Ex-AA,
Thanks for your posts.
Yes, Ross pulls some things out of his butt, but the reality is that the actual figures make Shiwen's feat all the more remarkable.
The track start didn't make a huge difference, but AFAIK the actual effect of the new blocks is as yet not precisely known--please post info if you have it.
Again, it is not the fact of Shiwen's performance that is suspicious, it is the manner of the performance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
In 2009 she's not on the radar.
In 2010 she explodes onto the world charts at 2nd, in 4:33.79, in mid-November in Guangzhou.
In 2011, she appears at 3rd on the world charts, in 4:33.66, in mid-October in Nanchang.
In 2012, she blows away the WR by over a second, in 4:28.43, in late July in London, while undeniably closing like a male.
OK, a couple of things--drops like that in the women's 400IM WR are actually the norm, so the actual drop itself might not be significant...but look at the specific history of the WR's in that event:
Until the early 1970's, the record was over 5:00. Then, the East German women appeared on the scene and in a 9-year span, reset the record 10 times, with only a single intervention by an American, lowering the record to an incredible 4:36.10 in 1982.
The reason for those records is undisputed--phenomenal training fueled by drugs.
THAT was the largest significant drop in the record, from 5:02.97 to 4:36.10, a drop of 26.87 seconds in 9 years.
The question then was how to approach that time without resort to drugs, and the answer was that it was impossible. After having been lowered an incredible 11 times in 9 years, the record stood fast for an equally incredible 15 years, as there was no way anybody clean was going to touch it.
It took the Chinese swimmer Chen Yan to break the WR in late 1997 in Shanghai. How did she do it? Drugs, through a state-sponsored doping program. She tested positive in the 1998 Asian Games and received a 4-year ban.
Chen's doped WR was broken 3 years later by Ukranian Yana Klochkova, in Sydney. Although Klochkova hasn't tested positive AFAIK, consider the level of her performance relative to those of the top-10 that year: while she went 4:34, the next-closest was Tajima in 4:36, then Sandeno in 4:41, Goldman in 4:45, and places 5-10 in 4:53-5:01
For my money, places 5-10 were clean, and were right around the level of the pre-East German doped records. Places 3 and 4 were transitional, with the possibility of being clean, and were still 5-10 seconds slower than the ultimate East German record. Places 1 and 2? Very possibly dirty. Neither the East Germans nor the Chinese could come close to those times without drugs, nor could anybody else, including Klochkova and Tajima, for years.
Klochkova's record, a full 2 seconds better than the best East German record, would stand for an incredible 7 years until the introduction of the Fastskin FS-Pro suit by Speedo. The suit not only reduced drag, but also increased buoyancy, and the effect was most pronounced with the most fabric coverage, as exemplified by the women's suit.
Using this new suit, Katie Hoff lowered the WR to 4:32.89 at the World's in Melbourne. It is undeniable that the suit was critical in the breaking of the record--in Melbourne, 12 WR's were broken in the FS-Pro, and 21 US NR's were set. Hoff herself won 3 golds and set that WR.
To be fair, times were coming down. In the 7-year span between Klochkova's WR and Hoff's WR, no longer was 10th place over 5:00, it was now at 4:40--but the improvement came only toward the middle and end of that 7-year span. Of those other top 10 performances, 3 are from Athens 2004, and 6 are from 2006. Things were most certainly getting faster, and finally a full 25 years later, the top women were swimming the old East German times.
The natural progression over that 25 years, combined with the new suit, enabled Hoff to set the WR, and enabled Hoff and Rice to trade it back-and-forth over the following year, with Rice ending up with the WR of 4:29.45 in Beijing in 2008.
The effect of the suit is undeniable, although there was most certainly some general progression among the field in the 25 years from 1982-2007. The general progression in the entire field suggests that the improvement over that time is attributable to a generalized phenomenon like improved training (unless EVERYBODY was doping, which is probably not a reasonable assumption); the specific improvement in the WR is attributable to the combination of improved training, plus vastly improved equipment.
