A Duck, I don't really care any more. I am anti drugs in my own way, that is to say that I don't believe in the PED concept. To me, drug testing is a joke, a huge business and an unwinnable war. That's not the way to even attempt to 'clean up the sport'.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
The same way Lance did, Geb did, Komen did, Bekele did, Michael Johnson did, Bolt does, etc. Planning and intelligence. Failing drug tests in his day = failing an IQ test.
Except for the fact that both Bekele and Geb (technically) are still racing. If you'd been alive when Bannister first broke 4, you'd have probably thought he was on something.
ventolin^3 wrote:
deanouk wrote:Evened out, using 55.0, 1:53.2, 2:35.4, 2:49.4, 3:28.8you get a few hundredths below 3:28.3.
faster than 3'28.2
his last 100 is 12.8s = 51.2s pace
he is actually speeding up as the last lap progesses
it means he was no way at his limit if his fastest 100 of the race was the last 100
he was in high, perhaps even mid-3'27 shape that day if they couda evenly paced him to a 2'32/2'33 rather than a derisory 2'35.4, when he woudn't have been finishing with 53.43, but a high/mid-55 with something like a 14.0s finish
That's not what I get when evening out the pace based on the splits you give and which I agree with from the video footage of the race.
55.0/58.2/42.2(2:35.4 at bell)/ 14.0(2:49.4)/26.6/12.8
That's about as detailed a breakdown you are going to find, and putting that into the calculation you use, you get 3:28.23!
Bringing that down to 3:27 mid is speculation and based on what?
As I thought I made quite clear, I would consider the opinions of any former athlete or competitor more than anonymous forum posters. Everything has a context.If "Kyzer Sozenator" has doubts -- this means nothing to me. If former successful middle distance athletes have the same doubts -- this means much more.What's so strange about placing more weight on the opinions of knowledgable insiders over anonymous forum posters? I didn't say just Seb Coe or Peter Snell, I also said "any former athlete". I will extend that even further to any potential insider: former teammates, former team staff, competitors, investigative journalists, close friends or family, close enemies, etc. Does anyone have anything more that could support and strengthen suspicion? I've already said, simply having the best times is not enough -- someone has to be the best. Guilt by association is not enough. These are weak arguments, that by themselves don't stand up. It would be gullible to be swayed by such weak arguments.What is this thread about after all? I guess you think it's healthy to have a fruitful discussion so that people's minds can wonder and wander. Has this thread produced a single fruit? What more do we know now, after 6 pages, about El Guerrouj and possible drug habits, or possible drug evasion?
Kyzer Sozenator wrote:
So you would consider an article by Seb Coe or Peter Snell stating their suspicion that El Guerrouj might be a doper as good enough? How strange. What is making you put your trust in them? Are there any others you would give them same credibility?
I do stand by earlier label that you come off gullible.
Hey Duck,
You are getting way too personal in a public forum. I don't want to see your dirty laundry. I'm surprised they don't delete all your stuff.
Since you like links, here's a couple for you.
If you want to know the purpose of this site, you should read here:
http://www.letsrun.com/WhatsLetsRun.html
I did, and couldn't find a single mention of the words "drugs" or "PED". Looks like the main purpose is providing better coverage of elite running.
If you have suggestions for Robert and Weldon directly, here's a link for you:
http://www.letsrun.com/contactus.php
You can also e-mail directly "suggestions@LetsRun.com"
If you think this site is falling short of your expectations, why not create your own, with all the links you posted?
Maybe he wasn't doping.
deanouk wrote:That's not what I get when evening out the pace based on the splits you give and which I agree with from the video footage of the race.
55.0/58.2/42.2(2:35.4 at bell)/ 14.0(2:49.4)/26.6/12.8
That's about as detailed a breakdown you are going to find, and putting that into the calculation you use, you get 3:28.23!
