Respected commentator Tim Hutchings calls out times from past drug era, says more natural levels now.

rekrunner wrote:

Cathal Lombard ran 13:19.22 and is currently ranked 3024th all time. He took 5th place in that race.

Ron Clarke ran faster in 1966.

So did Lasse Virén in 72. Do you think all elites are created equal? There's a wide varaiation in running economy, anaerobic threshold, and VO2max. Clarke may have had more natural ability than a doped up Lombard given that his natural ability was no where near Clarke's to begin with. All the EPO in the world isn't going to take a 14:30 guy and put in him in WR territory.

That being said, Lombard's improvement with EPO is clearly seen in his tremendous drop in times in a short period of time with his 5k & 10k. In 2 yrs Lombard improves from 14:38 in 2001 to his PB of 13:19.22 in 03 (~9%). His improvement in the 10k parallels his 5k improvement over an 18 month period, as detailed in the link. Look at his IAAF profile and view the graphs...unbelievable!

His PBs qualified him for Olympic spots in both disciplines (i.e. cheated his way in)

The threats are all here, I'll start screencapping them. I spend less than half an hour a day on this board and type very quickly, hence the typing errors etc. I can't imagine how long you and a few others spend here with all your anonymous fake handles. I don't want to spend more time in here, but I guess I do need to respond to the threats here and get to the bottom of this. Having said that, trying save the sport is a worthy goal, and I don't need to defend it. Spending hours a day engaging in doping apologism and going as far as posting under multiple names and posting vague or explicit threats to anybody who continues to speak on the Kenyan doping crisis is not only sad, but very sinister.

And maybe you need help to learn how to engage in rational discussion without 1/ resorting to slander, 2/ resorting to threats, and 3/ resorting to accusing your opponent of being 'crazy'.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Some stats about how common (or rare) sub-12:50 was:

Post ABP, only one race was sub-12:50 -- Paris 2012

That's part of the point here, another part is that that happened six years ago.

In addition, there hasn't even been a single sub-13 in this year yet.

Best times per year in this decase (I posted something like that last last week...):

2018: 13:01.09

2017: 12:55.23

2016: 12:59.29

2015: 12:53.98 [Diack's reign ended] ⬅Non testing pool

2014: 12:54.83 [the IAAF bribery scandal broke]⬅Non testing pool

2013: 12:51.34⬅Monaco

2012: 12:46.81?

2011: 12:53.11⬅Monaco

(I hope I didn't overlook anything)

Last decade, over 14 years ago, we saw a 12:37, literally unthinkable nowadays, despite the fancy super shoes and Monaco track and alter-G treadmill etc.

Whatever upgrades to the testing procedures were in the 2012 London program I don't know, the Royal College was helped by Glaxo, but sub 12:55 essentially disappeared after that, except Ethiopian "kids" who then slowed once tested as adults??? Before I get labelled anything, 2015 was the last time a white guy ran sub 13:05 (I think) which is also suspicious.

What I find odd is your attack: - Saying "(You) need help" is not a vague threat -- it could be an insult, or genuine advice, but not a threat - Avocado didn't say it anyway - Avocado didn't say " he was going to come and give it to (you)" Comparing your situation with David Torrence only seems even more bizarre. You could prove me completely wrong and provide the quote where he said those things -- maybe I just missed it.

Coevett wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You know we can see what he wrote -- right?

Hmm..are accusing me of lying? He, or somebody exact same language as this person uses, posted that 'I needed help, and asked if he should come and give me some'.

Very odd that you're defending this guy now.

rekrunner wrote:

What I find odd is your attack:

- Saying "(You) need help" is not a vague threat -- it could be an insult, or genuine advice, but not a threat

- Avocado didn't say it anyway

- Avocado didn't say " he was going to come and give it to (you)"

Comparing your situation with David Torrence only seems even more bizarre.

You could prove me completely wrong and provide the quote where he said those things -- maybe I just missed it.

