10 Years Ago Kipchoge Was PAST His Prime: What Happened?

TheRealTaro wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That isn't the assumption. It is that a world record of the kind achieved by a runner aged nearly 40 who was declining ten years ago is likely doped. But nor can you say that it is "absurd" to question all great performances when it is possible doping played a part.

Kipchoge is 37, the same age as Carlos Lopes when he won the marathon gold and set the OR in LA. So great marathon performances at that age are hardly unprecedented (your "nearly 40" is a dishonest exaggeration).

And yes, it is absurd to suggest that it's "possible" Bob Beamon was a doper. There has to be a reason for thinking something is possible. There is no reason whatsoever to think Beamon was a doper (or Moorcroft or Kipchoge).

Given your definition of what's possible, one could claim ANYTHING is possible. It's possible that Donald Trump was born female and his birth name was Donna Trump. Unlikely. But possible in your loony universe. After all, sex change, like doping, has long been a thing, right?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you choose to disregard a comment attributed to Richard Pound, try this from Charles Yesalis, a professor of kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University and leading authority on sports enhancement drugs:

“Drug use has been epidemic in Olympic sports since the 1960s. It will be epidemic in Sydney. And only stupid and careless people get caught no matter how often they’re tested,” says Yesalis.

You may know a bit about track but you know little about doping - because you don't want to. It may surprise you to know that Pound and WADA have relied upon the advice of experts like Yesalis, and will have used his comments like those above as authoritative observations.

It is quite obvious that tests catch few when only 1-2% of tests return a positive and yet the prevalence in some sports exceeds an estimated 80%. Confidential athlete surveys by the IAAF puts the numbers doping in athletics at far higher than those caught. David Howman has conceded that antidoping is less sophisticated than doping, and so they cannot catch most dopers. All they can do is hope to deter some or limit its incidence.

It is a fairly forlorn hope. Since Marion Jones was busted for doping nearly twenty years ago we have known that athletes could use drugs which were masked or for which there was not a test. Those athletes who have failed whereabouts procedures were likely unsure that what they were taking would escape detection, as WADA does not tell them if it has effective tests for each and every drug.

You scoff at doping comments here because you have invested too much in your dream, that the best are not part of the doping circus. They are the centre ring. So we see a 2.01 marathon by a 38 year-old runner who gets better with age. Barnum and Bailey couldn't do better to entertain.

High hopes wrote:

fkkfkfkfkf wrote:

There is no money in the 10000. The list of guys with fast 5ks and slow 10ks is pretty long...

There is a long history of guys running fast marathons around 35-38. They all drop off by 40. Granted kipchoge dropping off is going to be running a 2:05....

Marathon is sort of unique in that it isn't all about aerobic power like the 5000-hm. Ability to not run out of fuel or have the legs not break down matter a lot. If you have 27min 10k speed and your are a natural marathoner, you are running down around 2:03. See all the Japanese guys who are 28min guys and running 2:08s... Just not a lot of guys who are both fast and marathoners...

From what I've read, the marathon is most definitely about aerobic capacity and running economy. The 5k in particular has a strong VO2 max component and that is what drops away quite precipitously when you reach your thirties. Aerobic capacity can continue to improve into your late-30s and maybe beyond. It's why you see so many amateur guys in their 50s/60s who can run 3:10 for the marathon but only 21/22 minutes for 5k.

TheRealTaro wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That isn't the assumption. It is that a world record of the kind achieved by a runner aged nearly 40 who was declining ten years ago is likely doped. But nor can you say that it is "absurd" to question all great performances when it is possible doping played a part.

Kipchoge is 37, the same age as Carlos Lopes when he won the marathon gold and set the OR in LA. So great marathon performances at that age are hardly unprecedented (your "nearly 40" is a dishonest exaggeration).

And yes, it is absurd to suggest that it's "possible" Bob Beamon was a doper. There has to be a reason for thinking something is possible. There is no reason whatsoever to think Beamon was a doper (or Moorcroft or Kipchoge).

Given your definition of what's possible, one could claim ANYTHING is possible. It's possible that Donald Trump was born female and his birth name was Donna Trump. Unlikely. But possible in your loony universe. After all, sex change, like doping, has long been a thing, right?

GreatDane1 wrote:

TheRealTaro wrote:

Kipchoge is 37, the same age as Carlos Lopes when he won the marathon gold and set the OR in LA. So great marathon performances at that age are hardly unprecedented (your "nearly 40" is a dishonest exaggeration).

