Why is it shameful? You say there is zero evidence but there is plenty of evidence. The evidence may not persuade you but it is there nonetheless. Are you expecting a confession? Are you expecting Ruth to grow a beard? What evidence are you thinking might materialize?
Amby Burfoot wrote "I have no evidence that Chepngetich cheated".
So what was the rest of the article saying? The part you apparently didn't read.
Why is it shameful? You say there is zero evidence but there is plenty of evidence. The evidence may not persuade you but it is there nonetheless. Are you expecting a confession? Are you expecting Ruth to grow a beard? What evidence are you thinking might materialize?
Amby Burfoot wrote "I have no evidence that Chepngetich cheated".
Yes, he said that. But he also said he was "outraged" by the performance. "Outraged" - there could hardly be a stronger term. Why is he "outraged" - if he thinks it was clean? (Clue: he doesn't). He goes on to say, "I don’t think I’m wrong. And I don’t think this is a time to be quiet". Wrong about what? That he actually thinks she is doping? And why doesn't he think it is "a time to be quiet"? Is it because he thinks there is something very wrong with her performance? Surely he couldn't be saying he is outraged because he thinks Chepngetich was doping to a wr? If he isn't saying that then is he defending Chepngetich? Nope. Perhaps he's just blowing gas. Like you do.
If the 2:09:56 is legit we should see a relatively harsh drop in the 3k - HM times soon because even as pure strength based runner she at least has to be able to run sub 14 and I believe there are faster 5k runners.
Nope, that's not what super-shoes do.
Their function isn't to give you free speed, it's to give you free economy.
Now that said, some who have the strength can now use that extra spare economy to go faster but they by default do not make you faster, it's what you do with the easier effort that is the result.
So 4:57 is her upper limit right next to her lactate threshold, she cannot go faster without a blowup at extended distance.
She can now however with the alphaflys (and a serious draft) give her lactate threshold a bear hug and hold onto that desperately for 130 minutes when she could only have done it for say 100 minutes before.
That's how super-shoes work and what they do, they make efforts easier than before and what you can do with that "easier" is up to each runner and their form.
and there's never been anything like the v3 alphafly, they should not be race legal, for a runner who is trained to get the most economy out of them, they appear like doping
Might be. I was semi elite before super shoe era and just kind of in awe, but you're right: I might not be understanding the true benefits.
Paula was an endurance beast, running 2:15:25 from a 14:29 5k (equivalent would be that 2:15 with a first half of 1:06:high split).
With the same ratio RC would need ~13:54 and 28:48 (what definitely is possible, as she went out 30:14).
The other way round: with 14:00 speed = 2:09:56 means that a good marathon runner with 12:40 5k speed could run 1:57:35. It is just hard to not be wondering. I admit I always thought with super shoes roughly 12:30ish/26:00ish/56:30-45/1:59:xx was pushing it in this era, but it might still not the the limit right now.
I would love to see her training in those last couple of months. She for sure was hitting a homerun.
Amby Burfoot wrote "I have no evidence that Chepngetich cheated".
Yes, he said that. But he also said he was "outraged" by the performance. "Outraged" - there could hardly be a stronger term. Why is he "outraged" - if he thinks it was clean? (Clue: he doesn't). He goes on to say, "I don’t think I’m wrong. And I don’t think this is a time to be quiet". Wrong about what? That he actually thinks she is doping? And why doesn't he think it is "a time to be quiet"? Is it because he thinks there is something very wrong with her performance? Surely he couldn't be saying he is outraged because he thinks Chepngetich was doping to a wr? If he isn't saying that then is he defending Chepngetich? Nope. Perhaps he's just blowing gas. Like you do.
The question was about his evidence.
Outrage is an emotion that you feel.
All these things he thinks or doesn't think are just thoughts.
In his own words, he is saying what he thinks and feels, based on no evidence.
I liked the article and thought he had one interesting intellectual point near the end.
For those of you who say, "It's obvious she must be doping." Ok, I get it but are you saying she just started doping for this race? SO she was clean before this race and then just did it for this race? What explains the huge jump for this race?
Yes that could be true but why would she risk it if she was already making hundreds of thousands a year and was already one of the very best runners on planet earth without doping.
Why does any doper risk it? Well they never have to pay any money back to begin with.
There is little point trying to work out if she was always doping or just started.
But lets consider the other alternative. If she was clean that would mean doped she could run what 2:05/6 or faster. Surely EPO etc is worth more than the shoes
This just shows how unlikely it is that this run was clean
Well not just how and why did she suddenly start doping for just this race but also what the heck protocol does that?
There's nothing out there that dramatic that is commonly used and no-one is suggesting anything new?
I'm completely open-minded about this though I firmly believe the science says it's the shoe upgrade and drafting better.
The thing is no-one can keep a secret that good.
