He was doing the wrong events earlier. Also being trained to the max for 5-10 is different from Marathon training so even if best performances were possible earlier he wasn't training for this event then. He's not going to just get worse every Marathon just because he's older. That doesn't even happen to Joe or Jane Jogger until they no longer can do progressive training. Even Armstronglivs could do a Marathon now and get better in the next despite being a 67 year old troll.
fwiw, ive seen more suspicion on Jakob here than I have for Kipchoge. Even this thread is about people needing to be talked into being suspicious. His reputation is as good as it gets for a runner, imo.
Point taken that he was in the wrong events in his 20s. But he has been running the marathon for nearly a decade now and continues to get better and better. Not just maintain, get better. How much better can he get at his advancing age before more people question him?
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
Sure, this is a fair question, but I think it misses the crux of the issue. For me the absolute level of Kipchoge is less important / astounding than the relative edge he has on all his competitors. Of course the idea that someone running 4:37 26 times in a row has pharmaceutical help is compelling, no matter who is doing it. Heck, I personally have no trouble believing that every performance under 2:10 is suspect, it's just not necessarily a tenable position.
Anyways, more to the point, we have to account for the fact that Eliud is nearly 2 minutes ahead of his competitors. And it's not as if they aren't doping - Cherono (2:03:04) was just popped. Many have had suspicions about Ekiru (2:02:57), and of course going back to Kimetto and others.
I'm not trying to argue one way of the other- only to point out that cheekily implying that Kipchoge is doping offers no real explanatory value for the depth and intensity of his achievements. You need to be alleging something more - like, say, "Kipchoge is doping, *and* at a completely unprecedented level, supported entirely by Nike (and World Athletics ?) with techniques that are unknown and/or unavailable to anyone else in the sport". This is what seems more far-fetched to me. It would have to be an intense international and local conspiracy, really. We know Kipchoge trains with many other athletes at Kaptagat under the tutelage of Sang. Are they all on the same doping regimen as well? If yes, where are the results? If no, what does this look like? Only Kipchoge gets the special treatment, and no one else on the team is any the wiser? Or they are, but none of the twenty or thirty athletes consistently around him have ever spoken up about it? Even though they're not allowed the special sauce that Nike has him on?
Kipchoge's competition record is essentially unaccountable, unexplainable, we've never seen anything quite like it. I'm open to different possibilities but I have to say that Occam's razor still leads me to the conclusion that he's just the greatest ever to do it, and this mostly ineffable explanation is the best we can get. If someone can explain how he has EPO that's so much better than everyone else's EPO, or whatever, I'm all ears, but I just don't see doping as being that much more tenable of an explanation... Heck, Kipsang was well on the decline when he tested positive for whatever he did, so it didn't seem to work for him.
These are all good points but with respect to the "conspiracy that would seem impossible to keep on the low" we do kind of have a blueprint for how this works in the sporting world with Lance Armstrong.
Lance was doping at an unprecedented level, trained with others riders who were also doping and none of them spoke up until well after his career was over despite (as we now know) not being on the same sophisticated regime Lance was. Oh, and funnily enough both are heavily backed by the same sporting brand out of Beaverton.
And similar to Lance whose competition record was unaccountable, unexplainable and we had never seen anything like it - Lance probably was all things equal would still have been one of the greatest to do it (maybe not as singularly and unequivocally great as A.C but you get the point).
How could he have "EPO much better than everyone else?" - well let's use EPO as a synonym for "PEDs" - well, it's not difficult really. Professional running isn't the same level of sophistication as say pro cycling for one. A lot of the East African athletes who take stuff and given it by horrible agents who feign it as "anti-malaria" or "flu vaccine" shots (seriously) and just roll the dice with them because if they get caught they simply go back and take their pick from the production line of talent always willing to get out of Kenya and make a living on the tracks/roads of Europe. That sounds awful and it is - trust me. Many agents are just total scumbags but that's a different topic altogether. Point being particularly with respect to distance running, any athlete who has access to an actual doctor (like a Michele Ferrari or Eufemiano Fuentes) simply put, has "EPO" much better than anyone else. Kipchoge 100% would have that through Jos - I promise you that.
