Sebastian Coe vs Said Aouita - 1500/mile race - Who would win?

Apart from the doping ring busts, including 'operation puerto', the fact that Spain and Morocco have very similar 'rise and falls' in terms of their middle-distance performances over the last decades is deeply suspicious. They are two geographically proximate countries, which you would assume is the cause for their parallel 'improvements' in the 90's. Now it could be explained by sharing of coaching knowledge etc, but that seems hard to believe given the language barrier (Moroccans tend to speak French as a second language, not Spanish). So the more likely explanation is simply that Spain benefited from being part of the 'dirty triangle' in the flow of EPO and other pharmaceuticals. The reason why North Africa produced faster times is likely down to the Spanish not being so heavily into cheating, and also because they didn't benefit from the GDR style athletics regime that was in place in Morocco in the 90s.

Bang on for 2nd point but remember doping constitutes half the Spanish GDP. There was a tennis tournament the other day and it was sponsored by Sabadell Bank. I'm presuming it is a blood bank.

we should add... wrote:

a list of thletes with 800m lifetime personal best from Rieti:

Wilfred Bungei (1:42.34), Alfred Kirwa Yego (1:42.67), Mbulaeni Mulaudzi (1:42.86), William Yiampoy (1:42.91), Boaz Lalang (1:42.95), José Luis Barbosa (1:43.08), Mehdi Baala (1:43.15), Benson Koech (1:43.15), William Tanui (1:43.30), Adam Kszczot (1:43.30), Nixon Kiprotich (1:43.31), Philip Kibitok (1:43.55), William Wuyke (1:43.54), Robert Kibet (1:43.66), Khadevis Robinson (1:43.68), Atle Douglas (1:43.69), Andrea Longo (1:43.74), Edwin Kiplagat Melly (1:43.81)

There are many more.

What does that prove? One could do a similar exercise for many other tracks to show something similar.

Look at athletes with 800m lifetime personal bests in Brussels:

Mohammed Aman (1:42.37), Yuri Borzakovskiy (1:42.47), Hezekiel Sepeng (1:42.69), Japheth Kimutai (1:42.69), Djabir Said-Guerni (1:43.09), William Chirchir (1:43.33), Arthemon Hatungimana (1:43.38), Joseph Mutua Mwengi (1:43.52), David Krummenacher (1:43.92), Marco Koers (1:44.01), Nils Schumann (1:44.16), David Kiptoo Singoei (1:44.20).

Or Zurich: -

Andre Bucher (1:42.55), Patrick Ndururi (1:42.62), Jean-Patrick Nduwimana (1:42.81), Steve Cram (1:42.88), Paul Ereng (1:43.16), Pawel Czapiewski (1:43.22), Sammy Kibet Langat (1:43.26), Joseph Mutua Mwengi (1:43.33), Rich Kenah (1:43.38), Bram Som (1:43.45), Joseph Tengelei (1:43.57), Abdi Bile (1:43.60), Earl Jones (1:43.62).

Take the mean average of the top 10 times from the above list of athletes and you get: -

Rieti - 1:42.97;

Zurich - 1:43.06;

Brussels - 1:43.15.

Less than 0.2sec difference, which is nothing out of the ordinary for 3 popular venues that have historically been held within about a 2 week window at the end of August/beginning of September, when athletes have just finished competing in the major champs in August. The stats do not show that Rieti has an abnormally fast track compared to other top tracks that are competed on around the same time of year.

They do.

Zürich and Brussels for decades were the biggest meetings, Rieti at best was a 2nd class meeting. Especially in Zürich the 800m always was one of the big highlights, Rieti not even has had an 800m in every year. Zürich and Brussels always have had the better date in the calendar, usually directly after the big champs. Rieti always came after them.

Rieti should not be compared to Zürich and Brussels but with other small meetings like Formia, which has a best 800m of 1:45.07 (which also is not fair, yes, since some great athletes like Coe, Morceli or Rudisha (2 of his 4 fastest times are from Rieti) went to Rieti because they knew they can achieve a super fast time there and so for sure Rieti has had better fields than Formia).

