Why is there suspicion Coe is doper?
Besides being a world beater.
Why is there suspicion Coe is doper?
Besides being a world beater.
Seizinger wrote:
Why is there suspicion Coe is doper?
Besides being a world beater.
Blood borne illness which people will suspect was from contaminated transfusions.
Vaatainen also suffered a blood infection from a "vitamin injection"
logical conclusion wrote:
Seizinger wrote:Why is there suspicion Coe is doper?
Besides being a world beater.
Blood borne illness which people will suspect was from contaminated transfusions.
Vaatainen also suffered a blood infection from a "vitamin injection"
Coe was diagnosed with mono in 82, which ruined his chances of winning in the Europeans & caused him to withdraw from Commonwealths.
In 83 he ran poorly all season and was diagnosed with toxoplasmosis, which is a very common condition in Europe and is mainly caught through poor hygiene around food preparation. Millions have it without realising and with minimal effect to everyday life. Symptoms are hard to diagnose and not serious for Joe Public. But long term the effects are more serious in a professional athlete who is putting stress on their body on a daily basis.
If he'd had a blood transfusion, then surely he would have found a cause for his poor form, rather than getting gradually worse over many weeks.
Also, Coe's best 1500 was run in 86, a year after blood doping was banned by the IAAF, after recommendations from Coe's research, in 85.
Rumours created by people with no evidence are just that. Unfounded.
Thanks for the information.
Also doping does not always lead to improve performances but rather may have an adverse effect.
Didn't some Italian athletes in the 80's try doping with significant drop in their performances?
calculo wrote:
Snip
1'42.63
It must be awful being as happy as you.
You do post a lot of gibberish.
For international comps like the Olympics or World Champs, the 'Standard Track' has to be used. World records do not have to be set on a standard configuration.
The IAAF Technical Manual states ....
"Although there are a number of different layouts for the 400m oval track, it is IAAF’s objective to create uniform criteria, not only with a view to improving the performance parameters necessary for equal opportunities for all athletes and for the suitability for competition but also to simplify the principles of construction, surveying and certification of facilities.
Experience has shown that the most suitable 400m oval tracks are constructed with bend radii of between 35m and 38m, with an optimum of 36.50m. IAAF recommends that all future tracks are constructed to the latter specification and this will be referred to as the “400m Standard Trackâ€.
Notice the use of words such as, 'Objective', 'recommends', etc.
They go on to state that the movement towards a standard track is to help the athletes run quicker. Having a longer and more gradual bend helps athletes over all distances, especially if the majority of the race is run in lane 1.
"The 400m Standard Track has the advantages of a simple construction, straight and curved sections of almost equal length and uniform bends which are most suitable to the running rhythm of athletes."
Nowhere does it say there that the longer bends only helps sprinters, and that shorter, tighter bends are illegal because they help middle distance athletes.
"The 400m Standard Track has 8, 6 or occasionally 4 lanes but the last is not used for international running competition."
Again, your comments are woefully inaccurate and misleading. There is nothing to state 6 lane tracks are 'an abomination'. As long as it is a 400m track, it can have 6 lanes and any times set on such would be validated.
The IAAF also states that "double bend tracks" with a radius of at least 24m is also legal for international competition. These tracks have straights as long as 98.5m, longer than what you 'suppose' the Oslo track was in 1979.
"2.2.1.8 Other Layouts for the 400m Oval Track (Figure 1.2.3b to d and Table 1.2.3a)
Radii other than between 35.00m and 38.00m should not be used for tracks for international competition, except for double bend tracks where the dimensions of which ensures an infield size adequate for rugby. In this case, the minimum radius must not be less than 24.00m."
The figures for these tracks in the IAAF Manual show straights as long as 98.5m.
So, you are totally wrong about 6 lanes being illegal.
You haven't provided any evidence as to the actual radius of the old Oslo track, nor the lengths of its straights.
You are also wrong about times being set on a 'non standard' track as being illegal. Tracks with straights as long as 98.5m are acceptable for international competition and record purposes as long as the track has a certificate.
You are also wrong in suggesting running shorter, tighter bends in lane 1 of an 800m race as an advantage. It is, if anything, the opposite.
Lol.