And yes, it is absurd to suggest that it's "possible" Bob Beamon was a doper. There has to be a reason for thinking something is possible. There is no reason whatsoever to think Beamon was a doper (or Moorcroft or Kipchoge).

Given your definition of what's possible, one could claim ANYTHING is possible. It's possible that Donald Trump was born female and his birth name was Donna Trump. Unlikely. But possible in your loony universe. After all, sex change, like doping, has long been a thing, right?

Lol no point arguing with the guy. ArmstrongLivs literally lives for trolling and harassing people on here. You could prove something to him black and white leaving no room for error and he would still never admit he was wrong. Best just to laugh at the guy and never respond to him.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you choose to disregard a comment attributed to Richard Pound, try this from Charles Yesalis, a professor of kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University and leading authority on sports enhancement drugs:

“Drug use has been epidemic in Olympic sports since the 1960s. It will be epidemic in Sydney. And only stupid and careless people get caught no matter how often they’re tested,” says Yesalis.

You may know a bit about track but you know little about doping - because you don't want to. It may surprise you to know that Pound and WADA have relied upon the advice of experts like Yesalis, and will have used his comments like those above as authoritative observations.

It is quite obvious that tests catch few when only 1-2% of tests return a positive and yet the prevalence in some sports exceeds an estimated 80%. Confidential athlete surveys by the IAAF puts the numbers doping in athletics at far higher than those caught. David Howman has conceded that antidoping is less sophisticated than doping, and so they cannot catch most dopers. All they can do is hope to deter some or limit its incidence.

It is a fairly forlorn hope. Since Marion Jones was busted for doping nearly twenty years ago we have known that athletes could use drugs which were masked or for which there was not a test. Those athletes who have failed whereabouts procedures were likely unsure that what they were taking would escape detection, as WADA does not tell them if it has effective tests for each and every drug.

You scoff at doping comments here because you have invested too much in your dream, that the best are not part of the doping circus. They are the centre ring. So we see a 2.01 marathon by a 38 year-old runner who gets better with age. Barnum and Bailey couldn't do better to entertain.

Armstronglivs Spin Zone: I was caught misquoting a decades-old comment, so now I will pretend like that's not what obviously happened.

Yes, there is doping and not every doper is caught — especially immediately. Using 20-year-old quotes is not a good argument. In 20 years, anti-doping has progressed immensely between ABP, greater OOC testing, and better tests. You still can't account for athletes, in your estimation, skipping tests to avoid positive tests and dopers being way ahead of testers. Ultimately, you are on the far pole of this argument suggesting nearly everyone is doping, and it's as ludicrous a position as nobody is doping on the other hand. Sensible people are in the middle, having skepticism for athletes with shady ties, unnatural progressions, out-of-nowhere emergence and so on. Once athletes are properly in the system getting blood-tested OOC with their ABP established, sure you can speculate but the system is busting plenty of people.

Armstronglivs wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Armstronglivs Spin Zone: I was caught misquoting a decades-old comment, so now I will pretend like that's not what obviously happened.

Yes, there is doping and not every doper is caught — especially immediately. Using 20-year-old quotes is not a good argument. In 20 years, anti-doping has progressed immensely between ABP, greater OOC testing, and better tests. You still can't account for athletes, in your estimation, skipping tests to avoid positive tests and dopers being way ahead of testers. Ultimately, you are on the far pole of this argument suggesting nearly everyone is doping, and it's as ludicrous a position as nobody is doping on the other hand. Sensible people are in the middle, having skepticism for athletes with shady ties, unnatural progressions, out-of-nowhere emergence and so on. Once athletes are properly in the system getting blood-tested OOC with their ABP established, sure you can speculate but the system is busting plenty of people.

I have read comments from Pound making the same point as Yesalis above - and yet you duck the substantive point they were making over the red herring of comment attribution, and further suggesting that the observation no longer applies today, because you think antidoping has so improved. Howman has said even this year that doping continues to be ahead of antidoping - as it always has - which reinforces the claim that it is typically still only the dumb and the careless who get caught.

You avoid the known enormous discrepancy between the number of positive tests and estimates of actual doping in sports. Clearly, few dopers are caught.