But, from all athletes with sub 1:44 lifetime personal bests, 8 have set it in Brussels, 14 in Zürich. And 20 in Rieti. Giving the circumstances, almost two tenth in average is a big difference and it even gets bigger if we take more athletes into consideration. What are the respective numbers for Berlin, Oslo and Rome? 2, 3 and 4 (including from the World Championships).

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Ovett had a great, great career and would have had a better one if not for the breathing problems, and he was super-talented and competitive, but I have to say that Wheating was the bigger talent, just as fast at 800/1500. He just lacked the tactical finesse, competitiveness, and health, big problems, obviously.

Mo Farah has a faster 1500m time than Coe, Ovett, Cram and even Wheating.

He is also faster than Aouita!

So is Farah the better 1500m runner???!

No, you are looking at one event and taking a very small and specific pool of statistics. Even then, a 0.09sec margin of superiority of the mean average of the top 10 athletes who set their pb on one track (Rieti) over another (Zurich) is not in the slightest bit significant; it certainly doesn't prove that the Rieti track is somehow superior or 'dodgy' as you imply.

One significant factor that you fail to include in your analysis, is the fact that Brussels and Zurich have been the location of many Diamond League finals in recent years, and they have been as much about winning (the prize) as running a fast time. That will obviously affect the numbers of fast times over a long period. Rieti was always a more relaxed setting geared up for fast times in the middle distances.

I also take issue with the timing of the meets. For some, Zurich usually came about a week after a major champs, which for those running in 2 events, was probably too soon to reach peak physical and psychological levels. Brussels usually followed about a week later, and then Rieti a few days after that. For many looking for a short recovery and a recharging of batteries after a championship campaign, the Brussels and/or Rieti meets were more favourable.

As I stated above, you have taken just 1 narrow set of criteria to try and make a point. Let's now look at another event, the 1500m, which actually is more relevant to this thread and the unsubstantiated claims you made against the reliability of Coe's and Ovett's times on the Rieti track.

I looked at the fastest 10 individual performers on each of the following 4 tracks: - Rieti, Brussels, Zurich and Monaco.

Rieti - El G (3:26.96), Morceli (3:28.86), Lagat (3:29.3), Coe (3:29.77), Kiplagat (3:30.13), Ngeny (3:30.42), Kiprop (3:30.46), Bile (3:30.55), Kipkurui (3:30.73) & Ovett (3:30.77).

The mean average of these 10 times = 3:29.80

Brussels - El G (3:26.12), Lagat (3:26.34), Baala (3:28.98), Niyongabo (3:29.18), Ngeny (3:29.19), W. Chirchir (3:29.29), Cram (3:30.15), T. Kiptanui (3:30.24), Heshko (3:30.33), A. Kipchirchir (3:30.46).

The mean average of these 10 times = 3:29.03

Zurich - El G (3:26.45), Lagat (3:27.40), Ngeny (3:28.12), Cacho (3:28.95), Niyongabo (3:29.43), Rotich (3:29.91), Morceli (3:30.06), Kibowen (3:30.18), T. Cheruiyot (3:30.27), D. Komen (3:30.49).

The mean average of these 10 times = 3:29.13

Monaco - Kiprop (3:26.69), El G (3:27.34), Morceli (3:27.52), Kiplagat (3:27.64), Lagat (3:27.91), T. Cheruiyot (3:28.41), Makhloufi (3:28.75), Iguider (3:28.79), Manangoi (3:28.80), Farah (3:28.81).

The mean average of these 10 times = 3:28.07

Based on the methods of analysis you employed over 800m, then clearly Monaco is 'dodgy' and significantly faster than Brussels, Zurich and Rieti. In addition, both Zurich and Brussels are c. 0.70 faster than Rieti!

If the 800 athletes all flocked to run at Rieti because it was somehow a dodgy track, then why didn't the 1500m runners who raced there experience this advantage over Zurich and Brussels that you claim?

