1200 Hypothetical: Ngeny vs El Guerrouj vs Coe

I see things diferent about Rui in Beijing. I think that he did 3rd just because he did that rich stategy to stay on the back of the pack until 1000m the point where the real run strats.

Rui Silva coach before the final advices him to do so, and i think he was right. Rui is tested many times on specific intervals and real runs, and he and the coach they knew that he could express his fast finish just in case of negative split pace and not push to follow the leader.

Even in the case of a slow start - it´s what did happen on Beijing - he gains by be on back of the pack and don´t try to respond to some quite short by inconclusive attempts to faster the pace duirng the race before the crucial and final decisive last attack, that was done in between the last 500-400m. If you have aacess to the run by youtube, see how the spanish runner was ahead of Rui on the bell last lap, he did attack before Rui but he couldn´t hold on that fast pace in the last 150-200m. Why ? Move on too soon.

Finally, if you don´t lead, or you don´t answer to some previous attacks and you are relax on the back of the pack, as long as the pace doesn´t go faster and you are able to follow the pack, you are much more relaxed. It´s what he did, it´s from he gets some advantage to be bronze.

mid distance wrote:And if Ryun's 440 split was 60.9, which gives 60.5 for 400m, then doesn't a previous 100m of 15.0 seem more likely than 14.0, which requires a very fast increase in pace from so far out?

that's what vid shows

there is an ~ 7.8/7.9s segment which takes him from extrapolation from somewhere like 340/350m point to 440y, cutting an u]~ 8m gap to bailey to ~ 3m

if he ran initial 50m of the last 100m upto 440y mark same dawdling as bailey - highly likely as 8m behind - ~ 15s for 100m = 7.5s

& last ~ 50m, where he took 5m out of him -> ~ 7.5 * ( 50/55 ) = 6.82s

for last ~ 100m upto 440y mark of

~ 14.32

or low-14

or running last ~ 50m upto 440y at 54.5 pace/400m, which is perfectly possible ( 55m in 7.5s = 7.33m/s = 54.5s for 400m )

bottom line, whilst bailey ran last 50m in 7.5s, ryun ran ~ 55m in same 7.5s

Coe was doped. It was legal then.

Coe fan wrote:

Coe was doped. It was legal then.

Doping wasn't legal then. The Brits tested out of competition long before the IAAF. If you're referring specifically to Blood doping, that was still frowned upon and only a couple of Italian and Finnish distance guys are known to have done this, probably hinting at some sort of national federation policy at work.

There would be little if any benefit for a 45, 1:41 runner blood doping.

It was made illegal in 1985 after a report put forward by Coe himself for the Sports Council in GB, with the IAAF acting on his recommendations.

He ran his fastest 1500m in 1986, a year after it was made illegal and was still running 1:43.3 and running Bile a close 2nd at Worlds in 89 at 33 when he'd have been subjected to out of season/competition testing by the IAAF and UK athletics alike. Those sort of performances are exactly the sort expected of someone with 1:41/ 3:29 in their mid 20's.

Cheers!

First, where is the full video of this race? Are you using the one on Pathe News?

Secondly, how can you work out where the 50m line is between the 330yds and 440yds is to give your low 14 sec 100m split? I can't imagine there would be a visible line on the track?

- only pathe news

- no obvious markings i coud make out upto 440y mark : however, it took bailey ~ 7.4s to reach that point & assuming was going around at near even-pace on that lap at 60.5 for 440y or ~ 60.1/60.2 for 400m =

~ 49m

covered for that segment upto 440y ( 402m ), meaning that segment started for him at

~ 402 - 49 =

~ 353m into race

( close enough to 350m in for our purposes )

ryun ran ~ 5m more in that 7.4s or ~ 54m in 7.4s =

~ 54.8 speed for 400m for last ~ 54m approaching 440y mark

that is not really much speeding up for a mere 54m for him & keino took next lap in ~ 56 for whole 440y

No common sense wrote:There would be little if any benefit for a 45, 1:41 runner blood doping

nonsense

it woud have huge benefit for a 800 guy

it has essentially same effect as epo

you going to claim epo is of no use to a 800 guy ???

I'm going to have to give it to Steve Prefontaine.

Advantage gained through EPO is greater % wise than blood doping, which was also far more dangerous. Use of blood doping vastly exaggerated in late 70's where there was little if any real money to be made.

If EPO wasn't better than blood doping then all those athletes running silly times in the late 90's would have used blood transfusions instead, which were then still difficult to detect. They didn't. They used an improved & more efficient method to increase oxygen uptake, which couldn't be detected rather than put their life at risk with doping.

nonsense

there is no

"%age comparison"

it's simply how much blood you want to transfuse

unlike epo, you don't wait 2 - 3/52 for a result, you benefit the NEXT day

problem is transfusions risk :

- disease transfusion if not autologous, especially back in '80s :

toxoplasmosis or something called HIV

- heart failure if not proper ethacrynic acid injection

- stroke, regardless of ethacrynic acid admin

epo is sh!t alternative to real thing in '10s - only used because of supposed indectability

i'd go back to transfusions anyday as blood is screened better nowdays & you can get better than ethacrynic nowdays

eh?

