Mo Farah ran a couple 3:28s at the age of 30 and 32. At that time, he was #6 all time fastest.
Nick Willis never broke 3:30 until he was 31, and his PB was set at 32.
Seb Coe's PB was set just shy of his 30th birthday.
I agree with the posters that say "look at context". To run sub-3:30 requires getting in a race that can be that fast, with high quality competition and fast tracks, wavelights, new shoes, bicarb, etc.
according to pundits, koech is clean as he is too young and innocent. he looks youthful so he is legit. habz is the only doper in this race. of course i admit there exist an 18 yr old hamza driouch and mo aman who were caught dopers but koech seems like the real deal.
You thought that everything was finished with the late testing AIU regulations?
Your fiesta is only starting.
Habz was only naturalized French in 2018 and represent what they call:
"the submerged part of the iceberg"
There is a thing called "talent" and "natural predispositions"
Just look at your example Max Burgin he is caped as Josh Hoey, Bryce Hoppel are caped.
They can spend months using artificial and technological methods, their results will always look artificial.
I continue to be impressed by the number of posters who feel some need to re-express their faith in myths that athletes must be allegedly taking some alleged PEDs, based apparently on their own gut intuitions, as if doping were a viable candidate explanation for these fast times. Especially amusing to me are the good old favorites who still think EPO can produce these times (because it is micro-dosed?) in such large numbers, despite not doing so in the EPO-era, before the current SuperShoe-era, especially in the '90s when no test existed for EPO or blood transfusions.
Yomif Kejelcha the worst last lap runner of all time? It's probably still Stewy McSweyn.
Way off topic, but making this statement based on his 5k in Paris makes me think you’re losing touch with what racing actually feels like. Yes he ran 65.5 for the last 400 here, but that’s because he was completely fried from running 5:00.9 from 2k to 4k which nobody even dared compete with. He could blend in fine with 53-56 second last laps if he didn’t often put himself out there for records and to give himself the best chance to win.
Mo Farah ran a couple 3:28s at the age of 30 and 32. At that time, he was #6 all time fastest.
Nick Willis never broke 3:30 until he was 31, and his PB was set at 32.
Seb Coe's PB was set just shy of his 30th birthday.
I agree with the posters that say "look at context". To run sub-3:30 requires getting in a race that can be that fast, with high quality competition and fast tracks, wavelights, new shoes, bicarb, etc.
Well Mo Farah is not a good example to compare to if you're making the case for Habz being clean. And his pbs were the result of running the 1500m at Monaco at a late age.
1980's runners like Coe (especially 800/1500 guys) only had maybe 2 fast 1500m races a season. Everybody knows he would have run much faster at his peak if not for woeful pacemaking.
Habz turns 32 next month. He is practically 32.
I do agree though that the Paris track is obvioulsy insanely fast. I'm surprised it hasn't already become the new Monaco with all the top guys wanting to set their pb on it.
This post was edited 50 seconds after it was posted.
Stars aligned for this magical race. Home-ish crowd. Even (wavelight) pacing until 1k with the pacemaker screaming him on to break the French NR as he stepped off. Koech threatening at 150 to go to insert adrenaline, reminding me of Jim Spivey's quote at the end of races: "What are you gonna do? Are you going to let these people come in and steal everything out of your house, or are you going to defend what’s yours?"
That is light years the best summary in the thread. Nobody else even bothered to account for the situational influence.
This race was set up for Habz. It's probably the only time in his career that will happen. They moved a non-Diamond League race into the Diamond League window for him. Every variable cooperated.
I knew it wouldn't be a normal race when Stefan Nillessen settled fairly close to the lead in a fast pace. He's never done anything like that.
Jakob has often bemoaned the lack of ideal pacing in some of his record attempts, that he'd like to have something similar to what El Gerrouj enjoyed. This is as close as we've seen to that, with the meet director screaming at the pacemaker and then the pacemaker screaming encouragement to Habz. Habz ran near the minimum distance. Those measures have been available in horse racing (trip handicapping) for decades and have finally emerged in this sport.
Coming off the final turn with 150 to go I expected Habz to flatten out. But then the key moment, just as runfrancisco described. This wasn't solo. Koech was right there. In a solo race Habz was favorite to flatten out. But you could see the determination etched on his face. The infield camera angle was perfect. He kicked again. It's the most energy and motivation he'll ever have in his athletic life.
If he ran 3:28 but lost the crowd would have been deflated and the commentators offering rationalizations. Instead Habz had his defining moment. Never a sleepless second guessing. He's not a 3:27 runner. He ran 3:27 on that day.
So you will say the same when he runs 3:26. It was "just his day".
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
Si absolutamente. We need dopers who are patient, kind, loving, long suffering, meek, humble go to church or mosque and announce God boldly like Ryan Hall to appease us intelligent antidoping catchers!
Mo Farah ran a couple 3:28s at the age of 30 and 32. At that time, he was #6 all time fastest.
Nick Willis never broke 3:30 until he was 31, and his PB was set at 32.