I did the same analysis for the 4 tracks above over 1500m, but this time just taking the 10 best performances. So, for example, 6 of the fastest 10 times run at Zurich were by El G. I haven't the time to type the individual breakdown of athletes and times (but I have it, so can type it up another time if I can be bothered), but I will give the average time for each track:-

Rieti - 3:29.37;

Brussels - 3:28.51;

Zurich - 3:27.87;

Monaco - 3:27.84.

Again, this shows that Rieti is on average c. 0.8 secs slower than Brussels for 1500m, and c. 1.5 secs slower than Zurich and Monaco. Though the difference between Zurich and Monaco is negligible, it is worth noting that whereas Zurich (along with Brussels and Rieti) comes towards the end of season, just after the major champs, when one would expect athletes to be near to peak condition, at least in a Championship year, Monaco stands alone in being in the middle of the season (usually early July) and invariably about 3 weeks before a major champs; when athletes should yet to reach their season peaks.

There is nothing sceptical or anomalous about Rieti compared to Zurich or Brussels; indeed it seems somewhat slower for 1500m races. The biggest anomaly is Monaco.

This also confirms El Guerrouj is fast on any track lol.

A small and specific pool of statistics? The times in Rieti in the mens 800m are superior to the times achieved in any other meeting - including the two biggest meetings (for decades) Zürich and Brussels. At a small, at best 2nd rate meeting in front of a few hundred spectators. A fact you completely ignore. We are comparing David to Goliath here - and David wins. The 2nd fact you ignore (or misinterpret) is the date of the meeting: Always (one of) the last on the cirquit. If this date is that fantastic as you want to tell us, why are there no other world class competitions after that? If all the athletes are in top shape in Rieti, then they still should be in great shape a few days later.

In the 1500m the numbers for Rieti are not THAT impressive then they are for the 800m - but they are still extremely good. If we really want to conclude that the times from Zürich and Brussels are superior to Rieti, we have to look more carefully on the fields assembled. In Brussels and Zürich ("one day Olympics") usually all the best are running, whereas in a small meeting like Rieti usually only a few of the top stars are competing.

You also totally ignore the fact that Rieti has seen world records in the 100m, 800m, 1000m, 1500m, 1 Mile, 3000m and the womens 1 Mile. The records in the 1000m and 3000m are still standing. The 3000m time is one of the best in the book.

Your top 10 performance average is not very helpful, as you have stated yourself, when you add that 6 of the Zürich times are from El G who defied every logic and has run super fast times galore.

For me it seems obvious that Rieti always has had extremely favourable conditions (what ever they are) to achieve super fast times. In same shape, the athlete in question would probably have run considerably slower on any other track excluding Monaco in the last decade.

What does that prove? Not much. wrote:

... We are comparing David to Goliath here - and David wins. ....

Well, not to wade into this morass ... but have you ever actually read Samuel? David DOES win. That's exactly how the parable goes. Lol

LOL. No, you are now changing the goalposts that you put in place!

You focused on 1 event and then just on athletes who posted their pbs on a specific track. I looked at 2 different sets of data, one looking at the top 10 fastest performers and then the top 10 fastest performances on each of 4 specific tracks. Both showed that Rieti was the slowest of the 4.

If you look at the history of Zurich and Brussels, you will find that even more world records in more events were set there than in Rieti, making your point redundant.

I agree that Rieti has produced some amazing performances and fast times, but this is down to its location and the time of season in which it is held, rather than due to something illegal or dodgy about the track, which you seem to imply.

Deanouk wrote:

LOL. No, you are now changing the goalposts that you put in place!

You focused on 1 event and then just on athletes who posted their pbs on a specific track. I looked at 2 different sets of data, one looking at the top 10 fastest performers and then the top 10 fastest performances on each of 4 specific tracks. Both showed that Rieti was the slowest of the 4.

If you look at the history of Zurich and Brussels, you will find that even more world records in more ev ents were set there than in Rieti, making your point redundant.

I agree that Rieti has produced some amazing performances and fast times, but this is down to its location and the time of season in which it is held, rather than due to something illegal or dodgy about the track, which you seem to imply.