it was cheap & anyone with some elite talent who wanted gold or a ~ wr, had this option

drivel

the cyclists, who are premier dopers

("suddennly sprinters were winning mountain stages !!!???")

have gone back to transfusions as 1st choice in last few years

it works well with good doc to monitor parameters ( easy to find ) & the only weapon wada/uci seems to have is :

< 50% haematocrit

- blood passport, which is shit worth in natural variability in court case with a decent physician in defense

only a fool woud believe blood transfusions, if done properly, are NOT effective

ventolin^3 wrote:

Indicative wrote:Advantage gained through EPO is greater % wise than blood doping

nonsense

there is no

"%age comparison"

it's simply how much blood you want to transfuse

unlike epo, you don't wait 2 - 3/52 for a result, you benefit the NEXT day

problem is transfusions risk :

- disease transfusion if not autologous, especially back in '80s :

toxoplasmosis or something called HIV

You aren't putting in someone else's blood with doping. You're taking your own blood out, treating it and then putting it back in again after your body has made up the lost blood. There should be no risk of disease if the equipment is sterile.

The risks are heart attacks and strokes as you suggest.

ventolin^3 wrote:

epo is sh!t alternative to real thing in '10s - only used because of supposed indectability

"Supposed" in-detectability in the '10's?

I thought you were always going on about how reliable the EPO test was since 2000 and that there was no way EL G and others could have been taking it as they never failed a test? Now you are suggesting that even today athletes are continuing to take EPO because they believe they are unlikely to get caught? They must have confidence in this premise if that is what you are saying and believe. And if so, then a lack of a positive test is no defence of a using athlete.

From the stuff I've read EPO is safer, enables the athlete to train far longer and harder and has a long term benefit greater than blood doping did back in the 70s.

Maybe now blood doping has evolved to make it safer and more effective, but I doubt all those athletes and cyclists in the 90's would have all started using EPO if it wasn't as good as blood doping, which, as you state, was just as difficult to detect as EPO. By then there was mega bucks to be made in both sports, and I doubt the lessened health risks would have deterred those at the top.

idiot

there were 4 brands of epo available into mid-'00s

wada had to spend money to develop tests v all of those individually to stand up in a court of law

hicham was likely to get tested weekly by wada for running life

even with admitted possible 48 hr detection window, it's not really possible to escape in a 4y window at 1/52 testing

eh ?

learn to read

cera

that is 1 step prior in pathway than epo in

marrow -> rbc

they've got test for this now, but not heard much about detection window

nonsense

you have little/no control of consequences of it after

over-dose & they die from a stroke/thrombosis coupla weeks later when you are uncontactable in bed

i'd take modern transfusions anyday

- easy to titrate & deal with & no toxoplasmosis

epo was only taken because it was UNDETECTABLE in '90s & pro-cycycling had money to buy regular injections at ~ $500/shot - & you need 3 or 4 shots to make a difference after 2 - 4/52

track didn't have "teams" & no cycling team manager is going to tell an athletics manager about epo

they have to find out for themselves & pay the money, which is waste if all you got are 1'45 or 3'33 guys to work with

transfusions have always been best & they still only only go for haemotocrit < 50% & now DNA ( not before )

all blood bags need EDTA for anti-coagulant effect ( this was known from '80s )

they don't use/have test for this which detects transfusions

transfusion detection today is still poor, which still makes it best method...

Ventolin, learn how to have a civil discussion with people without resorting to name calling and insults. How old are you?

Despite being your normal rude self, you seem to be missing the point.

You state EPO was only used in the 90's because it was undetectable, yet blood transfusions are still pretty much undetectable, and in your opinion better. You also seem to claim that EPO is as dangerous as blood transfusions, if not more so.

If all these benefits of doping are the case, then why change from blood doping to EPO at all in the 90's? According to you, Blood doping is better, cheaper, less dangerous and just as undetectable as EPO. If all this were true, there seems little if any reason why so many cyclists and then athletes should take EPO from the mid 90's.

moron

try again

idiot

it was safe bet to go for epo in '90s on undetectability if you had a few $1000s to splash

learn this moron

moron

it was a nascent drug back then

it's damn dangerous with acquired 2 decades+ knowledge of it's use

imbecile

UNDETECTABILITY

only if you have access to an authorised blood bank which guarantees :

NO

-TOXOPLASMOSIS

-hiv

-hepatitis b or c

-death from mismatched abo/rhesus/20+ sub-groups

they took big chance in '70s/'80's

moron

until '04 it was more undetectable to take epo

yegorova frightened dopers & they looked for different

it's back to transfusions with safe screening & NO

TOXOPLASMOSIS

anyone seriously posting on this thread is a legitimate loser. A 1200 hypothetical? who cares. Go to the outside world and socialize. Threads like this make me embarrased to be a runner. this is why we have this "socially awkward" stigma. Because we sit behind computer screens and seriously ponder a 1200 hypothetical race instead of going out, meeting girls, playing with our kids, playing sports, etc.. You know, normal fun things.

polar wrote:

You know, normal fun things.

So . . . something like Fantasy Football?

I said "going out" more than once in my post. Going out does not include fantasy football, no.

epo and blood doping allows more reps in training too.