As Renato points out, Battocletti's rise has been occurring for years and she really made it in 2021 when she ran 14:46 (with the special shoes, of course) at age 21. Since then, she has gotten eleven seconds better in the 5000m in three years. None of that is surprising.
As Renato points out, Battocletti's rise has been occurring for years and she really made it in 2021 when she ran 14:46 (with the special shoes, of course) at age 21. Since then, she has gotten eleven seconds better in the 5000m in three years. None of that is surprising.
Renato is Italian, isn't he? His comments are unsurprising. But in this sport nothing is very surprising now. Especially for a runner whose father was a doper.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
I'm not saying that we can trust Italian performances, given the country's history with doping in the 1980s, but this notion that the winner must be doping because s/he doesn't seem particularly tired after the race has got to stop. Unless we're talking about a dive or a lean at the end, the winner by definition was not pushed all the way to his or her maximum effort. The losers were absolutely all out to get the winner and couldn't do it, so they are completely spent. This is particularly true at Euro's in typical years because there is usually a major gap between one and two in the distances, and Battocletti's 5 and 10k races were no exception, particularly the ten. Moreover, the winner is elated from the victory and so looks damn fresh.
I used to read the same comments about Houlihan before she was busted. What's more "got to stop" is the insistence that a runner who has made dramatic improvements in a doped sport to crush their competition must be clean. That is especially when it is part of a noticeable and sudden increase in their national success. That they are clean is the least likely conclusion in World Running Entertainment.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
There's an obvious and crucial ingredient to the Italian performance here: they were running at home before a huge crowd. Just look at what the Germans did in Munich at Euros two years ago before loud, monster crowds. They led the gold count with 7 and were second in medals with 20, whereas this year away from home they had only 11 medals, in fifth place. Italy was fourth in the medal count with 11 in 2022, but at home this year, Italy led the table with 24 (11 golds, way beyond anyone else, four being next best), France was second with 16 and the UK third with 13. So, the home stadium matters.
What has to stop is your comments because you assert that every single one is doping, regardless of whether you have any evidence whatsoever. There is a performance curve. Everyone improves, worsens, is stable for a few years. Some improve more than others. That is natural. Sometimes they are doping, whether in large numbers as in Eastern Europe, Kenya, Morocco, or Spain, or the occasional athlete. But you can't just brand every single outstanding performance, whether on the high school, college, or pro level, as doping. They are not all doping.
There's an obvious and crucial ingredient to the Italian performance here: they were running at home before a huge crowd. Just look at what the Germans did in Munich at Euros two years ago before loud, monster crowds. They led the gold count with 7 and were second in medals with 20, whereas this year away from home they had only 11 medals, in fifth place. Italy was fourth in the medal count with 11 in 2022, but at home this year, Italy led the table with 24 (11 golds, way beyond anyone else, four being next best), France was second with 16 and the UK third with 13. So, the home stadium matters.
So cheering was what led to their national success? It should be banned. It's obviously more performance enhancing than EPO.
What has to stop is your comments because you assert that every single one is doping, regardless of whether you have any evidence whatsoever. There is a performance curve. Everyone improves, worsens, is stable for a few years. Some improve more than others. That is natural. Sometimes they are doping, whether in large numbers as in Eastern Europe, Kenya, Morocco, or Spain, or the occasional athlete. But you can't just brand every single outstanding performance, whether on the high school, college, or pro level, as doping. They are not all doping.
Not all. But probably most. And some more obviously than others. That is top sport now.
Battocletti's father did get banned for nandrolone in 1999. That is a red flag but the guilt of the father doesn't logically entail the guilt of the daughter.
IAAF Newsletter n.42, June 2000, p. 15: IAAF Anti Doping News POSITIVE CASES IN ATHLETICS, PENDING HEARING OR SANCTIONED DEFINITIVELY, ACCORDING TO INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE IAAF AS OF 6 JUNE 2000
Maybe you are completely honest, but of sure don't know anything about athletics.
First thing : don't look too much at the number of medals, this is Europe only, not World.
However, some athlete showed amazing improvement, and can be important factor in the world during the next years.
... You are missing the point completely. A few athletes with what you believe is natural progression (laughable examples) does not explain the situation with Italy. Italy has gone from being a bottom of the barrel track organization (worse than Belarus) to a top 3 program in the entire world. This is not something that magically happens.
Italy is competing like it has the world's greatest coaches and is the most talented track country in the world. This is simply not true. If you want to lie to yourself and tell me that this is a normal thing in the sport of track and field, maybe you need to recognize that it is normal for countries to have state sponsored doping programs.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Battocletti's father did get banned for nandrolone in 1999. That is a red flag but the guilt of the father doesn't logically entail the guilt of the daughter.
IAAF Newsletter n.42, June 2000, p. 15: IAAF Anti Doping News POSITIVE CASES IN ATHLETICS, PENDING HEARING OR SANCTIONED DEFINITIVELY, ACCORDING TO INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE IAAF AS OF 6 JUNE 2000
You have a choice. Her dad said to her, "don't do what I did", or, "there's only one way to win in this sport". Take your pick. What do you think a doper would advise their kid, who wants to succeed in a doped sport?
Whenever it occurs as a national group there's usually one reason for it.
I agree, it is upgraded training, Zatopek ran Intervals twice a Day Everyday, Kuts did that for 2-3 Days in a Row, but added Rest Days, Lydiard had the 100 Miles a Week on one run a Day for the 6 Month Base, The latest thing is Double Threshold.
The Constant search for the Perfect Training will go on forever, Most succeed with Solid Consistant Training over a long period/Years, but there is always a new Training Program some have success with comes out and many try to copy it, Note any advanced program has to be worked up to
Whenever it occurs as a national group there's usually one reason for it.
I agree, it is upgraded training, Zatopek ran Intervals twice a Day Everyday, Kuts did that for 2-3 Days in a Row, but added Rest Days, Lydiard had the 100 Miles a Week on one run a Day for the 6 Month Base, The latest thing is Double Threshold.
The Constant search for the Perfect Training will go on forever, Most succeed with Solid Consistant Training over a long period/Years, but there is always a new Training Program some have success with comes out and many try to copy it, Note any advanced program has to be worked up to
You're talking about individual athletes, not a national group all succeeding at the same time.
It may be only for morans who don't follow track&field.
Since you can read the future in the sport you can tell us who will win the medals at Paris.
He probably can't, and nobody can. What can be done, is look at who dominated the medal table 3 years ago at Euros Under-23, and expect that the same exact people, with 3 years of training under their belt (and being 23-25 years old instead of 20-22) could get better enough to win medals at senior level.
In the same way, everybody who is not an idiot could expect for example that Nico Young 3 years from now will be better than the dude that finished 10th in the 5000 DIII national championship (whoever he is) and that Parker Valby in 3 years will be better than a random girl that is putting up 16:30 5000s in DIII: to do such bold predictions (which are the equivalent of saying that a girl that dominated at junior level for the last five years could win a medal at senior level), you don't need to read the future, just a tiny bit of common sense is enough.