In the multiverse universe in which there is still no testing for EPO, here are the results of the 2022 World Championships men's 1500m final :
1. Katir 3:23.5
2. Elijah Manangoi 3:23.7
3. George Manangoi 3:24.5
4. Mario Garcia 3:24.7
5. Elhassane Moujahid 3:24.9
6. Asbel Kipsang 3:25.6
7. Teddese Lemi 3:26.0
8. Unkown Algerian 3:26.5
9. Centrowitz 3:26.8
10. Asbel Kiprop 3:28.9
(*note : Jakob won multiple gold medals in the xcountry ski at the winter olympics. Josh Kerr has represented Scotland at rugby over 50 times. Jake Wightman was eliminated in the heats. Stewert McSweyen is an Australian professional cricketer.
There are heated debates on LetsRun as to who is the greatest 1500m runner in history - El G or Manangoi (with a few claiming that Katir has already surpassed both with his Tokyo/Oregon golds and 3:22.0 WR).
-
16
-
Trollspotting wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. Jon, why do you lie so much? She did have "well-known issues with her ABP", at least three times actually, and FYI, decreases of over 20% in ret-% - obviously a relative measure! - have nothing to do with "changes in plasma volume".
And of course, none of these facts have anything to do with me. Good trolling to pull me back into this thread though.
20% change in ret? Reticulocytes? That's normal for altitude training.
You mean Hematocrit? And even then it's Easily explainable by dehydration. You know this , but you keep trolling her. Why?
LOL. Jon, why do you lie so much?
1) A 20% decrease in reticulocyte-% could easily happen at altitude, but as you should know, it happened to her twice at worlds within a couple of days (not at altitude).
2) A 20% decrease in hematocrit is "Easily explainable by dehydration"?? Hahahahaha, that's rich. But that might explain why you think I am the troll.
3) I don't mean hematocrit. Why do you capitalize it?
30 -
casual obsever wrote:
Trollspotting wrote:
20% change in ret? Reticulocytes? That's normal for altitude training.
You mean Hematocrit? And even then it's Easily explainable by dehydration. You know this , but you keep trolling her. Why?
LOL. Jon, why do you lie so much?
1) A 20% decrease in reticulocyte-% could easily happen at altitude, but as you should know, it happened to her twice at worlds within a couple of days (not at altitude).
2) A 20% decrease in hematocrit is "Easily explainable by dehydration"?? Hahahahaha, that's rich. But that might explain why you think I am the troll.
3) I don't mean hematocrit. Why do you capitalize it?
1) So reticulocytes decreased after altitude? Yes, that's normal.
2) Where did you get 20% decrease in hematocrit from?
3) What are you going on about exactly?
4) What is you interest in hematology?
01 -
Trollspotting wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. Jon, why do you lie so much?
1) A 20% decrease in reticulocyte-% could easily happen at altitude, but as you should know, it happened to her twice at worlds within a couple of days (not at altitude).
2) A 20% decrease in hematocrit is "Easily explainable by dehydration"?? Hahahahaha, that's rich. But that might explain why you think I am the troll.
3) I don't mean hematocrit. Why do you capitalize it?
1) So reticulocytes decreased after altitude? Yes, that's normal.
2) Where did you get 20% decrease in hematocrit from?
3) What are you going on about exactly?
4) What is you interest in hematology?
Oh man. Last answer.
1) No they didn't decrease after altitude - you just pretended they did to make excuses for her. Again, they decreased at worlds within a couple of days (not at altitude) - twice at two different worlds. Unfortunately for her, those facts got leaked.
2) Nowhere. It didn't. You just assumed it did for whatever reason, to then falsely claim that that would be explainable by dehydration.
3) I am correcting some of your lies. See for example 1) and 2).
4) Troll somebody else.
5) Why don't you use your registered name so I can put you on ignore? Oh wait, that one got banned for all your trolling and insults.
00 -
casual obsever wrote:
Trollspotting wrote:
1) So reticulocytes decreased after altitude? Yes, that's normal.
2) Where did you get 20% decrease in hematocrit from?
3) What are you going on about exactly?
4) What is you interest in hematology?
Oh man. Last answer.
1) No they didn't decrease after altitude - you just pretended they did to make excuses for her. Again, they decreased at worlds within a couple of days (not at altitude) - twice at two different worlds. Unfortunately for her, those facts got leaked.
2) Nowhere. It didn't. You just assumed it did for whatever reason, to then falsely claim that that would be explainable by dehydration.
3) I am correcting some of your lies. See for example 1) and 2).
4) Troll somebody else.
5) Why don't you use your registered name so I can put you on ignore? Oh wait, that one got banned for all your trolling and insults.
You're not making any sense, you keep contradicting yourself. You don't know anything about hematology. Your posts are just click bait. Defaming people with lies constantly.
I don't register for the above reasons. Isn't that obvious?