I can assure you that Richard Hymans certainly won't listen to your ramblings.
You "will insist on having an asterisk next to 1:42.33", will you! Hilarious!
You really do suffer delusions of grandeur.
For a start you provide no evidence or link as to what the exact radius or length of straights/bends were! Go fetch proof of exact measurements, otherwise they are merely your suggestions.
Then, even if Oslo did have 105m bends and 95m straights, there are legal for record purposes, as I have already proved in my previous post, where I referred to the IAAF Manual.
Please let us know when Mr Hymans takes on board your insistence he asterisks that 800 WR.
Primary Active wrote:
Lol.
I can assure you that Richard Hymans certainly won't listen to your ramblings.
You "will insist on having an asterisk next to 1:42.33", will you! Hilarious!
You really do suffer delusions of grandeur.
For a start you provide no evidence or link as to what the exact radius or length of straights/bends were! Go fetch proof of exact measurements, otherwise they are merely your suggestions.
Then, even if Oslo did have 105m bends and 95m straights, there are legal for record purposes, as I have already proved in my previous post, where I referred to the IAAF Manual.
Please let us know when Mr Hymans takes on board your insistence he asterisks that 800 WR.
Why is the opinion of Mr Hymans any more important than an expert like calculo?
Because of his position??
So is "Lord Coe" suddenly a doping expert because he felated the right Ds?
Calc, what where the track dimensions of the Kansas track that you use as the basis of your 44.25 claim? Why was the start finish line not at the end of the track? Is it IAAF legal to start a race half way down the straight? Also, I need the dimensions of Ryun's 880 yards record to please, as we need to make sure that was legal as well.
Also, I'll need to remind my athletes when we train on a track with tight bends that it's an advantage, as they always complain that it's harder to run 50 point reps when we do....stupid kids.
Are you Egyptian Calculo? Because this guff you posted shows that you're certainly 'in denial'.
You are merely cherry picking the odd quote from the IAAF and ignoring the overall context and vast majority of their rule book, which clearly states that the radius has to be bigger than 24 m and the straights can be as long as 98m.This is what the rule book states. Just as it states the track can be 6 lanes. The reason why tracks in recent years are all 8 lanes is to increase the number of competitors not because 6 lanes are illegal.
There aren't 8 lanes in indoor meets. So maybe all them are illegal too. And the bends indoors are tighter, something you've often argued slows down times when comparing to outdoor 400 performances.
You've been asked to provide proof of the dimensions and radius of the old Oslo track. We are still waiting.
Your entire raisin d'etre on these boards is to exaggerate the performances of almost every athlete with the exception of 1. According to you every elite 800 runner since Ryun was capable of at least 1:42. Yet you go out of your way to claim Coe, the first man to break 1:43 and 1:42, was never capable of running as fast as he did, twice, because of short, illegal tracks.
This thread was about running technique, yet as usual, you hijack some intelligent conversation and take it off at a tangent in order to discredit Coe.
Everyone can see what you're doing and how petty and unreliable, not to mention distorted, your pets are.
Ryun only broke 1:45 once, ran 1:44.3 on a synthetic track once. Coe ran under 1:45 dozens of times. Including on a dirt track. He could run sub 1:45 in his sleep. Deal with it.
Btw, if the Oslo track slowed times down for 200 and 400 and miraculously speeded up times over 800 to the tune of 0.5, then surely your argument goes that the benefit over a mile would be at least 1.0sec. You seem to be arguing that the longer the distance the more of a benefit the short end track was.
Based on that, then Cram's 3:46.32 would be more than 1 sec slower, and thus outside Coe's then existing mile record.
Are you going to ask Mr Hymans to put an asterisk next to that time too?
Edit.
For 'pets' read posts.
For 'end' read bend.
Looks like ventolin had a nice Christmas alone, drinkin' and trollin'
Seizinger wrote:
Thanks for the information.
Also doping does not always lead to improve performances but rather may have an adverse effect.
Didn't some Italian athletes in the 80's try doping with significant drop in their performances?
Talking about Italians, Alberto Cova did look remarkably smooth and fast in his last 200m sprint to the finish after 9.8 km.
Should I be suspicious of the Rio track after that womens 10,000m?
Haha.
