5000m World Record Splits: A Progression

wtfunny wrote:

Kipsang, Kipchoge and Bekele have destroyed the top marathon times of anyone before 2004. Is this a remnant of the "Diack era" .. or simply the results of some incredible athletes .. surprisingly none of whom look or talk like you do?

I presume that is a subtle attempt at playing the racist card!

For a start you have no idea what my cultural background is. Nor have I denied that African athletes born at altitude have a genetic advantage over white Europeans when it comes to long distance events. For the record they clearly do as a race of people. That does not prohibit genetically blessed non N.E Africans from competing on a similar level. Clearly socio-economic trends since the late 80's have played a part in a large % of western US & Europeans from moving away from running and sports in general, while at the same time the incentives for Africans has attracted ever more to attempt a career in athletics.

But, and this is a big but, those Africans (and some Europeans) that emerged in the mid 90's were head and shoulders above any of their African predecessors. By the end of the 80's there was 1 man who had broken 13:00 in the 5000m, Aouita with 12:58. He was an amazing athlete, and of course there are some question marks concerning his legitimacy. But just 10 years later we have an athlete who runs the last 5000m in a 10k championship final in under 13:00 mins!? That is not normal and suggests something drastic happened/changed.

With time, testing in most countries has managed to become more rigorous and those spectacular times have gradually died out. Most European countries have random OOC testing as a deterrent. We know that this wasn't the case for Kenyans and Ethiopians (and I'm sure there are others), who somehow remained exempt from the same level of testing (from their own national federations) throughout Diack's tenure. This is a fact, and if you want to put a racial spin on it, then that's sad. I haven't claimed that all African athletes are doping, or even a majority, but it is impossible to deny that without the same level of testing of athletes from specific countries, those that have dominated for a long time now, then there will of course be accusations and question marks over those athletes' performances.

I also believe that while N.E Africans have an advantage in distance events and those from the West Coast have a genetic advantage in the sprints, there is an area in the middle distances where the Europeans and Americans can compete with those from Africa on an equal footing, but not if some are given an easier opportunity to dope than others.

Really crazy that to deny that Africans are genetically superior is considered by (white) SJWs as racist.

I assume that the black supremacist is white, because most intelligent black people distance themselves from the idea that 'blacks are better athletes' (at least publicly). I remember Linford Christie losing his temper on a discussion program when the idea that West Africans had 'sprinting genes'. Not only does it diminish their achievements, if genetics explains black dominance of the Diamond League , then perhaps it also explains white dominance of the Ivy League?

Not so subtle at all.

The "specular times" haven't died out. Rudisha broke the 800m twice, beating Coe's old WR by the better part of a second. The fastest 800m race in history was in 2012.

We could look at 1500m races .. we've seen Kiprop run some fantastic times, and quite a few other folks run well below 3:30. Paris 2012 saw how comfortable a bunch of East Africans were running sub-13. Forget Gebremeskel for a minute. Eleventh place ran sub 13. All but 2 of the competitors ran sub 13:10. We know how badly Bekple had been injured, and how out of shape he was, and he ran 12:55.

We know that the 10 000m hasn't attracted the same level of athletes that it once did, and yet there have been quite a few sub 27 10 000m races.

Even Galen Rupp ran 26:44 .. and we've seen from his performances in the marathon that while a world class runner, he's nowhere near the same class of athlete as the top elites. Doesn't that point to the same kind of differentiation, for example, at 5000m and 10 000m? He has a great mile PR of 3:50 .. yet he's literally a mile or 2 behind Kipchoge or Bekele at the marathon, and he's nearly 10 years younger. Would you not expect his 5000m or 10 000m PR to be similarly slower than their best performances?

Bernard Lagat ran 12:53 in 2011 at 37 years of age .. is a WR 13 seconds faster than that or a Diamond League performance of 6-7 seconds faster than that really out of this world to you? Lagan and Farah both closed a 12:53 race in sub 54 .. Lagan doing so at age 37. So clearly, with a more evenly paced race, they both were capable of a substantially faster run .. and that race was something like 6 weeks or more prior to the World Championships .. so it's reasonable to suggest they weren't even in peak shape at the time.

I think you underestimate just how easily these guys run a 13min 5k. Aouita wasn't worth tying their shoelaces for them.

Africans are running much slower in general now than in the 1990s, and they were running ridiculously faster then than the African generation that preceded them. Meanwhile, the populations of both Kenya and Ethiopia have more than doubled since 1990. Yet you have to point to a couple of outstanding talents like Rushida and Kiprop to claim that times are just as spectacular as the 90s?

Oh, one Kenyan over dozens of attempts has run 7 tenths of a second faster over 800m than a white British double 1500m Olympic gold medalist from nearly half-a-century ago. That certainly proves Africans are the master race and their success has nothing to do with EPO.