Y'all are saying the top five women above Radcliffe (and Radcliffe) were doping but they are from different countries with different coaches and teams. No-one keeps a secret like that, someone would blab.
And then why aren't there more than top 5 women?
Why aren't there 15 or 50 doing this.
So just those five women from different countries have independently come up with a perfect doping protocol that can't be detected by WADA
With Radcliffe the claim is blood doping, saving from altitude and coming back, etc.
But they can easily detect that now, so it's not that.
Do y'all also think Kipchoge going from 2:04 to 2:01 was doping? I don't.
5 years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion because 5 years ago no one would be running 2:09. This is essentially a 2:15. Cheat shoes have ruined the sport. If you don’t like 2:09, you have a problem with the shoes, not the athlete. Ban the shoes and all of this nonsense will stop overnight.
Well not just how and why did she suddenly start doping for just this race but also what the heck protocol does that?
There's nothing out there that dramatic that is commonly used and no-one is suggesting anything new?
I'm completely open-minded about this though I firmly believe the science says it's the shoe upgrade and drafting better.
The thing is no-one can keep a secret that good.
Y'all are saying the top five women above Radcliffe (and Radcliffe) were doping but they are from different countries with different coaches and teams. No-one keeps a secret like that, someone would blab.
And then why aren't there more than top 5 women?
Why aren't there 15 or 50 doing this.
So just those five women from different countries have independently come up with a perfect doping protocol that can't be detected by WADA
With Radcliffe the claim is blood doping, saving from altitude and coming back, etc.
But they can easily detect that now, so it's not that.
Do y'all also think Kipchoge going from 2:04 to 2:01 was doping? I don't.
Good questions. I notice a high degree of skepticism when it comes to non-doping factors, like shoes, training, drafting, pacing, wavelights, etc., which all but disappears when the potential factor is doping.
Paula's 2:15s and 2:17s remained untouchable for 16 and 14 years respectively, (while the men's record plummeted nearly 4 minutes from 2003-2019 by no less than 6 men), but since 2019, in the last 6 years, no less than 5 women have surpassed 2:15, (and in the last 8 years, no less than 15 women beat her 2:17), and we should take for granted some kind of new undetectable doping is the most likely explanation? What kind of drug can make a proven 2:14 woman improve by 4 minutes, when no woman could even run sub-2:18 for so long, in the EPO-era, especially if you think 2:14 and 2:15 were already doped?
Yes, he said that. But he also said he was "outraged" by the performance. "Outraged" - there could hardly be a stronger term. Why is he "outraged" - if he thinks it was clean? (Clue: he doesn't). He goes on to say, "I don’t think I’m wrong. And I don’t think this is a time to be quiet". Wrong about what? That he actually thinks she is doping? And why doesn't he think it is "a time to be quiet"? Is it because he thinks there is something very wrong with her performance? Surely he couldn't be saying he is outraged because he thinks Chepngetich was doping to a wr? If he isn't saying that then is he defending Chepngetich? Nope. Perhaps he's just blowing gas. Like you do.
The question was about his evidence.
Outrage is an emotion that you feel.
All these things he thinks or doesn't think are just thoughts.
In his own words, he is saying what he thinks and feels, based on no evidence.
The question wasn't about his evidence; it was about what he thinks and what he concluded. The "outrage" was his, as he said. It wasn't based on "no evidence" but on his years of experience in the sport and knowledge that you don't have. In any case, there is never any "evidence" of doping in your case - even a confirmed doping violation - as your years of denying Houlihan's doping have shown.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
The question wasn't about his evidence; it was about what he thinks and what he concluded. The "outrage" was his, as he said. It wasn't based on "no evidence" but on his years of experience in the sport and knowledge that you don't have. In any case, there is never any "evidence" of doping in your case - even a confirmed doping violation - as your years of denying Houlihan's doping have shown.
Yes it was.
"the world we live in" wrote: "Burfoot and other journalists made those doping allegations with zero evidence"
The question wasn't about his evidence; it was about what he thinks and what he concluded. The "outrage" was his, as he said. It wasn't based on "no evidence" but on his years of experience in the sport and knowledge that you don't have. In any case, there is never any "evidence" of doping in your case - even a confirmed doping violation - as your years of denying Houlihan's doping have shown.
Yes it was.
"the world we live in" wrote: "Burfoot and other journalists made those doping allegations with zero evidence"
"Tcid" replied "there is plenty of evidence".
Amby Burfoot confirmed that he had "no evidence".
You have read one sentence of his article. So what was the rest of it saying? (Clue: I've quoted portions of it but it didn't say what you want to hear so you have completely ignored it.)