This thread is going a bit off track.
Why was Coe called "The Coathanger" in his younger days?
Are there any pics?
Are you a joke?
Why are you repeating the same comments that you have done on several occasions, and which have been deleted several times?
Perhaps the Moderators need to take a look at your post?
Yet again, you fail to answer or address the comments and questions raised by other posters.
It doesn't matter what you think, all that matters are that 6 lane tracks are legal, as are tracks with a different configuration other than the standard one.
Other posters have used factual evidence from the IAAF to back up and prove their points.
You have failed to give any evidence that proves only 8 lanes and a standard configuration are legal for record purposes.
You have also failed to show that tighter bends are an advantage for 800m runners.
No, you're inference is incorrect.
The Wiki account says the stadium was unfit for holding international events due to the stadium being run down and not meeting health and safety regulations. Nothing to do with the configuration of the track.
You say you have seen it stated that the Oslo track had 105m bends, but yet you still fail to produce a link which confirms this.
Neither doe the Wiki account state that it is illegal to have 6 lanes. It is only necessary for 8 lanes if they want to hold international events there. It does not state that a track needs to have 8 lanes for record purposes.
Having bends with a radius of 37.5m now tells us nothing about what the radius used to be. And as you have already been told, the radius can be as low as 24m and the times are still legal.
When and where did Richard Hymans state that Snell would have run 1:41 on an Italian track? Lol.
"on clockings, cram's 3'46.3 shouda been 3'47-mid on a zurich, albeit hugely better intrinsic run with intrinsic last 400 of ~ 52-mid/high & with tight curves, at worst 52-mid"
Idiot! You've just contradicted yourself!
You've just said that he ran 52 high on tight curves, making it worth at least 52 mid on a track like Zurich!
So the tight Oslo track's bends hinders athletes over 200, 400 and on the last lap in a mile, but actually speeds up athletes running 800m!?
You post constant nonsense.
Provide a link from the IAAF that states times set on a 6 lane track or on a non standard configuration one, are illegal and won't stand?
If they were illegal, then they would have to remove all performances on the all time lists for all events set on Oslo up to 2005! I have never read anywhere even the remotest suggestion that this has even been considered. You are alone in thinking such unfounded nonsense.
Provide another reliable source who questions times set on the Oslo track or that suggest the Oslo track speeds up times over 800m by 0.5?
If you can't do this, then your ridiculous suggestions are worth nothing.
On a track with wider, more gradual bends, Coe's 1:42.33 would have been at least as fast and if anything slightly faster.
No, you need to read/analyse better.
You have stated that Cram's 52.9 last 400m on tight Oslo track would have been 52 mid in Zurich. Thus Coe's 800m time on tight bends of Oslo, would also have been faster in Zurich.
You have said the tight turns in Oslo help races of 800 or over, meaning that Cram's mile was helped by tight turns and that his final time would have been slower than 3:47.3, and his last 400m would have been slower than 52.9 if run on wider curves of Zurich.
That is the opposite of what you have put for Cram. Therefore you have contradicted yourself about the effects of the tight ends of Oslo, making your so called 'argument' a pretty lame one.
2 Laps wrote:
No, you need to read/analyse better.
You have stated that Cram's 52.9 last 400m on tight Oslo track would have been 52 mid in Zurich. Thus Coe's 800m time on tight bends of Oslo, would also have been faster in Zurich.
You have said the tight turns in Oslo help races of 800 or over, meaning that Cram's mile was helped by tight turns and that his final time would have been slower than 3:47.3, and his last 400m would have been slower than 52.9 if run on wider curves of Zurich.
That is the opposite of what you have put for Cram. Therefore you have contradicted yourself about the effects of the tight ends of Oslo, making your so called 'argument' a pretty lame one.
You're absolutely correct. If he can't see the blatant contradiction in that statement then it just reinforces the fact he is on a different planet.
It's common sense that running a tighter bend, particularly in lane 1, which it would be in an 800, will more than compensate for a slightly longer straight.