Coevett wrote:

Oh, one Kenyan over dozens of attempts has run 7 tenths of a second faster over 800m than a white British double 1500m Olympic gold medalist from nearly half-a-century ago. That certainly proves Africans are the master race and their success has nothing to do with EPO.

You really talk out of your ass if you think those 7 tenths are not HUGE over 800m.

dfjh wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Oh, one Kenyan over dozens of attempts has run 7 tenths of a second faster over 800m than a white British double 1500m Olympic gold medalist from nearly half-a-century ago. That certainly proves Africans are the master race and their success has nothing to do with EPO.

You really talk out of your ass if you think those 7 tenths are not HUGE over 800m.

Well when you consider Coe ran 1 1/2 seconds faster than any man in history and Rushida has ran 7 tenths faster over 3 decades later it's not so huge. Rushida has far better competition, better pacing, better tracks, better training knowledge, better medical care etc Each season he has maybe a dozen opportunities to set a really fast time. Coe had ONE opportunity in 1981 when he was at the peak of his powers (and likely would have been even better in 82 and 83 if not for ill health). Rushida was also chasing a faster WR. Coe was chasing his own WR of 79 which itself was a second faster than any other in history.

Complete gibberish is coming out of your ass if you think 1981 Coe wouldn't be running sub 1:41 today. And anyway, the point was regarding did the Africans use EPO in the 1990s? The fact that 800m times were relatively marginally improved, and more of a natural progression (ie. Rushida running faster in the 2010s than Kipketer in the 1990s) whereas Africans are running much slower in the 1500 and 5000 than in the 90s only further points to the 90's times being EPO driven.

He was faster than most of them over 800m and 1500m so did actually have the ability. Of course not as fast as B test Lagat over 1500m.

dfjh wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Oh, one Kenyan over dozens of attempts has run 7 tenths of a second faster over 800m than a white British double 1500m Olympic gold medalist from nearly half-a-century ago. That certainly proves Africans are the master race and their success has nothing to do with EPO.

You really talk out of your ass if you think those 7 tenths are not HUGE over 800m.

Coe ran an extra 1.5m in his WR on the 3rd bend compared to Rudisha. That in itself is worth 0.2sec and brings his time down to 1:41.5. You can take another 2 or 3 tenths off that if he’d had a Mondo track to run on.

The gap between them is very small. Coe was further ahead of the rest of the world than anyone else in the history of the event since the 2nd World War.

Rudisha’s actual achievements has to make him the greatest 2 lap runner in history, but if you think Coe of 81 couldn’t mix it with him and match him in a modern day context, then you have no clue about the history of the event.

dfjh wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Oh, one Kenyan over dozens of attempts has run 7 tenths of a second faster over 800m than a white British double 1500m Olympic gold medalist from nearly half-a-century ago. That certainly proves Africans are the master race and their success has nothing to do with EPO.

You really talk out of your ass if you think those 7 tenths are not HUGE over 800m.

+1

On the other hand, the next best white guy is still a Russian from the EPO era (2001), 7 tenth slower than Coe. Goes to show how much unlimited roids and blood doping helps over 800 m, see also the ladies' 1:53 from the dirty 80s.

Now with seriously limited roids, and somewhat limited EPO, no whitey can come close to those times anymore.

Well, we can always chalk that up to more coincidences of course. No worries, fanbois.

Actually, you are right - it is "not this again". When you read what he wrote, he did not say "no evidence with top-tier distance runners" but that the "narratives" of doping in top tier cyclists and the narrative of top tier runners "are not the same". In cycling, how many statisticians fed articles that 6 to 8 out of the top 10 winners each year are somehow linked to doping. I've seen a similar "narrative" of "depth of doping at the very top" for sprints, where Usain Bolt is the only one still "clean". I've seen it for women, in mid distance events, especially with the Russians, and Ma's girls. I've never seen that kind of "narrative" for any distance event for the men. For the men, it's closer to 2 out of the top 50, or top 100. I've seen a lot of excuses why we can't have the same narratives, which is essentially an agreement that the narratives from the two sports are not the same. I don't see your "speedsters" listed on page 1 of this thread. Your EPO poster boys Ramzi, Mourhit, Boulami, the Spanish Armada, are still far behind the top performers of the '90s and the '00s. They do not adequately demonstrate the same "depth of doping at the very top" narrative that we frequently saw in cycling.