Nothing was changed. Rieti is a small meeting at the very end of the season, which not even has had a 1500m in every year. And even in the 1500m it's almost even with the biggest meetings on the cirquit with much deeper fields.

Brussels has seen more world records in more events than Rieti? Just wrong. But I'm waiting for your list of all world records from Formia.

Nobody has said something about illegal or dodgy. But the times from Rieti are much better than could be expected from looking at the current form of the athletes.

Morceli: 3:47.78 + 3:46:78 + 3:47.30 then - bang - 3:44.39 in Rieti. Or 3:30.75 in Zürich 1992 and two weeks later 3:28.86 in Rieti. And there are many more examples like that. But the points were made, the times from Rieti are special and should be taken with the same dose of scepticism like Monaco. You will not accept it because Coe and Ovett have set their 1500m personal bests there.

Mo Farah pb Rieti : 3:38

Mo Farah pb Monaco : 3:28

Coevett wrote:

Mo Farah pb Rieti : 3:38

Mo Farah pb Monaco : 3:28

David Rudisha Monaco: 1:42.98 + 1:42.61

David Rudisha Zürich: 1:42.81 + 1:43.52

David Rudisha Brussels: 1:43.96

David Rudisha Rieti: 1:41.01 + 1:41.33 + 1:42.01

that's nice, but... wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Mo Farah pb Rieti : 3:38

Mo Farah pb Monaco : 3:28

David Rudisha Monaco: 1:42.98 + 1:42.61

David Rudisha Zürich: 1:42.81 + 1:43.52

David Rudisha Brussels: 1:43.96

David Rudisha Rieti: 1:41.01 + 1:41.33 + 1:42.01

Out of your league, Mr. Coevett.

points are made wrote:

Morceli: 3:47.78 + 3:46:78 + 3:47.30 then - bang - 3:44.39 in Rieti. Or 3:30.75 in Zürich 1992 and two weeks later 3:28.86 in Rieti. And there are many more examples like that. But the points were made, the times from Rieti are special and should be taken with the same dose of scepticism like Monaco. You will not accept it because Coe and Ovett have set their 1500m personal bests there.

The fact that you can't even respond keeping the same name says a lot about how confident you are about your argument.

Claiming that because one athlete, Morceli, ran 3 fast miles in a season and then a few weeks (it was actually a month, so plenty of time to get more specific training in and attempt another WR on fresh racing legs) later ran 2 secs faster in Rieti is proof of it being sceptical is a rather weak argument. For a start, you need to look at what sort of pace and splits Morceli was given in each of those races in order to give any sort of useful comparison. He also ran a 3:29.2 1500m in Narbonne in the early part of the season, and that is worth 3:45.9, so that must mean it is a faster track than all those where he ran 3:46 or 3:47 miles!? LOL.

I could take another athlete, Jim Spivey, who ran 3:34.67 in Zurich on August 4th, but was slower on the suspicious track of Rieti, when he only managed 3:34.91 on Sept 5th! How does that fit into your simplified and sweeping generalisation of such data? Do you think there have been no other cases of an athlete running 2 secs faster in a mile race 4 weeks after another?

Or, lets take Maree. He ran 3:32.56 in Cologne on Aug 17th 1986, but 3 weeks later on that naughty illegal Rieti track, with a fast pace and Coe in front to draft/pace off, he was only able to manage 3:33.34! Applying your mentality to that

situation must mean Cologne is an even more sceptical track than Rieti!

I know from detailed analysis of split times in many of Coe's and Ovett's races over their careers that the times they achieved in Rieti were well within their compass of ability. It was clear from the races in Stuttgart that Coe was in great shape; running a 1:44.5 800m with 10m extra on bends and a last 200m in 24.8 (equivalent to 24.4 considering he ran 3m wide on that bend alone), and some 25m+ extra in the 1500m, where he should have beaten Cram but for awful wide running and tactics. When Cram ran 3:30.15 a week after Stuttgart in Brussels, off almost perfect laps of 56.2, 56.2 and 56.3 (41.4 last 300m), I was confident that Coe would at least match that given similar pacing in Rieti. In fact his pacing was pretty dire compared to Cram's , 54.0, 58.0, 56.1 (41.6 last 300m) but he still managed to run faster, which fitted in exactly with the form he showed in Stuttgart.

