Cheptegei's 1500m potential?
- Are drugs as revolutionary as you want to believe?
This is like a discussion with someone from the 19th century - who can't conceive of jet air craft before powered-flight.
Someone who can't beat 3.37 for the 1500 in over 5 years but can run 12.35 for the 5k is obviously doping when he runs the longer distance. There is nothing naturally plausible about a 3.37 athlete putting 3.44 together 3x consecutively.
What you also don't know about drugs is that they are not daily vitamin pills, they are part of a cycle where the athlete uses them as part of a programme to peak at targeted times. Hence, the athlete can show very wide disparities in performance, explained by the period that they cycle off the drugs.
Cheptegei would be struggling to get much faster over the 1500 - maybe like Ramzi he could drop from 3.37 to 3.30 by targeting the event through a doping programme (though Ramzi clearly had more speed than Cheptegei). But the 1500 isn't his preferred distance so he doesn't do that and his performances are slow.
If 12.35 was a clean record Cheptegei would need to be capable of around 3.28-30 clean. Even a margin of 15 or so secs from a notional best 1500 time to his 3.44 5k splits shows phenomenal endurance. He makes a mockery of that by halving that differential.
He isnt clean, his records aren't natural, and there probably hasn't been a clean record in running for over 30 years. But you wouldn't know that, with your 19th century understanding of doping. You won't be persuaded, because as we know you're not here for that but to present your staunchest defence against every suggestion a top athlete might be doping. They should pay you.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're not here to be persuaded. Quite the reverse.
You are adding a lot of faith to the discussion, but pathetically, no facts.
The above is fact. Which you prove time and again.
Cheptegai times are exceptionnal....... but done during the pandemics and with the new spikes. He may not have beaten the WRs if he had not these new spikes.
However one thing don't change, he doesn't have a strong kick.
He can't win a 1500m if he can't close faster than 55sec.