We merged two threads on the same topic and kept the one started by Rojo as Rojo's was started first and its his website. The 2nd thread was titled, "Random Swede runs 12:44 to smack the Africans and set new European record!?"
You didn't understand the comment. It requires more than doping. But doping is required on top of training to beat those who do both.
Gordon Pirie Murray Halberg Peter Snell Ron Clarke Billy Mills Jim Ryun Ian Stewart Dave Bedford Dave Wottle Frank Shorter Brendan Foster Sebastian Coe Steve Ovett Steve Cram Steve Scott Peter Elliott Sonia O’Sullivan Nick Willis Jake Wightman Josh Kerr
All of the above bested known drugs cheats in competition. You would argue that they all must have also taken drugs in order to have gotten the better of those known cheats.
You just listed as many athletes as you could for the last 70 years. Bollocks. Doping scarcely existed in distant running till the 70's. But when it is a commonplace, as it is today, then at championship level the dopers have a clear advantage over clean athletes or they wouldn't dope and the practice wouldn't have become a virtual norm in the sport. The denial here knows no limits.
Competing at running requires endurance, strength and speed. So how has that changed?
The goals are to increase all but the Devil is in the details, is it not? I’d argue that you would struggle to find a coach with long term success that doesn’t modify their training programme over time, given results, feedback and additional research.
You’re making that case that coaches and physiologists are obsolete and that every middle distance runner should just order themselves a copy of Peter Coe’s book and save themselves the additional cost.
“Close the patent office, for everything that can be invented already has been invented.”
Individual athletes and their coaches will tailor their training to suit. But the principles remain the same as they have been for decades. Great athletes have succeeded without attending training seminars. Snell said after decades of academic research into sports performance that the principles of training are "quite simple".
Gordon Pirie Murray Halberg Peter Snell Ron Clarke Billy Mills Jim Ryun Ian Stewart Dave Bedford Dave Wottle Frank Shorter Brendan Foster Sebastian Coe Steve Ovett Steve Cram Steve Scott Peter Elliott Sonia O’Sullivan Nick Willis Jake Wightman Josh Kerr
All of the above bested known drugs cheats in competition. You would argue that they all must have also taken drugs in order to have gotten the better of those known cheats.
You just listed as many athletes as you could for the last 70 years. Bollocks. Doping scarcely existed in distant running till the 70's. But when it is a commonplace, as it is today, then at championship level the dopers have a clear advantage over clean athletes or they wouldn't dope and the practice wouldn't have become a virtual norm in the sport. The denial here knows no limits.
You are fooling yourself if you believe that there was a single Soviet athlete in the Olympic Games that wasn’t given drugs, either with or without their knowledge. Kuts was being given testosterone by the Soviet team doctors when he defeated Pirie in Melbourne and when Pirie bested him over 5000m in Bergen.
Arzhanov was being given drugs when he lost to Wottle. Viren was blood doping as well as using testosterone when Foster defeated him at the European Championships. Kirov was being given drugs when he lost to Ovett and Coe in Moscow. Szabo was using drugs when she finished fourth behind Sonia in Gothenburg. Katir was a known drugs cheat when he lost to Wightman in Eugene.
Drugs cheats can and do lose to legitimate athletes.
Andreas Almgren ran 59:23 in his half marathon debut, with double threshold training and being a training partner of Ingebrigtsen. You would know this if you followed the sport, but you don't.
Then you should revisit the Ingebrigtsen HM threads where the prevailing view was that his training didn't suit the longer distance.
Why would I do that when I can listen to what Almgren and Jakob says themselves? Almgren became the third fastest non-African in the HM in his debut and says he knows Jakob is significantly better than him at every distance because he sees what Jakob is capable of since they're training partners.
You just listed as many athletes as you could for the last 70 years. Bollocks. Doping scarcely existed in distant running till the 70's. But when it is a commonplace, as it is today, then at championship level the dopers have a clear advantage over clean athletes or they wouldn't dope and the practice wouldn't have become a virtual norm in the sport. The denial here knows no limits.
