Elias Ngeny WL 1:43.84 (previous best 1:49)

… and Armstronglivs is defeated.

sytms wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There were 9 months in the year when you weren't living with them.

Despite being repeatedly asked, you are still unable to say what level of improvement would cause suspicion. You may be a distinguished coach, but, regrettably, you are also a doping denier.

Why would he answer a question posed by someone like you? Someone who will not accept anything he says as the truth unless it agrees with your pre-conceived ideas?

He has written so much, shared his experience, and what have you done? Attacked him and the athlete.

You are a toxic presence. I bet you would test positive for doping, you are so toxic.

He does respond to what I say. But he does so selectively - ducking what he would prefer not to answer. Read into that what you will.

It is his opinion - and only his opinion - that Ngeny has not doped to improve by the massive margin he has. That is what you also prefer to believe. But it is only an opinion. Like mine. None of this can be known as irrefutable fact. But I see also that Renato's consistent position is to never admit the possibility or even likelihood of doping in any performance when there are many reasons supporting that possibility. He speaks on this not as a coach but as a propagandist.

fnhriel wrote:

… and Armstronglivs is defeated.

Dream on. You're like a silly little cheerleader. For the losing team.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But I see also that Renato's consistent position is to never admit the possibility or even likelihood of doping in any performance when there are many reasons supporting that possibility.

This is absolutely not true. And I am not someone who would bet my savings on anyone being clean.

Renato explained how it is possible, and how it happens, that amazing talent emerges unexpectedly.

And he has also defended his athletes as being clean. Wouldn't you do the same if you were a coach?

Armstronglivs wrote:

fnhriel wrote:

… and Armstronglivs is defeated.

Dream on. You're like a silly little cheerleader. For the losing team.

He is not on the losing team, man. You get pretty annoying.

Like you said before, this is a forum where people can express their opinions but it gets tiring to read page after page of your accusations of doping and why no analysis of splits, training methods, etc.?

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is rather long-winded, but it is only your belief that Ngeny is clean. It is only an opinion. Like mine. This forum is a place where people exchange opinions - even ones you don't like.

What I belief is so irrelevant for the subject. And these standpoints are not opinions.

Interesting that you have not said anything to the points I made in my post.

sytms wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But I see also that Renato's consistent position is to never admit the possibility or even likelihood of doping in any performance when there are many reasons supporting that possibility.

This is absolutely not true. And I am not someone who would bet my savings on anyone being clean.

Renato explained how it is possible, and how it happens, that amazing talent emerges unexpectedly.

And he has also defended his athletes as being clean. Wouldn't you do the same if you were a coach?

He doesn't just defend his athletes, he defends any athlete thought to be doping. I have never seen him admit that an athlete could be doped - despite working in a country rife with doping in a highly doped sport. Everything (especially in Kenya) has a "natural" explanation in his book. I guess he's looking after his job. But that isn't a coach; that is a doping denier.

restrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is rather long-winded, but it is only your belief that Ngeny is clean. It is only an opinion. Like mine. This forum is a place where people exchange opinions - even ones you don't like.

What I belief is so irrelevant for the subject. And these standpoints are not opinions.

Interesting that you have not said anything to the points I made in my post.

You didnt say anything that I considered worth responding to.

sytms wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dream on. You're like a silly little cheerleader. For the losing team.

He is not on the losing team, man. You get pretty annoying.

Like you said before, this is a forum where people can express their opinions but it gets tiring to read page after page of your accusations of doping and why no analysis of splits, training methods, etc.?

Splits and training methods do not explain how a mature runner can make an improvement during the Covid lockdown from a college level to running nearly as fast as Fiasconaro, when he set the world mark in the 70's. Even today, 1.43x is absolutely world class. But doping can definitely explain it - and where Ngeny comes from doping is endemic.

But maybe you can explain what are his training methods that have enabled this and why other runners who use the same training don't seem to be able to make the same kinds of improvements - unless they juice.

If the argument here is that Ngeny had never really trained seriously before, how does anyone buy that changes in training alone have enabled an already mature athlete to go from being a 'B' division runner to becoming world class in a period when there was a very limited opportunity for world class competition? I don't think many get how good 1.43x is; it was once world record level by some very good runners - Fiasconaro and Juantorena.