02 -
Patrick Sang wrote:
I don't get the obsession with shoes when criticizing the records, all elite athletes are wearing the same shoes anyway, why would you want to prevent technological advancement in the sport? Where do you draw the line? Should all athletes run barefoot again?
Why did they "draw the line" in swimming on suits? There are some lines drawn in cycling on bikes. Is adding some sort of electric boosters or wheels to the shoe too far? Of course. And they have drawn the line on stack height. So lines are absolutely drawn. Some think that the lines should have been drawn earlier/"further back.". That is not an unreasonable position.
21 -
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
Patrick Sang wrote:
I don't get the obsession with shoes when criticizing the records, all elite athletes are wearing the same shoes anyway, why would you want to prevent technological advancement in the sport? Where do you draw the line? Should all athletes run barefoot again?
Why did they "draw the line" in swimming on suits? There are some lines drawn in cycling on bikes. Is adding some sort of electric boosters or wheels to the shoe too far? Of course. And they have drawn the line on stack height. So lines are absolutely drawn. Some think that the lines should have been drawn earlier/"further back.". That is not an unreasonable position.
Exactly. There are rules about stack height, and given that rule-makers can't see more than two feet ahead of them, now the shoes are the correct stack height, but incredibly long and incredible wide. Remember the thing called a "lever?"
Nike is going to geometrically-drive Kipchoge to sub-2.
10 -
Coevett wrote:
In the multiverse universe in which there is still no testing for EPO, here are the results of the 2022 World Championships men's 1500m final :
1. Katir 3:23.5
2. Elijah Manangoi 3:23.7
3. George Manangoi 3:24.5
4. Mario Garcia 3:24.7
5. Elhassane Moujahid 3:24.9
6. Asbel Kipsang 3:25.6
7. Teddese Lemi 3:26.0
8. Unkown Algerian 3:26.5
9. Centrowitz 3:26.8
10. Asbel Kiprop 3:28.9
(*note : Jakob won multiple gold medals in the xcountry ski at the winter olympics. Josh Kerr has represented Scotland at rugby over 50 times. Jake Wightman was eliminated in the heats. Stewert McSweyen is an Australian professional cricketer.
There are heated debates on LetsRun as to who is the greatest 1500m runner in history - El G or Manangoi (with a few claiming that Katir has already surpassed both with his Tokyo/Oregon golds and 3:22.0 WR).That's a weird list. I guess it means that since almost all of those guys would be much faster than they actually are then most of them are not really dopers? Or you think they dope a little but full-fledged doping makes an astronomical difference and without any EPO at all they would be 3:40 runners? I guess you probably think the latter since you think you're white heroes, coe, cram, Ovett, Jakob, Wightman, etc are naturally at least 10 seconds faster than the best clean Africans.
20 -
If Kipchoge is caught doping there will be LRC suicides. He is the most hero-worshipped runner of all time at this point.
Didn't read through thread but I'm sure plenty of anger at the very suggestion of him doping.11 -
My vote is that he is dirty. My breaking point with him was years ago. Now that he is 38 plus and still breaking records is just an explanation point to my previous thought. It’s like Lance Armstrong all over again.
12 -
Clean Sport Advocate wrote:
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
This line of believing presupposes that such a PED exists, for the marathon runner, young or old, or that such a threshold exists, that can clearly separate dirty performances from the upper ceiling of clean performances.
If such a PED truly existed for the aging East African marathon runner, it must also exist for the non-East African runner, and we should be able to find comparable examples in history of similar improvements, as precedents, or as confirmation.
In 1985, Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones ran 2:07:12 and 2:07:13 respectively. These were world record performances at the time, but relatively slow times by today's modern marathon standards. What has happened among non-East Africans since? In the following 37 years, among the non-East African population, a total of 51 athletes have run as fast or faster, a total of 75 times. This population includes Russians, Moroccans, Bahranians, Spanish and other Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Oceanians, and North and South and Central Americans. The fastest among them is a Moroccan Bahranian who ran 2:04:43, or 2m30s faster. A Japanese runner, a country not often suspected of doping, has run a similar time of 2:04:56. The fastest European runner is a Norwegian runner who has run 2:05:48, or 1m25s faster . The fastest American, disregarding the wind-aided 2:04:58, is a Moroccan (2:05:38), and the fastest non-African American is 2:06:07, only 1m05s faster.
All 51 of these athletes were at most 2m30s faster than the 1985 performances of Steve Jones, and Carlos Lopes. This represents the cumulative benefit of any doping improvements, fast courses, incentivized paced races, super shoes, and event specialization, among the worldwide population of non-East Africans, for the 37 years since. Compare this to a total of 304 East Africans running as fast or faster, a total of 733 times, now the fastest being 6m03s faster.
02 -
Trollspotting wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
It's hard to compare Eliud to others because he's doing things no one's done before. Confirmed dopers haven't been able to do what he does or have the same longevity.
I think the problem with these types of threads and these drug fanatics is that they don't know any elite athletes, so they fill in the blanks with fantasy.
Nope. You're wrong there too.