You are fooling yourself if you believe that there was a single Soviet athlete in the Olympic Games that wasn’t given drugs, either with or without their knowledge. Kuts was being given testosterone by the Soviet team doctors when he defeated Pirie in Melbourne and when Pirie bested him over 5000m in Bergen.
Arzhanov was being given drugs when he lost to Wottle. Viren was blood doping as well as using testosterone when Foster defeated him at the European Championships. Kirov was being given drugs when he lost to Ovett and Coe in Moscow. Szabo was using drugs when she finished fourth behind Sonia in Gothenburg. Katir was a known drugs cheat when he lost to Wightman in Eugene.
Drugs cheats can and do lose to legitimate athletes.
They mostly don't, which is the simple and logical reason why so many athletes have doped and do so. They gain advantage over clean athletes. If Ingebrigtsen were to dope (assuming he isn't) what are the chances the doped version of himself would be better than the clean version? And what are the chances he would have won the global 1500 titles where he was beaten? When the margins are so small at the top the doped athlete is likely to beat the clean athlete.
Then you should revisit the Ingebrigtsen HM threads where the prevailing view was that his training didn't suit the longer distance.
Why would I do that when I can listen to what Almgren and Jakob says themselves? Almgren became the third fastest non-African in the HM in his debut and says he knows Jakob is significantly better than him at every distance because he sees what Jakob is capable of since they're training partners.
Training isn't competing. But to those who think they know about these things there is a prevailing view that Ingebrigtsen's training isn't suited to the longer distances like the HM. It's either that or he lacks the talent he claims he has.
Why does this Armstronglivs person make five or ten posts in a row in so many threads? Is he mentally ill? Serious question.
To be mentally ill is the main reason for posting here. You should know this. Posts are also typically in response to posts by others. You should also know that. Are you mentally ill?
Why would I do that when I can listen to what Almgren and Jakob says themselves? Almgren became the third fastest non-African in the HM in his debut and says he knows Jakob is significantly better than him at every distance because he sees what Jakob is capable of since they're training partners.
Training isn't competing. But to those who think they know about these things there is a prevailing view that Ingebrigtsen's training isn't suited to the longer distances like the HM. It's either that or he lacks the talent he claims he has.
Do you understand the concept of "peaking"? Do you understand the concept of "specificity"? Do you understand that in the months before his half marathon Jakob was competing mostly over 1500m, with a handful of longer races, over 3,000m and 5,000m
And do you understand that peaking for 1500-5000 means training in a way that is not conducive to the best results in the half marathon?
Training isn't competing. But to those who think they know about these things there is a prevailing view that Ingebrigtsen's training isn't suited to the longer distances like the HM. It's either that or he lacks the talent he claims he has.
Do you understand the concept of "peaking"? Do you understand the concept of "specificity"? Do you understand that in the months before his half marathon Jakob was competing mostly over 1500m, with a handful of longer races, over 3,000m and 5,000m
And do you understand that peaking for 1500-5000 means training in a way that is not conducive to the best results in the half marathon?
Clearly you don't understand any of this.
What I understand is that there are always excuses for Jakob. What you overlook is that he has said he is a "half marathon man" and that the half marathon is his "best distance".
Do you understand the concept of "peaking"? Do you understand the concept of "specificity"? Do you understand that in the months before his half marathon Jakob was competing mostly over 1500m, with a handful of longer races, over 3,000m and 5,000m
And do you understand that peaking for 1500-5000 means training in a way that is not conducive to the best results in the half marathon?
Clearly you don't understand any of this.
What I understand is that there are always excuses for Jakob. What you overlook is that he has said he is a "half marathon man" and that the half marathon is his "best distance".
He really thinks Jakob thought to be better in the 5000m than in the 3000m (7:17.55) - so very close to 12:30.
And that he even was better in the 10000m - so around 25:55.
And that he even was better in the HM - so around 56:00.
Is it even possible someone is that stupid? Yes, Arm is.