Kiptum running up to 300km a week

Yes but doping aside some individuals naturally have the capacity to endure a much greater work load than other natural athletes also. His coach has already mentioned that he fears if he keeps up his current regime he might well only last 5 years or less. But at the moment his body is handling the insane miles well.

You seem good at reading between the lines and drawing conclusions that paint the relatively unknown Kiptum and his meteoric rise in a favorable light. Kindly note that this is not an issue of reading conprehension, but trying to figure out what have to be considered unbelievable, or at last nearly unbelievable, performances based on very limited details.

Did I find Addy Wiley's decision to decommit from one of the best NCAA running programs in the U.S. at Boulder to stay at NIAA Huntington suspicious? Absolutely.

Kiptum's decision to continue training under Hakizimana may not be at the Wiley level of surprising, but it still seems strange. I've seen reports mention that he tried to join Kipchoges camp but was denied, but many early reports said Kiptum was self-coached and trained by himself. Your interpretation and new reports seem to indicate that Kiptum is actually part of a group and training camp run by Hakizimana.

But, returning to this specific thread, why would Halizimana allow Kiptum to run 300km weeks, especially when the coach though it would result in injury and a short career. Your interpretation is that is common for an athlete not to listen to their coach, but that isn't much of a coaching relationship, so perhaps Hakizimana is more of just an advisor than what would be usually thought of as a coach.

Similarly, regarding no rest days, that seems just bonkers. Kipchoge and many others most certainly leave the training camp for a rest day to be with their family. I hadn't seen until today that Kiptum has a wife and two little kids.

Again, my main point of concern is that there is still relatively little information available about Kiptum and many of the reports seems to have inaccurate or misleading (self-coached, training on his own, etc.) information.

In fact, I would know. It’s the same with any industry or group of people: you spend enough time with anyone and you get a sense if they’re an amoral, stone faced liar or not.

It’s not impossible that every one of the many, many athletes I’ve gotten to know well is just that. But then it’s also not impossible that your work mate is stealing from you or getting his end away with your lady when you’re not watching. But how likely is that? How probable is it that every person you know well, and have known for years, lies to your face and to everyone else every bloody day? You’re painting a picture of a world where, at some point in a young athlete’s career, they get told “the secret” — that everyone’s a fraud — and that you must join in and become a liar as well if you’re going to continue on in this game. And somehow, every single athlete agrees to it and not a single athlete declines and speaks out about this deception. It’s just completely out of reality.

You seem to be making two assumptions that are sending you far astray on this: the ease of evading doping controls and the propensity of a person to be dishonest.

Firstly, for athletes at the top, the testing and recorded profiles are such that, in the long run, irregularities are likely to be detected. That doesn’t make it impossible, as there are a number athletes whom I am convinced are frauds but remain successful and uncaught. But it isn’t simple.

Secondly, most athletes don’t want to be frauds. Put aside the sense of shame if caught for a moment, would you want to lie, over and over again, to your peers, friends, family and the public about yourself? To be sure, this isn’t everyone. A common saying many of the frauds subscribe to is, “if you don’t test positive, you did not cheat.” Which is absurd but I know athletes that have said that. And you won’t be surprised: they were convicted of doping. But that’s a minority, certainly in the Western world.

Who cares, Bill Rogers ran up to 200 miles a week at his prime that's 321 Kilometers.
Paul Gompers ran 160 to 175 miles a week in training for the 88 Olympic trials. It's not the training Kiptum does, it's the pharmaceuticals he takes!

He also goes to Sierra Nevada in Spain, much higher than St. Moritz and Flagstaff

It's not just about the foam, it's about the combination of the carbon plate, the foam, geometry/shape of the midsole. And yes, its pretty magical when you see your times decrease by 4% when using the Alphafly or Vaporfly.

That you think that only shows how dense you are. The discussion about Kiptum's mileage here is a red herring. It's all about doping. Bedford doing the same mileage with nothing like the same results shows that. But you are too dim to get it.

They don't. That's a mere marketing claim. And the "geometry" of a piece of foot covering means virtually nothing.

I've never seen so much nonsense written about footwear ("magical"! Sheesh!) to avoid the truth that it is powerful chemicals in the athlete's bodies that are producing faster times, not a a few inches worn on the bottom of the foot.

Two facts show that you don't know what the athletes around you are doing. Firstly, only 1% of tests are positive; secondly, confidential athlete surveys show that at least 1 in 3 championship athletes and may even more than 1 in 2 admit to doping. But they aren't going to tell you. Informed estimates put actual doping as far higher than the numbers caught.

Incredibly ambitious people will do whatever they can to succeed. For many athletes, and especially professionals, their sport is their life. The understanding they will have that other athletes are doping changes the ethics of it for the professional athlete. It is no longer "cheating" but doing what you have to.

Lastly, from a long-time observer of sports the degrees of improvement I have seen over the years cannot be explained by talent and training alone. Former champions lacked neither. Now journeymen far exceed past accomplishments. That's doping. No racehorse today has gotten near Secretariat's 1973 achievements. In human terms, 1973 has been utterly relegated to the past - in every sense. Horses haven't evolved in half a century and neither have we.

The illusion that it is the training - or the shoes - are what fans today cling to.

@armstronglivs

Is Kipchoge doping too ?

They are an "insane" amount of miles - even for a talented athlete. That itself is a red flag. However, the argument isn't that some athletes have more talent and can work harder than others - that is always the case - it is whether what we are seeing - taking everything we can into account - is credible. For many, Kiptum's accomplishments aren't.

On a thread about Kiptum, why do you ask?

When was the last time you trained or raced? Decades ago. You have never trained or raced in supershoes.

You don't believe in science, in athletes' testimonies, in statistics.

Canova was right when he called you a donkey.

Thats not how WR progression works, otherwise we would have been at limit of performance a hundred years ago

Using the same argument, what experience do you have of training or racing decades ago, so that you can make a valid comparison with today?

A hundred years ago virtually no one trained. But in Bedford's era he trained as hard as athletes do today. So why were he and his contemporaries nowhere near the times today? Oh - the "shoes". Sure.

World record "progressions" have been built on improvements in doping for decades. Only the naive cannot see that.

Four decades of training. Over three decades of coaching.

Trained often with two Olympic medallists, one of them a world record holder, and with one world and several European champions.

Coached a continental medallist.

I have plenty of experience.

Athletes in Bedford's era didn't train as hard as athletes of today, they trained harder. Harder doesn't equal better.