The article wasn't an attempt to prove Chepngetich is doping; it was an expression of his views that he was "outraged" by her performance, doesn't think it can be trusted, and says women's sport deserves better. In likening her to the doper Ruiz he said "we know what we know" and "won't remain silent". Apparently, you read none of that but got stuck at one sentence at the beginning of the article. Evidence of doping, as in a failed test, isn't necessary to a strongly held conviction that an athlete is doping. It is a plausible position since only a fraction of actual dopers are caught.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Paula's 2:15s and 2:17s remained untouchable for 16 and 14 years respectively, (while the men's record plummeted nearly 4 minutes from 2003-2019 by no less than 6 men), but since 2019, in the last 6 years, no less than 5 women have surpassed 2:15, (and in the last 8 years, no less than 15 women beat her 2:17), and we should take for granted some kind of new undetectable doping is the most likely explanation? What kind of drug can make a proven 2:14 woman improve by 4 minutes, when no woman could even run sub-2:18 for so long, in the EPO-era, especially if you think 2:14 and 2:15 were already doped?
here's another angle I think is valid - let's say someone is doping to not only win so they can get the prize money but also the bonus for WR
why the hell would you draw massive, endless attention to yourself by running exponentially faster than necessary, you get the same bonus if you beat them by 10 seconds instead of two whole minutes
east-africans aren't well off so just going for the limelight, they are going to feed their family (or even entire town)
they aren't getting any additional money for making a record that lasts years and years, all they have to do is beat it by a little today - some athletes even purposely keep a time reserve they know they can beat the next year for even more money (and that pole vault dude, lol)
but Ruth clearly put all effort on the table with no reserve, she was likely trying to go even lower based on her first set of splits
She's definitely not stupid, she has raced plenty before, she knows how it works.
and I keep looking at this graph, it's DEFINITELY the shoes, the outliers disturb me somewhat but maybe there's just not enough time yet in the newest shoes - if no-one else touches 2:10 by the end of the decade or even 2028 olympics, THEN I'll have questions and serious doubts
Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
"the world we live in" wrote: "Burfoot and other journalists made those doping allegations with zero evidence"
"Tcid" replied "there is plenty of evidence".
Amby Burfoot confirmed that he had "no evidence".
You have read one sentence of his article. So what was the rest of it saying? (Clue: I've quoted portions of it but it didn't say what you want to hear so you have completely ignored it.)
The article wasn't an attempt to prove Chepngetich is doping; it was an expression of his views that he was "outraged" by her performance, doesn't think it can be trusted, and says women's sport deserves better. In likening her to the doper Ruiz he said "we know what we know" and "won't remain silent". Apparently, you read none of that but got stuck at one sentence at the beginning of the article. Evidence of doping, as in a failed test, isn't necessary to a strongly held conviction that an athlete is doping. It is a plausible position since only a fraction of actual dopers are caught.
As I explained, the question here was solely about the evidence. There was "no evidence" in any of the other sentences either.
Biology eh? So you don't understand running economy either?
So funny that the Kenyan doping apologists here say that any white guy like Jakob who runs as fast as Africans must be doped, but they've spent the last week claiming we're racist for being suspicious of a woman from a country with 400 doping busts running as fast as men.
I liked the article and thought he had one interesting intellectual point near the end.
For those of you who say, "It's obvious she must be doping." Ok, I get it but are you saying she just started doping for this race? SO she was clean before this race and then just did it for this race? What explains the huge jump for this race?
Yes that could be true but why would she risk it if she was already making hundreds of thousands a year and was already one of the very best runners on planet earth without doping.
Somewhat hilarious cope.
No, she didn't just start doping. She probably has since she first started serious training like any Kenyan. But she and her staff recently found a much superior doping protocol, hence the substantial improvement.
Doping is not a light switch. There are countless ways to do it and countless mixes of performance enhancing substances with which to do it.
The problem is when the most positive thing that some people have in their lives is to spew and spread their disgusting abusive racist bigoted misogynistic hatred filled attitudes toward hard working runners, especially those in other ethnic groups and cultures and females in particular.
Ruth is either doping or she is not. It is not racist or sexist to assume she is doping. It is true however that there are racists and sexists who assume she is doping. But the assumption itself is not dispositive regarding whether one is racist or sexist.
I liked the article and thought he had one interesting intellectual point near the end.
For those of you who say, "It's obvious she must be doping." Ok, I get it but are you saying she just started doping for this race? SO she was clean before this race and then just did it for this race? What explains the huge jump for this race?
Yes that could be true but why would she risk it if she was already making hundreds of thousands a year and was already one of the very best runners on planet earth without doping.
Somewhat hilarious cope.
No, she didn't just start doping. She probably has since she first started serious training like any Kenyan. But she and her staff recently found a much superior doping protocol, hence the substantial improvement.
Doping is not a light switch. There are countless ways to do it and countless mixes of performance enhancing substances with which to do it.
Ya that was funny to read, especially considering rojo's victory lap in the other thread. Here he was arguing that she was clean, now he is triumphing that he was right in thinking she doped.