Seb Coe's PB was set just shy of his 30th birthday.
I agree with the posters that say "look at context". To run sub-3:30 requires getting in a race that can be that fast, with high quality competition and fast tracks, wavelights, new shoes, bicarb, etc.
Well Mo Farah is not a good example to compare to if you're making the case for Habz being clean. And his pbs were the result of running the 1500m at Monaco at a late age.
1980's runners like Coe (especially 800/1500 guys) only had maybe 2 fast 1500m races a season. Everybody knows he would have run much faster at his peak if not for woeful pacemaking.
Habz turns 32 next month. He is practically 32.
I do agree though that the Paris track is obvioulsy insanely fast. I'm surprised it hasn't already become the new Monaco with all the top guys wanting to set their pb on it.
Way too fast obscenely fast. This is no longer the sport we knew. The rules are skewed and the doping is next level !!
Likely there is - the one the Americans, British and Norwegians are taking
or are you arguing that a Kenyan has to be on drugs to still be slower than an American or Norwegian ‘clean’
Hi Toasted Avocado, you've been making this argument for years. I asked ChatGPT who the most inelligent poster in LetsRun is, and it actually claimed it was you!!
We know that Indians, for example, have rampant doping probably on a similar scale to Kenyans. Yet they still can't get near even sub-elite status. What does that prove exactly? The whole world is in fact doping as hard as Indians? The Nigerian record is something like 3:39. If it transpired that that was doped, does that mean Brits are doping because it's impossible a doped Nigerian can only run 10+ seconds slower than the best Brits?
You also believe that Kenyans have a genetic or some other advantage that isn't doping, despite the clear and proven rampant doping there. Why is the idea that they might actually have a disadvantage that is overcome with doping any less irrational?
I can't say what Kenyans would be running clean, as from the number of doping busts it's reasonable to suppose that virtually all elite Kenyans dope to some extent, and probably have for decades. It's entirely reasonable to suppose that the top sub 3:30 guys would be similar to Manangoi off the juice - struggling to break 3:36.
We also know that Herb Elliott ran 3:35 in an Olympic final on cinders when he was ill, was a heavy smoker, and only started training seriously at the end of the winter. He was also only 22 years of age. Given that this was 1960, and the sport was completely amateur (he even turned down a million dollar offer to go professional) it's hardly likely he was doping, and we know for sure he didn't have EPO or even blood doping. It's quite reasonable to suppose that if Herb Elliot had been around today with all the advantages, training as a full-time pro runner and continuing until his athletic peak in his mid-twenties, he would run sub 3:25.
The fact that East Africans fail miserably at every other sport indicates that their only advantage is in having light frames (itself to a large part environmental), and are not good 'athletes'. It also explains why even Kenyan distance runners need to roid. That and the rampant doping and that virtually all professional sportsmen in East Africa are distance runners. So if there is any genetic difference between Kenyans and Brits, it's likely a disadvantage for Kenyans.
If you somehow could select the best 1 in a million talents from both Kenya and GB, gave them the same identical lifestyle, diet, training etc from a young age, and of course, the same drug testing, then perhaps the British guy would end up running 3:25 and the Kenyan 3:35.
Cheers!
You have overstated your case about Herb Elliott. He was a smoker before he took up serious running in 1957; although being treated for a complaint before the Rome final he had recovered when he ran the final - as his world record showed - and he was also a highly-trained athlete who later said one of the reasons he gave up the sport was the sheer amount of hard work he had to put in.
Yomif Kejelcha the worst last lap runner of all time? It's probably still Stewy McSweyn.
Way off topic, but making this statement based on his 5k in Paris makes me think you’re losing touch with what racing actually feels like. Yes he ran 65.5 for the last 400 here, but that’s because he was completely fried from running 5:00.9 from 2k to 4k which nobody even dared compete with. He could blend in fine with 53-56 second last laps if he didn’t often put himself out there for records and to give himself the best chance to win.
I don’t think that’s the “worst last lap runner of all time.”
Actually dearest John, the right way for Thoughtsleader to wrote his statement would be:
The worst last lap runner IN SPACE AND TIME and not OF ALL SPACE AND TIME!!
You see the difference an advanced physicist like me has contributed to Thoughtsleader’s statement? Downvote or upvote me ALL THE SAME if you were impressed with my physical nuance!
Way off topic, but making this statement based on his 5k in Paris makes me think you’re losing touch with what racing actually feels like. Yes he ran 65.5 for the last 400 here, but that’s because he was completely fried from running 5:00.9 from 2k to 4k which nobody even dared compete with. He could blend in fine with 53-56 second last laps if he didn’t often put himself out there for records and to give himself the best chance to win.
I don’t think that’s the “worst last lap runner of all time.”
Again I was mostly joking and clarified later. But Yomif in the last 400 has lost so many medals. And it is a problem of conserving his energy not the engine. His last 100 he is often going way backwards, as opposed to gaining steam or at least maintaining.
That's odd that you admit your respect for doping apologists, however I never apologize for doping.