10 -
Clean Sport Advocate wrote:
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
Kipchoge has been competing at a world class level for nearly 20 years. He's had hundreds of drug tests...hundreds of close contacts over the years. It's extremely unlikely he's managed dope and get away with it all these years. The anti-Lance.
He'll slow down over the next year or two. It's not crazy for an extremely talented 37 year old with massive aerobic base to knock one out of the park. Maybe he's got one or two more good ones left in him.
31 -
rekrunner wrote:
Clean Sport Advocate wrote:
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
This line of believing presupposes that such a PED exists, for the marathon runner, young or old, or that such a threshold exists, that can clearly separate dirty performances from the upper ceiling of clean performances.
If such a PED truly existed for the aging East African marathon runner, it must also exist for the non-East African runner, and we should be able to find comparable examples in history of similar improvements, as precedents, or as confirmation.
In 1985, Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones ran 2:07:12 and 2:07:13 respectively. These were world record performances at the time, but relatively slow times by today's modern marathon standards. What has happened among non-East Africans since? In the following 37 years, among the non-East African population, a total of 51 athletes have run as fast or faster, a total of 75 times. This population includes Russians, Moroccans, Bahranians, Spanish and other Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Oceanians, and North and South and Central Americans. The fastest among them is a Moroccan Bahranian who ran 2:04:43, or 2m30s faster. A Japanese runner, a country not often suspected of doping, has run a similar time of 2:04:56. The fastest European runner is a Norwegian runner who has run 2:05:48, or 1m25s faster . The fastest American, disregarding the wind-aided 2:04:58, is a Moroccan (2:05:38), and the fastest non-African American is 2:06:07, only 1m05s faster.
All 51 of these athletes were at most 2m30s faster than the 1985 performances of Steve Jones, and Carlos Lopes. This represents the cumulative benefit of any doping improvements, fast courses, incentivized paced races, super shoes, and event specialization, among the worldwide population of non-East Africans, for the 37 years since. Compare this to a total of 304 East Africans running as fast or faster, a total of 733 times, now the fastest being 6m03s faster.
Only Lopes set a record with his time.
00 -
Trollspotting wrote:
fkkfkfkfkf wrote:
To some extent these arguments break down to if you believe
A) there is a limit to human performance that you can get to with training/genetics that drugs don't push you past
B) drugs can push you past those limits
We know the drugs can cause huge improvements in aerobic performance (30s over 5k for a 14 min giy) in sub elite guys but that doesn't mean a 1240 guy would be a 13:10 guy without drugs. Maybe they only get a 10s improvement. Or if you believe in A, maybe you have the guy who gets 0.
Personally I am voting for B. I think there is zero chance that drugs that improve recovery and the like don't let you training beyond the limits of clean athletes. Go look at bodybuilding for clear examples of how drugs push you beyond clean human limits.
The only question is are the advantages of B big enough so that a clean runner has no chance.
There is nothing about Kipchoge's physiology that is exceptional. He has been tested by Professor Andy Jones who found that his oxygen uptake was the same as millions of other runnerd bit he was very efficient at
If it wasn't exceptional everyone would be doing it. Moran.
00 -
runnER/DR wrote:
Clean Sport Advocate wrote:
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
Kipchoge has been competing at a world class level for nearly 20 years. He's had hundreds of drug tests...hundreds of close contacts over the years. It's extremely unlikely he's managed dope and get away with it all these years. The anti-Lance.
He'll slow down over the next year or two. It's not crazy for an extremely talented 37 year old with massive aerobic base to knock one out of the park. Maybe he's got one or two more good ones left in him.
At last! Some sanity in a cesspit of circumstantial bile and speculation.
31 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
HRE wrote:
You've got guys like Jack Foster and John Campbell getting their fastest marathon times at 41 and 40. So I think people who aren't now suspicious will look to those two and think someone that age can still get a best time. It's worth noting that both of these guys were relative newcomers to the marathon and were possibly "fresher" for not having decades of hard running on their legs, unlike Kipchoge. But Kipchoge's covered the distance in under two hours so you can argue that even at, say, 2:00:30, he's still not running his best. Beyond that? Abdirahman was 43 when he made the last Olympic team. So I think there's some time yet before those who think he's legitimate will start wondering.
Were Foster and Campbell setting wr's and annihilating all opposition?
Of course not. But they were running their best then so people who think Kipchoge's performances are unaided will see them as proof that he's not too old to be getting PBs.
11 -
Trollspotting wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
It's hard to compare Eliud to others because he's doing things no one's done before. Confirmed dopers haven't been able to do what he does or have the same longevity.
I think the problem with these types of threads and these drug fanatics is that they don't know any elite athletes, so they fill in the blanks with fantasy.
I know several elite athletes, ones from my generation. As a group they're very, very, skeptical about the legitimacy of today's performances.
11 -
NAUSUX wrote:
Wow, I just lost a lot of brain cells reading through that. Trollspotting and HRE, please find some hobbies.
Have you considered that this IS our hobby?
40