Bringing that down to 3:27 mid is speculation and based on what?
canova :
For the first time there were 9 athletes able running under 27’ in the same race. However, the real value of those times can be better, since the pace was very bad at the beginning, with the second and third lap in 68”. This fact means that the athletes lost 8” from the planned schedule, and this doesn’t mean they saved energy, on the contrary they had to spend more energies for launching the speed again...
Threfore, since the wasted time was about 8”, we can suppose the final time could be under 26’40” for Mo Farah
canova is stating broadly that if you are running target pace for part/all of the race
( 55.0 pace which if held on as well as a non-hicham talent coud expect, woud give 3'27 ), then having unenforced slowing, which is almost 100% due to poor pacing, which in this case is to low-58 from expected 55, which is 3s of "lost" time from target pace
the elite can do little about it, uness they want to take the lead immediately & overtake the pacer, losing any drafting, but none have ever done it at 400m in
renato is wrong in that in that 10k that all that 8s slowing was completely lost
some of it can be made up in remaining reduced race distance left, but not all - maybe 3 or 4s of that 8s is permanently lost from early in a 10k & perhaps upto 1s permanently lost out of the 3s early in a 1500, after flattening splits
this is a consideration after flattening splits
not really quantifiable
from canova, it woud offer asbel a low/mid-3'27 after flattening splits
ventolin^3 wrote:
deanouk wrote:That's not what I get when evening out the pace based on the splits you give and which I agree with from the video footage of the race.http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=407520855.0/58.2/42.2(2:35.4 at bell)/ 14.0(2:49.4)/26.6/12.8
That's about as detailed a breakdown you are going to find, and putting that into the calculation you use, you get 3:28.23!
Bringing that down to 3:27 mid is speculation and based on what?
canova :
For the first time there were 9 athletes able running under 27’ in the same race. However, the real value of those times can be better, since the pace was very bad at the beginning, with the second and third lap in 68”. This fact means that the athletes lost 8” from the planned schedule, and this doesn’t mean they saved energy, on the contrary they had to spend more energies for launching the speed again...
Threfore, since the wasted time was about 8”, we can suppose the final time could be under 26’40” for Mo Farah
canova is stating broadly that if you are running target pace for part/all of the race
( 55.0 pace which if held on as well as a non-hicham talent coud expect, woud give 3'27 ), then having unenforced slowing, which is almost 100% due to poor pacing, which in this case is to low-58 from expected 55, which is 3s of "lost" time from target pace
the elite can do little about it, uness they want to take the lead immediately & overtake the pacer, losing any drafting, but none have ever done it at 400m in
renato is wrong in that in that 10k that all that 8s slowing was completely lost
some of it can be made up in remaining reduced race distance left, but not all - maybe 3 or 4s of that 8s is permanently lost from early in a 10k & perhaps upto 1s permanently lost out of the 3s early in a 1500, after flattening splits
this is a consideration after flattening splits
not really quantifiable
from canova, it woud offer asbel a low/mid-3'27 after flattening splits
OK, point taken, but wouldn't you have to then take the same consideration for many other performances?
There are quite a few elite races over 1500/mile where there was a huge discrepancy between the 1st and 2nd laps?
Also, surely the formula used for evening out splits takes this discrepancy in lap times into consideration already? I thought that was the whole point of it!?
deanouk wrote:OK, point taken, but wouldn't you have to then take the same consideration for many other performances?
There are quite a few elite races over 1500/mile where there was a huge discrepancy between the 1st and 2nd laps?
as canova says "from the planned schedule" meaning it's applicable to going at planned pace then unforseen/unnecessary slowing & vice-versa
going out too fast causes forced slowing on next lap otherwise they will collapse before race finishes
Also, surely the formula used for evening out splits takes this discrepancy in lap times into consideration already? I thought that was the whole point of it!?