Of course the "training" argument depends also in knowing how he has trained - and no one here has any information on that.

Armstronglivs, one question : how much do you think can be the difference between the performance of an UNTRAINED athlete, in 800m, and the performance of the same athlete after one year of specific training for the same event ?

I'm not surprised. You have proved it again and again that you are unable to do a serious discussion.

restrunner wrote:

I'm not surprised. You have proved it again and again that you are unable to do a serious discussion.

+1

restrunner wrote:

I'm not surprised. You have proved it again and again that you are unable to do a serious discussion.

I have yet to see evidence here of a serious discussion. Oh, right - you do have your opinions, like everyone else.

Can you answer my question ?

Renato Canova wrote:

Armstronglivs, one question : how much do you think can be the difference between the performance of an UNTRAINED athlete, in 800m, and the performance of the same athlete after one year of specific training for the same event ?

Your question assumes too much.

1. What is the age of the athlete? There is a great difference between an 18 year-old and a 24 year-old.

2. What kind of talent do they possess? Natural talent of a high order is crucial in running.

3. What kind of sports or athletic background do they have? Without years of physical training of some sort no competitor can get off the couch and become world class in their mid twenties.

4. What kind of training do they get? That it has to be the best possible is a given.

Depending in the answers to those questions, there will be no answer that will fit every athlete. Some will improve more than others. The improvements of a naturally talented teen, who has a background in sports, will likely be greater than an athlete in their mid-twenties who has no such background. I have known of athletes who made very big jumps when they took the sport up seriously from their late teens. Snell was such an example, who improved substantially between the ages of 19-22, after he took up the sport and was trained by Lydiard. He was also a once in a century kind of talent.

What I will say is the following:

- An "untrained" athlete of a mature age (24) will not become world class, running the equivalent of a former world record in the sport, with no background in the sport. Unless they also dope.

- An athlete who has a background in training and competing will not make the kinds of improvements an athlete might make who has just entered the sport.

If Ngeny had not been trained to his best (we don't know what his training was) when he was running 1.49x I might believe that superior training could have delivered 1.46-flat within a year or so. Ultimately, he might be capable of even faster. That is still a big margin for an elite 800m. From 1.49x to 1.43x in a year (forget 2020) I don't believe.

Renato Canova wrote:

Can you answer my question ?

I just have. But you have still to answer mine, which is at what point do you become suspicious the improvement isn't natural?

In the context of this discussion we have just seen a 34 year old sprinter near equal Flojo's best and a distance runner shatter the women's 10k record. I dont believe those either. Doping is too easy now. Few are caught.

For answering your question, we need absolutely to know many things about the athlete. I knew too many situations with athletes of very big talent that trained like amateurs till, maybe, 30 years of age, and when had the opportunity and the motivation for becoming professional had very strong changes in their performances.

The evolution of their performances in their career can't give any indication , if we don't know all what there is around them : motivation, family problems, to have a coach or not, to stay in a place where it's possible to have good training or not, if there are facilities or not, and, about Africans, if they are able to eat two times per day or no.

It seems you think athletes are not persons with all the normal problems everybody has in his life. For you, the only explanation of big improvements is doping, but athletes are normal persons, and can have a lot of problems not connected with their activity. I saw how Moses Mosop reacted to the divorce from Florende Kiplagat and the impossibility to see his daughter till her major age : the athlete running 2:03 his first marathon and able to destroy the WR on track of 30 km 40 days after that marathon, suiddenly disappeared : no more training, confusion in his mind, loss of motivation.

If I see the performance of an athlete lasting at the same medium international level for several years (for example, 3'39" or 1'47" for 4 following years), and suddenly an improvement till 3'32" and 1'44", of sure my first thought is not about doping, but about training. And, because this situation happened several times to myself, with big improvements when athletes of some age finally could come to the training camp, I absolutely am not suspicious about their improvement.

This doesn't means I deny the possibility of doping : I know somebody dramatically improving after doping (90% of his improvement for mental reasons, in any case). But the problem is that you systematically deny the possibility of improvement for training, and is very clear you don't have any practical experience driving you to your conclusions, but only fake belief in something read on newspapers, that is only the part of sport producing scoops for people ignoring what there is behind every performance.