Coevett wrote:

Hmm..are accusing me of lying? He, or somebody exact same language as this person uses, posted that 'I needed help, and asked if he should come and give me some'.

Very odd that you're defending this guy now.

How do you know he (Avocado) didn't say it if you missed it?

Saying I need help is not a threat, saying that he's going to give me it, or arrange to give it to me, is clearly threat you doped up glute brain.

rekrunner wrote:

Cathal Lombard ran 13:19.22 and is currently ranked 3024th all time. He took 5th place in that race.

Ron Clarke ran faster in 1966.

Even at his peak, Lombard was not a real threat.

This doesn't seem like the unnatural levels Tim Hutchings was alluding to.

Ivig wrote:

They certainly worked for me! Gave me 3 minutes on my 10k, and an Olympic spot.

In your rushed efforts to claim yourself correct or justify your stance, you seem to have missed the point entirely. If you're unable to grasp that taking epo and improving from 30:30 to 27:30 is significant, then I can't help you.

And why is comparing my situation with David Torrence bizarre? Hopefully it's not comparable at all, but the fact is he died in suspcious circumstances after receiving death threats online, and his family and many here feel it might have been due to his discussion of the doping problem in Kenya. I'm going to take seriously threats against me made on the leading running forum for highlighting the doping problem in Kenya. I appreciate you're low IQ, but at the end of the day, the only thing that should concern you is if you made any of these threats, and whether you did so under your regular IP.

As far as being 'anonymous' I've had a number of implied threats of doxxing, and one person did so explicitly.

It doesn't look like a threat. If you interpret that as a threat, I have to wonder if these other explicit threats were really threats. It looks like unsolicited advice for you to give yourself a "personal timeout" and give personal reflection on whether what you are doing makes sense. He's kind of leaving the next step up to you. You can take or leave his advice.

Coevett wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

, I don't think that it should be used for that purpose -- but it might help to reset his thoughts about why he's behaving this way on this site and whether it makes sense to continue to do so.

What on Earth is this if not a threat, in the context of a number of explicit threats I've had here before this? As for Rekrunner, it doesn't matter what your doping apologist aspie opinion is, all that matters is the opinions of this guy's local FBI department.

Coevett wrote:

And maybe you need help to learn how to engage in rational discussion without 1/ resorting to slander, 2/ resorting to threats, and 3/ resorting to accusing your opponent of being 'crazy'.

The form of defamation you have in mind is libel, not slander. An example of libel would be falsely accusing someone, in writing, of making threats against you or, as you put it, "encouraging violence against [your] person."

Francis Did Nothing Wrong wrote:

I always gathered that the real advantage to steroids was the enhanced recovery.

It allows an athlete to handle a volume of intense training which would otherwise be impossible without injury.

It’s not going to produce world records for just anyone, but for those who are at that level already, it can help them move forward with their careers while keeping them from early retirement.

Androgens are also considered the poor man's EPO:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Whatever upgrades to the testing procedures were in the 2012 London program I don't know, the Royal College was helped by Glaxo, but sub 12:55 essentially disappeared after that, except Ethiopian "kids" who then slowed once tested as adults??? Before I get labelled anything, 2015 was the last time a white guy ran sub 13:05 (I think) which is also suspicious.

Yeah sadly we are slowing down too. Probably not just because the Kenyans prefer marathons these days...

Is Ben True's 13:16 from Stockholm still the fastest white 5000 in this year?

casual obsever wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Whatever upgrades to the testing procedures were in the 2012 London program I don't know, the Royal College was helped by Glaxo, but sub 12:55 essentially disappeared after that, except Ethiopian "kids" who then slowed once tested as adults??? Before I get labelled anything, 2015 was the last time a white guy ran sub 13:05 (I think) which is also suspicious.

Yeah sadly we are slowing down too. Probably not just because the Kenyans prefer marathons these days...

Is Ben True's 13:16 from Stockholm still the fastest white 5000 in this year?

Maybe better & more OOC testing?

More athletes subjected to the ABP?