"The final time in the equal quadrant track (100m straights, 100m bends) is 0.06 seconds slower than the IAAF standard track (84m straights, 116m bends) simulation, due to the smaller radii on the bends. This causes the runners to spend more time on the ground than in the air, which increases their time. An equal quadrant track has longer straights than the IAAF standard track, which gives the runners on an equal quadrant track an
advantage to be able to run faster on the straights. However, THIS DOES NOT OUTWEIGH the disadvantage that they have on the bends."
"the non-equal quadrant
track, has two equal curves and two
equal straightaways that may be either
shorter or longer than the curves. The
International Amateur Athletic Federation
(IAAF) specifies a type of this track (often
referred to as the “international standard
trackâ€) that has straightaways of 84.39
meters and measure line radii of 36.80
meters. This type of track is found in many
competition facilities and, if the site permits,
will be the track of choice in many
cases, particularly for multi-use facilities.....As to track, its
wider radius favors runners, enhancing
their performance."
"Even though the non-equal quadrant
track (IAAF Standard) is currently receiving a great deal of
attention, it is not the only choice in track
design.
With the initial growth of soccer, the
double bend track, formerly known as
the “broken-back track,†became popular.
It has a compound radius curve at each
end (usually two small curves and a large
curve formed by three different radii and
together forming one complex curve with
a major bend not to exceed 60 degrees).
This layout accommodates a soccer field
and allows construction of a track on a
site with length or width constraints, making
it a useful choice in some cases. With
six radius points, however, it is more difficult
to lay out and stripe, and its tight
turns are a challenge for runners.
The equal quadrant track consists of
two straightaways of 100 meters each and two curves of 100 meters each. Previously,
this design was popular, so popular
that many considered it the only way to
build a track. It has fallen out of favor,
however, according to track professionals.
“The equal quadrant track is inferior for
several reasons,†says Brett T. Long of
Brett T. Long Landscape Architecture in
South Lake Tahoe, CA. “It doesn’t accommodate
a full soccer field and the long
straights and tight radius turns are not
optimal for track competition.â€
N.B - NOTHING STATING IT IS NOT OPTIMAL JUST UP TO 400M! IT SAYS, "NOT OPTIMAL FOR TRACK COMPETITION"
"The equal quadrant track also presents
safety concerns, claims Peter J. “Duffyâ€
Mahoney of USA Track & Field in Indianapolis,
IN, since “the narrow radius of
each turn MAKES THE TURNS?TRACK SLOWER
due to centrifugal forces acting on the
runner moving around the turn, as well
as contributing to possible injuries to the
legs of the runners due to forces acting
on them as the runner moves around
the turn.â€
"According to Patrick
Maguire of the Boston,
Massachusetts–based
firm Stantec, with the
use of a track with a
wider radius, “the entire
track facility is improved.
Not only does
it allow for a wider internal
field with more
breathing room on the
sidelines—very important
for soccer and
women's lacrosse—it
also makes for a faster
track as runners are
able to maintain
greater speed around
the wider turns.â€
The non-equal quadrant, therefore, is
preferred. "
'Although the international
track may be preferred, there
are limitless other configurations
that would provide a
functional, LEGAL facility.'
“There is no incorrect track configuration
as long as it meets the requirements
of the association whose rules will govern
its use,†says Ron Nemeth, a retired
track builder and former athletic director.
“Is the equal quadrant track wrong?
No—it is simply outdated. Is the IAAF
track more correct? No—it is simply
more important to the development of
not only facilities to meet the needs of
owners of multipurpose sports venues,
but also the development of its athletes
in meeting their full potential. "
Mary Helen Sprecher, Track Facilities 2008/AMERICAN TRACK & FIELD.
Track Facilities Resource Guide 2008.
So a few points.
1. The IAAF "International Standard" configuration (or non-equal quadrant track) is not the only permitted track used for international competition. It is incorrect to state that it is the only track on which times are legal.
2. It is the preferred configuration for logistical & safety reasons, and that it enables greater use of the infield.
3. It is also the preferred configuration as it allows "enhances" athletes' "performance" to achieve their full potential.
4. The tighter bends of the 'equal quadrant' track slows athletes down and this is not compensated for by longer straights.
The extracts from the article and analysis above shows that the preference for the IAAF Standard configuration is to help the athletes run faster. It's adoption had nothing to do with the 'equal quadrant' tracks being faster or in someway illegal. In fact it is quite the opposite.