7u67r6u wrote:

that's nice, but... wrote:

David Rudisha Monaco: 1:42.98 + 1:42.61

David Rudisha Zürich: 1:42.81 + 1:43.52

David Rudisha Brussels: 1:43.96

David Rudisha Rieti: 1:41.01 + 1:41.33 + 1:42.01

Out of your league, Mr. Coevett.

Rudisha - 1:40.91 London

- 1:41.09 Berlin ( a week before 1:41.01 in Rieti! So does that mean Rieti is only 0.08 secs more sceptical than Berlin's track?)

- 1:41.51 Heusden Zolder

- 1:41. 54 Paris

- 1:41.74 New York

Conclusion = Rudisha was a 1:41 800m guy who ran it more times than anyone else, yet wasn't able to run any faster on a 'sceptical' Rieti track despite 3 WR attempts there. That means Rieti was no faster than several other tracks that he ran on during the same era.

Deanouk wrote:

Rudisha - 1:40.91 London

- 1:41.09 Berlin ( a week before 1:41.01 in Rieti! So does that mean Rieti is only 0.08 secs more sceptical than Berlin's track?)

- 1:41.51 Heusden Zolder

- 1:41. 54 Paris

- 1:41.74 New York

Conclusion = Rudisha was a 1:41 800m guy who ran it more times than anyone else, yet wasn't able to run any faster on a 'sceptical' Rieti track despite 3 WR attempts there. That means Rieti was no faster than several other tracks that he ran on during the same era.

Completely ignoring a lot.

Rudisha has raced three times in Rieti. Every time he has run the years fastest time in the world. In these three occasions he has done the performances Nr. 2, 6 and 15 in 800m-history and his own performances Nr 2,4 and 8. At a small meeting on the last occasion of the season - this is just astonishing.

But you seem to think like: "If the track is favourable for fast times, then any athlete just should run some best times there anytime". But this is completely nonsense. Why should any athlete be in prime shape (or close to it) when racing in Rieti? If it was favourable for something like 1s in the 800m (what I'm strongly believe) then a 1:45 becomes a 1:44, a 1:44 becomes a 1:43 and so on.

20 athletes (!!) who have set a sub 1:44 lifetime personal best in Rieti is just normal for you? Compared to 8 in the much bigger and better placed Brussels meeting?

The small meeting of Rieti has seen more athletes setting a fast lifetime 800m personal best than any other (much bigger) meeting (maybe alongside Monaco, where the conditions obviously are very favourable for fast times). Look at other small meetings and you will find a great performance on some occasion - but not anywhere close to Rieti (for example a 1:41 in Heusden or a 1:42 in Tokyo).

In the 1500m the stats for Rieti are not on a par with the 800m, but still very impressive (a comparison to Zürich and Monaco just is not fair). Your stats for Morceli are wrong, as was listed here before. Your four weeks are a few days. 3:47.78, 3:46.78, 3:47.30 bangggg 3:44.39 in Rieti.

When looking unbiased on the facts one just has to be astonished about the times which were achieved in Rieti until a few years ago.

It was so disappointing to see Ovett run so poorly tactically in this race.

He should have got a medal.

Boris Johnson wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTuGCLDUgUY

It was so disappointing to see Ovett run so poorly tactically in this race.

He should have got a medal.

I think he could have won if he hadn't gotten himself boxed in. He was closing fast on Cram as well in the home straight. The camera doesn't catch it, but he actually got knocked off the track on the bend, so he had to build up his momentum again and yet still almost caught Aouita.

If Ovett had won gold in Helsinki, it would have ranked with Coe's triumph in LA in terms of a comeback, as he hadn't looked like his old dominant self since 1981. But I think it was a lack of confidence that led to the poor tactical run. He had let himself get boxed in a couple of weeks (I think) earlier at the Bislett Games.