Perhaps another big deterrent might be the storage of samples for retesting decades in the future (who wants to an Olympic champion from Rio only to have a sample retested as positive in 2030 or something...man that would go over like a fart in church. Lol).

So, what's the general consensus here - has athletics finally turned the corner to a clean(er) sport?

I stopped reading there. I don't think Lombard is part of the Tim Hutching's discussion about sub-12:50 runners. A fully doped Lombard would get lapped by Bekele, in the 5000m, and is still half a lap behind the "natural level" runners today.

Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:

So did Lasse Virén in 72. Do you think all elites are created equal?

...

Clean Living wrote:

Maybe better & more OOC testing?

More athletes subjected to the ABP?

Perhaps another big deterrent might be the storage of samples for retesting decades in the future (who wants to an Olympic champion from Rio only to have a sample retested as positive in 2030 or something...man that would go over like a fart in church. Lol).

So, what's the general consensus here - has athletics finally turned the corner to a clean(er) sport?

All good points. But of course you won't find a general consensus here.

In my opinion, yes, cleaner in a way, as I just wrote in the new Kenyan-doping image thread:

"That doesn't mean fewer Kenyans (or Americans or Brits) will dope, but most likely they'll cut back the dosages to not get caught."

Coevett wrote:

And why is comparing my situation with David Torrence bizarre? Hopefully it's not comparable at all, but the fact is he died in suspcious circumstances after receiving death threats online, and his family and many here feel it might have been due to his discussion of the doping problem in Kenya. I'm going to take seriously threats against me made on the leading running forum for highlighting the doping problem in Kenya. I appreciate you're low IQ, but at the end of the day, the only thing that should concern you is if you made any of these threats, and whether you did so under your regular IP.

As far as being 'anonymous' I've had a number of implied threats of doxxing, and one person did so explicitly.

Because nobody know, or cares, who you are!

You have no inside information. You are of no importance. Literally nobody cares what you have to say.

Nobody cares what I have to say, or anyone else on this forum. Nobody even cares what the owners of this website have to say or else they would have faced legal action by now.

You are nobody. Stop acting like you are someone and put more thought into your arguments.

A big clue is that after two tries, you didn't quote it. He didn't say these things in this thread -- but maybe you meant another thread which I didn't see. Reading his posts here, I highly doubt it. "he's going to give me it, or arrange to give it to me" could be a threat, but who said that?

Coevett wrote:

How do you know he (Avocado) didn't say it if you missed it?

Saying I need help is not a threat, saying that he's going to give me it, or arrange to give it to me, is clearly threat you doped up glute brain.

ex-runner wrote:

Goodness. You doubt testosterone increases strength or can even give headroom for increased strength.

Won't even accept how it can improve the shotput?! Tell me why shot putter don't look like Mo Farah if it's just about speed and strength doesn't matter.

I think I'm finished with you lol. Total loony.

Don't make stuff up. Do you think male athletes don't produce enough testosterone naturally?

What has Mo Farah got to do with shot putting? Try making sense please. Do you think shot putters don't produce enough testosterone naturally?

You think I'm a loony because I don't agree with you? Ok whatever.

Significant or not, it doesn't seem like Lombard should even be brought up in a thread about sub-12:50 times. I guess I get the point, but wonder why it's being made here.

Ivig wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Cathal Lombard ran 13:19.22 and is currently ranked 3024th all time. He took 5th place in that race.

Ron Clarke ran faster in 1966.

Even at his peak, Lombard was not a real threat.

This doesn't seem like the unnatural levels Tim Hutchings was alluding to.

In your rushed efforts to claim yourself correct or justify your stance, you seem to have missed the point entirely. If you're unable to grasp that taking epo and improving from 30:30 to 27:30 is significant, then I can't help you.

You wouldn't be saying that if you were getting the level of hate and numerous threats that I'm getting you glutes for brain moron. Yes, I'm a nobody, but I appear to be triggering a lot of people on the most popular running forum that's probably browsed by nearly every top athlete and coach out there.