There is no doubt the belief and practice in doping is wide spread. My doubt is not the prevalence of doping, but the correlation of doping to the best performances. The correlation gets worse with prevalence figures of 57% or more. I watched "Icarus" last week. It wasn't lost on me that Bryan Fogel originally set out to show that drug testing was worthless, but instead discovered that in fact the drugs were worthless too, concluding that he was simply a non-responder to Amgen products. Fortunately for him, there was a bigger story. Drugs also have a public reputation that far exceeds its capabilities.

casual obsever wrote:

Indeed. These guys crack me up. As if doping were the exception, not the rule. Just put your head into the sand, and sing out loud, and all is well.

Much slower? wtfunny just detailed for you how almost all of them have run sub 13, and how easy it is for them. He also explained how people like Gebremeskel/Farah/Lagat etc. could all have run faster. Same comparing Rupp to the talent of Kipchoge, Kipsang and others.

It's slower, but not by what a would consider "much". In early 2000s all the big runners had 12:40 or slighly better potential, and there were 2-3 of those guys (Komen, Geb, Bekele), and then you had maybe another 510 guys that could run sub 12:50, which we saw in Paris most of these guys can run that, or very close to it. That's pretty close today, with Gebremeskel, Gebriwhet, and Farah all clearly capable of something low 12:40s, and as Paris showed plenty of guys that can run close to 12:50. As best you're looking at perhaps a 5 second difference between the eras, that's not nothing, but it's not so big as to say "much slower"

This really should be obvious, but the fast times aren't being run anymore because their is no incentive to run fast. It's much more valuable to win the race, and hammering after the pacers drop out does nothing to help the chances. On the rare case a race gets to 3k in 7:40-7:45 and 4k in about 10:20 or so...we see really fast races. Just in most races you hit 3k at like 8:00 and any hope for running quick is already gone.

Not really relevant to the doping, but acting like the top runners around 2000 were capable of way faster than today's runner just isn't the case. I do agree the runner of that era were better, BUT not "in a different league" better.

rekrunner wrote:

In cycling, how many statisticians fed articles that 6 to 8 out of the top 10 winners each year are somehow linked to doping.

a) You are picking one specific bike race here, not all of them. Coincidentally the dirtiest one.

b) You yourself found several examples in running, e.g. short distances and middle distances, where the same is true, yet argue against the "same narrative in top tier running circles that came out of the cycling world".

You see the problem? You cherry picked, as per usual. The statement was not that marathon runners were cleaner than TdF cyclists.

Now let's look at the actual facts about distance runners. You talked about "somehow linked to doping"; well, let's do the same for long distance runners.

Positive tests: Mourhit, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Baumann, Slaney, Shobukhova, Kisorio, for starters,

"somehow linked to doping":

All runners from the Aden, Berardelli, and Salazar groups, plus El G, as several of their training partners were caught doping, and many more suspected to having used a forbidden method (counts as doping as per Wada).

This includes the current most successful long distance runner of East African heritage, i.e. Farah, and of Caucasian heritage, Rupp.

On top of the above, there is a long list of successful long distance runners considered as "likely doping" by the IAAF. Examples include Mutai, Kiprop, Keitany, of course Rupp and Farah again, naturally Radcliffe.

Ok, so now we've included the marathon star from 2011, with course records in Boston and New York, the currently best Caucasian long distance runner, the currently best African long distance runner, the current male 800 m world record holder (oh wait, you want to exclude middle distance because of, well I don't know why), the current female "mixed race" marathon world record holder, the current female "only female" marathon world record holder, the current female Olympic marathon champion, the second fastest Caucasian female marathon runner, the fastest ever Caucasian 5000 m runner, and so on. Wow. Quite a list.

Finally remember that we have about the same rates for positive tests for both IAAF and UCI (e.g. 1.0% in 2013), and that at least 44 - 57% of the championship athletes in 2011 admitted to have been doping in the last 12 months.

In conclusion: you are extremely optimistic, or naive, to think that runners are cleaner than cyclists. And why would they be better persons? Unless you are trolling, then 4/10.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Not this again...you sound too much like" rekrunner." ?

There's evidence with "top tier" distance runners. Start with speedsters like Mourhit, Boulami, Kaouch, Garcia, Ali Saïdi-Sief....to name a few. With the exception of Saïdi-Sief & Kaouch, all tested positive for rEPO in early 2000 (Saïdi-Sief tested positive for roids in early 2001 IC at Edmonton & Kaouch for rocket fuel in 07).

I watched Ali Saidi-Sief regularly when he came on the scene and his best times are remarkable. He was really good in 2000 & 2001. What was most noteworthy was his best ever performance was not his 3:29 over 1500m in 2001, it wasn't his 7:25 over 3,000m or 12:50 for 5000m both in 2000 or his Olympic silver medal in Sydney. But it was his 3:30.8 in cold, pouring rain at Gateshead in 2000. If I can recall correctly Ovett thought it was one of the best performances middle distance runs he ever saw and thought (I think that he said this at the next meet) it was worth 3:27 in good conditions. Ovett thought that he was the favorite for the 1500m in 2000 ahead of El G, Ngeny and Lagat but he ran the 5000m instead. He failed the test in 2001 but he was better in 2000.