You also fail to grasp why WADA treats a series of whereabouts failures as doping violations. With three failures, "innocent" explanations don't cut it. Dopers duck tests because they can't always be sure that there isn't a test for the drugs they are taking, and they may not have a team of doctors and trainers to make sure they don't get caught.

You are apparently unaware that athletes are able to beat the biopassport, through micro-dosing or taking drugs for which there is no test. It is estimated that at any one time there are a hundred substances out there for which there is no effective test.

Doping is a more than a billion dollar industry on the black market, that frequently involves organized crime. The practice makes use of science that continues to develop. It hasn't gone backwards in twenty years. Antidoping is always trying to play catch-up. As Howman acknowledges, antidoping cannot eradicate doping; it only hopes to try to minimise it. It is a vain hope, when few are caught and the rewards for success in sports today are fame, prestige and sometimes enormous wealth.

Like many fans you cling to the quaint notion that athletes today will not avail themselves of whatever advantage they can obtain to succeed. For many, their sport is their life. If dopers are driven to succeed how do you imagine clean athletes have any less ambition, and why would they be prepared to lose to doped competitors? We gained a snapshot of that in the women's 1500 at London 2012, when it emerged that most of the final were doping. The tip of an enormous iceberg.

Wise Old Man wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have read comments from Pound making the same point as Yesalis above - and yet you duck the substantive point they were making over the red herring of comment attribution, and further suggesting that the observation no longer applies today, because you think antidoping has so improved. Howman has said even this year that doping continues to be ahead of antidoping - as it always has - which reinforces the claim that it is typically still only the dumb and the careless who get caught.

You avoid the known enormous discrepancy between the number of positive tests and estimates of actual doping in sports. Clearly, few dopers are caught.

You also fail to grasp why WADA treats a series of whereabouts failures as doping violations. With three failures, "innocent" explanations don't cut it. Dopers duck tests because they can't always be sure that there isn't a test for the drugs they are taking, and they may not have a team of doctors and trainers to make sure they don't get caught.

You are apparently unaware that athletes are able to beat the biopassport, through micro-dosing or taking drugs for which there is no test. It is estimated that at any one time there are a hundred substances out there for which there is no effective test.

Doping is a more than a billion dollar industry on the black market, that frequently involves organized crime. The practice makes use of science that continues to develop. It hasn't gone backwards in twenty years. Antidoping is always trying to play catch-up. As Howman acknowledges, antidoping cannot eradicate doping; it only hopes to try to minimise it. It is a vain hope, when few are caught and the rewards for success in sports today are fame, prestige and sometimes enormous wealth.

Like many fans you cling to the quaint notion that athletes today will not avail themselves of whatever advantage they can obtain to succeed. For many, their sport is their life. If dopers are driven to succeed how do you imagine clean athletes have any less ambition, and why would they be prepared to lose to doped competitors? We gained a snapshot of that in the women's 1500 at London 2012, when it emerged that most of the final were doping. The tip of an enormous iceberg.

My g-d, six pages now of philosophical rants and circular arguments. Seems like everybody has a hardened position. We have the cynics and nihilists on the one hand and the stoics and faithful on the other and then some realists in the middle. Nobody is changing anybody’s mind.

Personally, I find beauty in human achievement and prefer to inhabit a world where Kipchoge is revered and lauded until there is hard, cold evidence that he is not what he appears to be. Others think this is naive and setting oneself up for repeated disappointments. I find this crowd to be generally angry and lacking in the marvelous emotion of awe. I feel sorry for them a little because it’s nice to have heroes and to be amazed, but I’m done trying to convince anybody my view is the correct one.

Kaxxe wrote:

I am just wired much differently than you. Why would I “revere” Kipchoge or have him as a “hero?” I cannot even begin to relate to this notion. I suppose it is my huge ego which prevents it but I look at Kipchoge as an enormously talented runner, winning the WC 5000m against 2 legends as a teenager, who then eventually stagnated as a long distance track racer, and then almost miraculously became the best marathoner who ever lived. No I am not buying it, and he is no hero of mine, BUT even if he is doping (which seems very likely) I can admire the discipline he has, because doping is not enough to make someone a 2:01 marathoner. The shoes and doping are crucial but he is also a rare talent and a rare person to be that disciplined and tenacious. Nobody wants to bust Kipchoge anymore than they want to bust Tom Brady because those running these sports know that they are your heroes and they need heroes to keep fans like you.