To the extent you have any scientific or physical thoughts, you seem to have polluted your thinking with a bunch of non-scientific nonsense and illogic.
Many posters here believe and have long argued that Nick Willis was the clean world record holder before supershoes, while also insist their beliefs are not racist.
Whether any of these runners are clean or dirty seems irrelevant until we establish that a PED even exists that would make their dirty times faster than their clean ability, for these elite level 1500m performances. Until then, we are speculating purely on the bases of beliefs.
Well Mo Farah is not a good example to compare to if you're making the case for Habz being clean. And his pbs were the result of running the 1500m at Monaco at a late age.
1980's runners like Coe (especially 800/1500 guys) only had maybe 2 fast 1500m races a season. Everybody knows he would have run much faster at his peak if not for woeful pacemaking.
Habz turns 32 next month. He is practically 32.
I do agree though that the Paris track is obvioulsy insanely fast. I'm surprised it hasn't already become the new Monaco with all the top guys wanting to set their pb on it.
See above -- apparently Nick Willis is also dirty according to the Mr. Physics, and I also recall many rumors of Seb Coe doping as evidenced by his toxoplasmosis. Someone recently told me that Coe was doping with EPO in the '70s.
The point is that everyone can speculate that anyone is dirty on the flimsiest basis.
I think there’s been stuff written about Habz but he was not a serious pro until age 26-27. I’ll look if we can exactly know why. It’s different than Farah who went from elite also-ran to world beater. Habz was on the fringe of sub-elite.
Heres an article that doesn’t go too far back but has some interesting details on training:
Hi Toasted Avocado, you've been making this argument for years. I asked ChatGPT who the most inelligent poster in LetsRun is, and it actually claimed it was you!!
We know that Indians, for example, have rampant doping probably on a similar scale to Kenyans. Yet they still can't get near even sub-elite status. What does that prove exactly? The whole world is in fact doping as hard as Indians? The Nigerian record is something like 3:39. If it transpired that that was doped, does that mean Brits are doping because it's impossible a doped Nigerian can only run 10+ seconds slower than the best Brits?
You also believe that Kenyans have a genetic or some other advantage that isn't doping, despite the clear and proven rampant doping there. Why is the idea that they might actually have a disadvantage that is overcome with doping any less irrational?
I can't say what Kenyans would be running clean, as from the number of doping busts it's reasonable to suppose that virtually all elite Kenyans dope to some extent, and probably have for decades. It's entirely reasonable to suppose that the top sub 3:30 guys would be similar to Manangoi off the juice - struggling to break 3:36.
We also know that Herb Elliott ran 3:35 in an Olympic final on cinders when he was ill, was a heavy smoker, and only started training seriously at the end of the winter. He was also only 22 years of age. Given that this was 1960, and the sport was completely amateur (he even turned down a million dollar offer to go professional) it's hardly likely he was doping, and we know for sure he didn't have EPO or even blood doping. It's quite reasonable to suppose that if Herb Elliot had been around today with all the advantages, training as a full-time pro runner and continuing until his athletic peak in his mid-twenties, he would run sub 3:25.
The fact that East Africans fail miserably at every other sport indicates that their only advantage is in having light frames (itself to a large part environmental), and are not good 'athletes'. It also explains why even Kenyan distance runners need to roid. That and the rampant doping and that virtually all professional sportsmen in East Africa are distance runners. So if there is any genetic difference between Kenyans and Brits, it's likely a disadvantage for Kenyans.
If you somehow could select the best 1 in a million talents from both Kenya and GB, gave them the same identical lifestyle, diet, training etc from a young age, and of course, the same drug testing, then perhaps the British guy would end up running 3:25 and the Kenyan 3:35.
Cheers!
You have overstated your case about Herb Elliott. He was a smoker before he took up serious running in 1957; although being treated for a complaint before the Rome final he had recovered when he ran the final - as his world record showed - and he was also a highly-trained athlete who later said one of the reasons he gave up the sport was the sheer amount of hard work he had to put in.
Well I've read articles on his 1960 Rome run that contradicts those points. For example, he (or the article - I'll try to dig it out) states that he gave up smoking at the end of the winter and returned to serious training (he'd essentially taken the whole of 1959 off).
Yes, he 'recovered' to the extent of winning the Gold medal and setting a WR in the process, but having an illness and being treated with penicillin 48 hours before the final makes it unlikely he was 100% in the final. He was just so much better than anybody else at that time.
Hard training by the standards of 1960, yes, and especially because his coach was unconventional and got him to do things like 100m uphill on sand dunes.
He retired because he had a choice of continuing on for no money or studying at Cambridge University, which for a young Australian was probably almost as prestigeous as winning an Olympic gold (and far more guaranteed to lead to a successful professional career for the rest of your working life).
You like to underplay the times that Elliott and Snell were capable of because you base your whole argument about 'everybody dopes today' on the fact that the top guys today are so much faster, even teens.
There is no way that 3:35 was Elliott's limit in the 1960's, especially if he had carried on.