I'll quote you to finish - I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just making sure we are cognizant of the realities in play. It is not impossible that he could be doping to the level he needs to in order to run these sorts of performances at this age, which back to the OPs point I have to admit even for myself this time around I was a little surprised with.
I give kipchoge a pass simply because it’s the marathon and it’s the one discipline older runners seem to maintain the longest, plus the shoes have evolved in such a way that maybe a 2:04 and 2:03 performance in the past could be worth 2:02 and 2:01 nowadays.. I have zero faith in sprinters waiver 30 who are blasting huge pbs and having big seasons especially those who have been competing at the highest level in those races their whole lives.
I would find Kipchoge even more impressive if he were on PEDs.
Then you should probably be impressed.
I agree with this as well.. .would be much more impressed with Kipchoge if he actually WAS on PEDs!!! To maintain drug usage since the age of 18 and to be so healthy and consistent defies drug use.
Point taken that he was in the wrong events in his 20s. But he has been running the marathon for nearly a decade now and continues to get better and better. Not just maintain, get better. How much better can he get at his advancing age before more people question him?
You've got guys like Jack Foster and John Campbell getting their fastest marathon times at 41 and 40. So I think people who aren't now suspicious will look to those two and think someone that age can still get a best time. It's worth noting that both of these guys were relative newcomers to the marathon and were possibly "fresher" for not having decades of hard running on their legs, unlike Kipchoge. But Kipchoge's covered the distance in under two hours so you can argue that even at, say, 2:00:30, he's still not running his best. Beyond that? Abdirahman was 43 when he made the last Olympic team. So I think there's some time yet before those who think he's legitimate will start wondering.
That's not true. Casual obsever has been pushing that lie for years. Even when confronted with evidence, he still lies.
ABP must account for changes in plasma volume which are very large in a well trained endurance athlete.
LOL. Jon, why do you lie so much? She did have "well-known issues with her ABP", at least three times actually, and FYI, decreases of over 20% in ret-% - obviously a relative measure! - have nothing to do with "changes in plasma volume".
And of course, none of these facts have anything to do with me. Good trolling to pull me back into this thread though.
20% change in ret? Reticulocytes? That's normal for altitude training.
You mean Hematocrit? And even then it's Easily explainable by dehydration. You know this , but you keep trolling her. Why?
Drugs don't give you more energy or allow you to exceed your rate of calorie burning beyond your natural capacity either in a race or recovery.
Kipchoge's energy output is completely normal. It's his energy efficiency and endurance that are superior.
None of you understand these basic concepts. So preaching this anti-doping rhetoric is simply endorsing the supposed doping efficacy.
This is where you lose all credibility. A more effective strategy would be to acknowledge that PEDS are one plausible explanation, but there is an alternative plausible explanation, and then provide it in detail along with links to studies that support your claims. By taking the position that drugs don’t enhance performance, you lose your audience.
Running economy is a well established science. Ever heard of Jack Daniels?
There is no Superhuman metabolism. It is impossible by definition. But this is the PED concept in a nutshell. And you want to talk about credibility?
I don't believe you. HRE is just willfully ignorant. That's his schtick it's was he does
What's your excuse?
Excuse for what? Questioning how someone is getting better as he approaches 40? Is an excuse needed for that?
What’s your answer to my question in the OP? Will you always believe Kipchoge is clean no matter how fast he runs and no matter how old he is, or do you have a breaking point?
With respect to the OP and yourself.
It's a loaded statement/question from the OP. Kipchoge is as clean/dirty as any other world class runner. I believe it's his ability setting him apart from the rest.
If he is juicing, then likely so are the rest of the guys at the top. But since he hasn't tested positive, he is presumed innocent and conversations about whether he in particular is juicing are moot.
That's just my take on it - I believe it's a level playing field and the best will still be the best.
He was doing the wrong events earlier. Also being trained to the max for 5-10 is different from Marathon training so even if best performances were possible earlier he wasn't training for this event then. He's not going to just get worse every Marathon just because he's older. That doesn't even happen to Joe or Jane Jogger until they no longer can do progressive training. Even Armstronglivs could do a Marathon now and get better in the next despite being a 67 year old troll.