So, we have 2 periods of significant WR improvement: the East German doping era, and the Speedsuit era, both of which had effects over and above the naturally-expected benefits of improved knowledge, selection, and training. Disregarding Shiwen's WR, the only other modern-era WR's were a doped Chen's, and a very suspicious Klochkova's.
So, all the WR's are accounted-for.
Enter Ye Shiwen, who at age 16, crushes the Speedsuit record by over a second, without the benefit of the Speedsuit. How does one account for this phenomenon? There is only a finite number of possible factors: 1) better equipment; 2) better knowledge, selection, and training; 3) doping; 4) outstanding individual talent; 5) outstanding individual performance; 6) better facilities.
It's tough to sort out these factors, but IMHO this analysis of the WR progression is informative--after all, she not on set a PR, she broke the WR without the benefit of the suit it took to set it in the first place.
Assuming all other things are equal and that Shiwen has the benefit of a great facility, great cap, great training and nutrition, great technique, great talent, she SHOULD have been around where she was in 2010 and 2011, 4:33 mid-high. That would place her just slightly better than the best were swimming pre-Speedsuit, and in the top-3 post-Speedsuit which would account for the possibility of superior individual talent, if that is in fact the case.
We are left with only 2 possibilities from the above list: 5) outstanding individual performance (she swam the race of her life), or 3) doping.
To judge between these 2 is difficult. She is at an age where big improvements can come in a year. But 2 things militate against that argument, IMHO: 1) she showed only .13 improvement in the previous year versus a 5.23 improvement this year, which is an unreasonable difference, and 2) she improved not only her PR, but the technologically-assisted WR, which is an unreasonable result of a year's improvement at age 15/16 without the benefit of that same technology.
She is "doped to the gills", as they say here on letsrun. That WR progression says it all. Her WR is not the equivalent of Janet Evans' 1500m WR, nor is the historic progression of the WR comparable. The East Germans did not apply themselves to the endurance specialties like the 1500m--in fact, they do not hold a single 1500m WR; thus, there was no East German doping effect upon the WR.
Janet Evans was breaking records that were likely clean, that in the modern era were traded back-and-forth by the USA and Australia, 2 nations with well-established swimming programs. She first broke the WR by 3.76 seconds, then by a further 8.63 seconds, for a total of 12.39 seconds over Linehan's previous record of 16:04.49, for a 1.28% total improvement in a clean, technologically-unassisted WR.
When Evans' improvement is compared to the 1.85% improvement by Shiwen over what would likely have been the clean WR of around 4:33 mid-high in the absence of the Speedsuit, a performance and era that are IMHO comparable to Linehan's old 1500m WR, the call becomes one of judgment--are the two improvements close enough to be the same, so that if Evans receives the benefit of the doubt, so should Shiwen? Or are they far enough apart that Evans' is reasonable, while Shiwen's is not?
As an aid to answering this, consider that it took 19 years for Ziegler to break Evans' record, thanks to, once again, the combined benefits of almost 20 years of improved knowledge, selection, and training, AND the use of the Speedsuit. As the Speedsuit is no longer available, Ziegler's 1500 free record still stands, in contrast to Rice's Speedsuit-enabled 400IM WR. But why has there been no general improvement in the 1500 free, as there appears to have been in the 400IM, even accounting for the Speedsuit?
IMHO, knowing swimmers, the answer lies in recruitment and selection. No swimmer wants to swim the 1500. It is a shaft, that somebody on the team gets when they are kids, so that the team can get more points. It takes FOREVER, and is generally considered boring.
THAT is the biggest reason why Evans' record stood until the Speedsuit was allowed. If swimming and swimmers got serious about the 1500, there would be people now doing speedsuit-era times in the 1500m, as there are in the 400IM--again, UNLESS everybody is doping at the shorter distances.
This militates in favor of Shiwen's 400IM record being clean.
But on balance, considering both what she did and how she did it in particular, the verdict in the swimming community (as I know it) is in.