Will you be able to look at a 15:00+ time for a woman without thinking. Well this is marathon pace. Why is this woman a pro? Why is she wasting her time?
…or a 30:14+ time. Again Marathon pace. Should a 30:00 race ever be shown on TV?
Can't count that 1:59:40 for purposes of this analysis because it was an exhibition or stunt as Steve Jones said and not ratified as a WR. Thus, have to use the 2:00:35 though I understand what you are getting at with the drafting advantage that Kiptum did not have.
In 2017, Ross Tucker and Jordan Santos-Concejero stated " The average male-female gap is currently 11.2 ± 1.0% for all running events."
Ruth's WR it's 8.6% slower than the Kipchoge sub-2 and 7.8% than Kiptum's official.
Either the men's WR is due to to come down to 1:56:30 or this is iffy.
There Is No magic Sauce wrote: You seem like an intelligent guy. How about you and I have a discussion about the nature of performance improvements? Because the general discussion is the same old misunderstandings of biology repeated over and over, since before either of us was born and it just reinforces institutionalised ignorance.
Let me start by saying that you are correct. There are many ways that athlete can break through historical "barriers" without doping. I think we agree on that. We've seen so much improvement all around the sport (from middle and high-schoolers to pros to the ultrarunning scene). People are able to run really, really fast without doping.
But there is also "magic sauce." It showed up in cycling and running in the 1990s. It was called EPO. How many other unknown variations on that theme must be out there? Just because I don't know about doping, doesn't mean people aren't doping.
In the 1990s, we didn't know what was going on, but athletes who had been World Champions could no longer hang with the peloton if they weren't taking the EPO. They claimed it was the training and the technology.
So while you are correct that humans still have "room to improve" over the old records, the rest of us are skeptical of results that are "too good to be true" and out of line with everything else the athlete has done in the past.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
When I saw the time she ran, I came on here. I have to say I am relieved that this was the title and first post of the thread, also that there are so many upvotes on it.
Relieved and very sad.
This sport is a total disaster. It's not worth it for anyone with a shred of integrity to take part in. We always knew that cheating was out there, but it's so blatant, so comical these days. What can you say?
Add this stupid "performance" to the list. The list that includes Sifan Hassan's "trebles", Jessica Hull's miraculous ascent, Georgia Bell's "inspiring" return to form, Lose the Faith Kipyegon, Kiera D'Amato's agelessness, and so so so many more.
We're supposed to clap our hands together, and be happy though, otherwise we are toxic.
It is a view I have long expressed but it doesn't win any friends amongst the believers in this cult.
You get a lot of hate because you will derail threads talking about athletes. Including High Schoolers. It is why people are predisposed to disagree with you, they simply don't like you.
Guess who isn't complaining about her time? Her fellow countrymen and other African men. Why? Because compared to them she is where she should be. It is a different bar to be met. None of America's male marathoners would even make the Kenyan men's Olympic team. By Kenya's standards, the bar for marathoning in America is low. The rest of the world isn't gonna press the brakes on forward progress to give you Americans chance to play catch up.
But when Jakob run 7:17 in a 3000m you say its the good example of progress and the clean sport.
Evidently you never looked at the threads when that happened.
That's right. Chepngetich is slightly ahead of Kiptum if we assume women are 10% slower than men. But Kiptum clearly could have run faster given his negative splits. If we assume that he could run a full minute faster, AND put women only 9% or even slightly less ahead of men at the marathon (because they're better relative to men the further the distance), then Chepngetich's time today would be "in line" with men's times. As things are, though, it's true that Chepngetich's time today is slightly ahead of past men's times. How long will that last?
I assume that if Kiptum had lived, he would have run sub-2 in Rotterdam this past April.
But Kiptum was also a highly suspicious athlete who came from nowhere, ran three other-worldly marathons and then (sadly) died. Respect to him for being a huge baller and running super fast (like Ruth did today) but let's be honest, we were questioning him when he ran a random 2:01:53 in his debut (off a 28:30 10km road PR).
I talked to people at Nike not long after that who were "very curious" if that was too good to be true...