69. Not if I trained hardest in my twenties. Which is what Kipchoge did. The human body ages - you will discover that in time.
Point taken that he was in the wrong events in his 20s. But he has been running the marathon for nearly a decade now and continues to get better and better. Not just maintain, get better. How much better can he get at his advancing age before more people question him?
I agree with this as well.. .would be much more impressed with Kipchoge if he actually WAS on PEDs!!! To maintain drug usage since the age of 18 and to be so healthy and consistent defies drug use.
No, it doesn't. Top athletes typically use performance enhancing drugs with medical and professional assistance. Further, he might not have been doping since he was 18 but may have begun so later to revive his career, when he turned to the roads.
Point taken that he was in the wrong events in his 20s. But he has been running the marathon for nearly a decade now and continues to get better and better. Not just maintain, get better. How much better can he get at his advancing age before more people question him?
You've got guys like Jack Foster and John Campbell getting their fastest marathon times at 41 and 40. So I think people who aren't now suspicious will look to those two and think someone that age can still get a best time. It's worth noting that both of these guys were relative newcomers to the marathon and were possibly "fresher" for not having decades of hard running on their legs, unlike Kipchoge. But Kipchoge's covered the distance in under two hours so you can argue that even at, say, 2:00:30, he's still not running his best. Beyond that? Abdirahman was 43 when he made the last Olympic team. So I think there's some time yet before those who think he's legitimate will start wondering.
Were Foster and Campbell setting wr's and annihilating all opposition?
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
I want to believe he is a freak of nature, but after he finished on Sunday there was not a hint of fatigue or discomfort after running faster than he ever has before?????? That does not look normal, maybe if it was 5k but not after running 42K at 4:37/mile pace, it makes no sense. But again maybe he is one in a billion and can do this, I dont know.
Excuse for what? Questioning how someone is getting better as he approaches 40? Is an excuse needed for that?
What’s your answer to my question in the OP? Will you always believe Kipchoge is clean no matter how fast he runs and no matter how old he is, or do you have a breaking point?
With respect to the OP and yourself.
It's a loaded statement/question from the OP. Kipchoge is as clean/dirty as any other world class runner. I believe it's his ability setting him apart from the rest.
If he is juicing, then likely so are the rest of the guys at the top. But since he hasn't tested positive, he is presumed innocent and conversations about whether he in particular is juicing are moot.
That's just my take on it - I believe it's a level playing field and the best will still be the best.
To some extent these arguments break down to if you believe
A) there is a limit to human performance that you can get to with training/genetics that drugs don't push you past
B) drugs can push you past those limits
We know the drugs can cause huge improvements in aerobic performance (30s over 5k for a 14 min giy) in sub elite guys but that doesn't mean a 1240 guy would be a 13:10 guy without drugs. Maybe they only get a 10s improvement. Or if you believe in A, maybe you have the guy who gets 0.
Personally I am voting for B. I think there is zero chance that drugs that improve recovery and the like don't let you training beyond the limits of clean athletes. Go look at bodybuilding for clear examples of how drugs push you beyond clean human limits.
The only question is are the advantages of B big enough so that a clean runner has no chance.
Excuse for what? Questioning how someone is getting better as he approaches 40? Is an excuse needed for that?
What’s your answer to my question in the OP? Will you always believe Kipchoge is clean no matter how fast he runs and no matter how old he is, or do you have a breaking point?
With respect to the OP and yourself.
It's a loaded statement/question from the OP. Kipchoge is as clean/dirty as any other world class runner. I believe it's his ability setting him apart from the rest.
If he is juicing, then likely so are the rest of the guys at the top. But since he hasn't tested positive, he is presumed innocent and conversations about whether he in particular is juicing are moot.
That's just my take on it - I believe it's a level playing field and the best will still be the best.
If that is so then Lance Armstrong didn't need to dope to win his 7 yellow jerseys. He would have won them anyway on that "level playing field". You must think doping is little more than taking a pill for a headache.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.