that's a bare minimum
it's limited by basic speed
if a 3'30 guy with 48.0 speed strolls to bell evenly in a 2'50, he can't make up all the lost time in space of just 400m
if he coud, he woud need a theoretical finish of
1500*(1500/210)^3
-
1100*(1100/170)^3
= 248642u for remaining 400 ->46.86s
which is not possible as he humanly can't go faster than 48.0 for 400m
a significant amount of lost time in unenforced slow laps will stay lost & can't be made up in rest of the race
you need good protocol to avoid testing positive long term.
just you-tube tour de france guys and team victor conte and such, they'll tell you exactly how to do it.
i might as well throw in ben johnson, his drug positive was a setup. but his protocols were good. francis/ben had enemies at the top that allowed the bullshit to happen and stick. it was an all round foul occasion.
which illustrates that a big factor is corruption. as testing organizations / federations get fatter with cash, bigger egos / livelyhoods$ at stake, there is a vested interest not not killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
everyone inside the sport knows this. the question is - is it worth advancing the good info to the ignorant public?
probably only a few can decypher quality fact from bullshit.
hopefully those guys start running things and more often.
Honestly, if you could bet your money on the question and afterwards God would give you the answer. Would you bet on El G being clean?
Even if the odds were 100:1 against him being clean i would not bet a single dollar on that one.
for rekrunner wrote:
Honestly, if you could bet your money on the question and afterwards God would give you the answer. Would you bet on El G being clean?
Even if the odds were 100:1 against him being clean i would not bet a single dollar on that one.
Or to put it another way -
If God is holding a gun to your head and asks "Did El G use PEDs"
If you guess correctly you live
I you guess incorrectly you get your brains blown out
How would you guess?
The safe bet is pretty obvious.
So your evidence is
1, He was fast
2, He was often fast
3' He was fast even when he was fasting
4, He was faster than all the rest
5, He couldn't possibly be that fast naturally
6, He was Morrocan
Is that all you got? Have I missed anything?
jono wrote:
So your evidence is
1, He was fast
2, He was often fast
3' He was fast even when he was fasting
4, He was faster than all the rest
5, He couldn't possibly be that fast naturally
6, He was Morrocan
Is that all you got? Have I missed anything?
He could rest faster than the rest.
he ran faster clean than everyone could run doped
he consistently beat a bunch of dopers clean
the bottom line is:
if you want to run under 348 in the mile you're going to need to be
1 - freak talent
2 - blood boosting
3- grand aerobic base plus grand specific training
you need at least one of the following
altitude
oxygen tents
blood doping
pharmaceuticals epo and such - perscribed / illegal
nutraceuticals
greats from the past on the right blood boost program run a second or so faster per lap. add in perfect pacing and better specific training and sure, they are at the same levels as el-g and the komen's.
the great flaw is that back in the day, there would be crazy amounts long slow distance or tons of shorter intervals,
duh, el-g wannabe 1500m guy needs to run track work mostly around 54-56 seconds pace from 400m to 1km in training. of course you want some pure sprinting and quality base work too.
maybe that is where salazar can fine tune his program more for a centro? he seems to be getting guys to do the fast short work and the super quality aerobic work at 4 min a mile pace but i'm asking, is he missiing the stuff in the middle??
not sure.
If you can produce God (why not Mohammed?), at 100:1 odds, I would bet $10000 of my money.But it doesn't change the fact that premature conclusions are faith-based, prejudicial, and circumstantial.
for rekrunner wrote:
Honestly, if you could bet your money on the question and afterwards God would give you the answer. Would you bet on El G being clean?
Even if the odds were 100:1 against him being clean i would not bet a single dollar on that one.
Which did you coach, longjack?
toro wrote:
I want to know how Ramzi got caught at the Olympics.
Did he push his cycle too close? Did he get a bad batch of something?
He was using CERA when the test was pretty new and got caught when the IOC retested samples.
I think the time is perfect to bump this thread!
El Guerouj was obviouskly doped to the gills!
He didn't get caught for the same reason Bolt won't get caught, except for a Balco type of scandal!