➡So Cova used "self transfusions" in 1984 to win the Olympics but you are saying Antibo four years later was not using "self transfusions" from the same country when he won a silver in the same event? And in 1989/1990 he was running really fast times, and he was not blood doping or using early epo? He was one of the fastest runners ever over 5,000m prior to 1991.

➡so you are saying there are non-responders to blood doping?

➡could it be that smaller transfusions might give a better result in the marathon?

➡you do know that marathoners and race walker's have been caught blood doping?

➡wouldn't marathoners just sweat out the surplus fluid volume during the marathon, leaving a greater Hb mass?

➡isn't it best to reinfuse removed blood slowly at say 100ml lots to allowed the body to safely absorb the blood to avoid a heart attack?

➡if blood transfusions are not beneficial for marathons, would it not make sense for WADA/IAAF to remove the technique from the restricted practice list? You do realise that WADA has probably tested this to confirm that it enhances performance? There are numerous tests that show it helps. Look at Actovegin, that should be banned but WADA cannot find evidence it enhances performance. Same with Thyroid meds.

➡if there are runners currently living and training at altitude that are capable of beating current WRs, then why don't they? The 1k record is 18 years old, the 1500m WR is 19 years old, the mile 18 yrs, 2,000m 18yrs, 3000m 21 yrs, 2 miles 20 yrs, 5000m 13 yrs, 10000m 12 years. G. Dibaba is frequently training at sea level with Jama but Jenny Simpson is constantly living at altitude but she can't beat 3:50. You can earn a lot of money for breaking a WR.

casual obsever wrote:

dfjh wrote:

You really talk out of your ass if you think those 7 tenths are not HUGE over 800m.

+1

On the other hand, the next best white guy is still a Russian from the EPO era (2001), 7 tenth slower than Coe. Goes to show how much unlimited roids and blood doping helps over 800 m, see also the ladies' 1:53 from the dirty 80s.

Now with seriously limited roids, and somewhat limited EPO, no whitey can come close to those times anymore.

Well, we can always chalk that up to more coincidences of course. No worries, fanbois.

So your argument is that white people are genetically inferior to East Africans, anyone who denies this is a white NAZI, whites athletes took unlimited steroids and blood doped in the 70s and 80s and Coe running faster than other whites proves this, and you've just jerked off to some interracial cuckold filth?

Oh, I just realized you're that African guy living in England with the chip on your shoulder and whose welfare is being paid for by my tax returns.

Oh o.k, so 20 seconds slower in the 5000m after 20 years is 'small', and 0.7 seconds faster after half-a-century in the 800m is 'HUUUUGGEE'.

Africans are the master race, case closed. Anyone who denies it ought to be reported to the hate speech thought department.

Coevett wrote:

So your argument is that white people are genetically inferior to East Africans, anyone who denies this is a white NAZI, whites athletes took unlimited steroids and blood doped in the 70s and 80s and Coe running faster than other whites proves this, and you've just jerked off to some interracial cuckold filth?

Oh, I just realized you're that African guy living in England with the chip on your shoulder and whose welfare is being paid for by my tax returns.

You are wrong on all counts. Literally. Are you sure you wanted to reply to me?

Also, you provided zero arguments. Not to mention your unprovoked personal attacks.

Ridiculo.

Where did you get 20 seconds. Guys are like 5s slower. Bekele ran 12:37 in a paced race for WR. Komen and Geb ran 12:39 in paced races going for the record. Farah clearly was low 12:40s capable, Gebremeskel ran 12:46 closing in 54, it's clear he can run low 12:40s in a more even race. You're comparing high 12:3x with low 12:4x....that's not a huge difference, and could just be down to Haile/Geb/Komen being a unique, exceptionally talented trio.

800 as you said is close to the same. 1500 we see is also close to the same. Kiprop around 3:26, other guys going 3:27/3:28.

10,000 isn't worth mentioning as there are no good races. Just jogfests.

Half seems to be a little slower, but 58 high, 59 low is common; usually be up and comers or lower tier athletes (there are some exceptions though).

Marathon is blatantly faster.

Overall there is not some huge difference in running now versus 20 years ago.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Moving on, I'm confused why I was quoted, I didn't say anything about 800m, why did you quote me and mention 800? Why also did you quote me talking about "African master race"? I said nothing in regards to that.....

The ONLY thing I mentioned, and reiterated, is that the guys aren't really much slower today, they are about the same as 20 years ago. How that got you to 800 and some bizarre talk about master african races is absolutely beyond me.