Her track times of 1526 and 31:47 were both run in Nairobi at high altitude and do not correlate with her road form.
Better to look at her recent road form in recent years where she has achieved multiple times of 104/1:05 to 106 in the half marathon, usually in Istanbul her favorite venue, where she is treated like a Goddess.
When she ran 30 minutes 29 seconds for the ten kilometers in Manchester on the road in 2022 that was also a good indication of her potential because that is by no means a fast course.
It was just a matter of time before she exploded, as she did today.
I think if she ran on the track with her present form she would achieve around 14:10-14:20/29:20-29:30, not the fastest but up there.
Chepngetich is one of those rare athletes who can hold her native speed at her best level the longest.
As someone else said, also the fact that she just had to sit in a seat following those two Kenyans for most of the race was a tremendous advantage. She has been practicing this for months on end in Kenya with male athletes pacing her and it was only a matter of time.
But when Jakob run 7:17 in a 3000m you say its the good example of progress and the clean sport.
The difference is that we've watched his training and progression from when he was like 14 years old. He might be doped, but we have other data points to go on.
With athletes who run one season of mediocre 10kms on the road and then move to the marathon, where they run an insane world record, we are (much) more doubtful.
Let me start by saying that you are correct. There are many ways that athlete can break through historical "barriers" without doping. I think we agree on that. We've seen so much improvement all around the sport (from middle and high-schoolers to pros to the ultrarunning scene). People are able to run really, really fast without doping.
But there is also "magic sauce." It showed up in cycling and running in the 1990s. It was called EPO. How many other unknown variations on that theme must be out there? Just because I don't know about doping, doesn't mean people aren't doping.
In the 1990s, we didn't know what was going on, but athletes who had been World Champions could no longer hang with the peloton if they weren't taking the EPO. They claimed it was the training and the technology.
So while you are correct that humans still have "room to improve" over the old records, the rest of us are skeptical of results that are "too good to be true" and out of line with everything else the athlete has done in the past.
So how do you propose that EPO is a magic sauce? How does it magically enhance metabolism?
Obviously it doesn't, because that's not how metabolism works, is it? From your HS Biology lesson did you not learn about thermoregulation, the basic survival mechanism of all living things?
Do you not suspect that a lot of 'Doctors' who distribute these so called 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' are actually dangerous quacks, exploiting vulnerable young athletes? And if so, how does that affect your understanding of my previous paragraph?
She should identify as transgender and compete with males. I am sure women would be fine with that direction. Not sure if that means guys would be getting dicked or chicked.
Let me start by saying that you are correct. There are many ways that athlete can break through historical "barriers" without doping. I think we agree on that. We've seen so much improvement all around the sport (from middle and high-schoolers to pros to the ultrarunning scene). People are able to run really, really fast without doping.
But there is also "magic sauce." It showed up in cycling and running in the 1990s. It was called EPO. How many other unknown variations on that theme must be out there? Just because I don't know about doping, doesn't mean people aren't doping.
In the 1990s, we didn't know what was going on, but athletes who had been World Champions could no longer hang with the peloton if they weren't taking the EPO. They claimed it was the training and the technology.
So while you are correct that humans still have "room to improve" over the old records, the rest of us are skeptical of results that are "too good to be true" and out of line with everything else the athlete has done in the past.
So how do you propose that EPO is a magic sauce? How does it magically enhance metabolism?
Obviously it doesn't, because that's not how metabolism works, is it? From your HS Biology lesson did you not learn about thermoregulation, the basic survival mechanism of all living things?
Do you not suspect that a lot of 'Doctors' who distribute these so called 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' are actually dangerous quacks, exploiting vulnerable young athletes? And if so, how does that affect your understanding of my previous paragraph?
We know that EPO works. Are you doubting that? If it didn't increase the production of red blood cells, why would doctors even feel it was indicated in helping cancer patients?
And you don't doubt that hematocrit levels help in endurance sports, do you?
We know that EPO works. Are you doubting that? If it didn't increase the production of red blood cells, why would doctors even feel it was indicated in helping cancer patients?
And you don't doubt that hematocrit levels help in endurance sports, do you?