Respected commentator Tim Hutchings calls out times from past drug era, says more natural levels now.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

In every case the difference between the men and women is 10% or so in the record books. Even the supposedly superhuman exploits of Flo Jo.

This is just flat-out false. Typical performance differences between men and women across sports are 10-12%. If you look at the 2018 lists, here's what you see for the fastest times in a few events:

400m: 48.97 / 43.61 -> 12.3%

100m: 10.85/9.88 -> 9.8%

If you look at Koch's 400m compared to the men's WR in 1985 (which was Lee Evans' altitude assisted time), you get:

47.60 / 43.86 -> 8.5%

If you look at Flo Jo's time, which you brought up yourself, compared to the men's record when she set that mark, you get:

10.49 / 9.93 -> 5.6%

Those two performances are great examples of a narrower gap between men's and women's performances during the era of unfettered steroid use.

Not that I want to justify myself as a target, but I was the first person an English running forum to point out that on of Aouita's doctors had been arrested for supplying peds, or that Beyer's (and Jens Peter Herold and Kirov's) former coach had been convicted of supplying life-threatening peds to kids in Germany. I might be a nobody, but it's apparent I've upset a few people here. Hopefully they are just crazed nobodies like you, and I'm not in any danger.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Some stats about how common (or rare) sub-12:50 was:

Post ABP, only one race was sub-12:50 -- Paris 2012

That's part of the point here, another part is that that happened six years ago.

In addition, there hasn't even been a single sub-13 in this year yet.

Best times per year in this decase (I posted something like that last last week...):

2018: 13:01.09

2017: 12:55.23

2016: 12:59.29

2015: 12:53.98 [Diack's reign ended]

2014: 12:54.83 [the IAAF bribery scandal broke]

2013: 12:51.34

2012: 12:46.81

2011: 12:53.11

(I hope I didn't overlook anything)

Last decade, over 14 years ago, we saw a 12:37, literally unthinkable nowadays, despite the fancy super shoes and Monaco track and alter-G treadmill etc.

Eliud Kipchoge ran faster than the fastest time on your list12:46.53 in 2004 . You think he was doped then, Do you think he is doped now? Do you think he is being protected or too smart for the testers?

How much do you believe in the PED concept? And why?

tempoman wrote:

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

In every case the difference between the men and women is 10% or so in the record books. Even the supposedly superhuman exploits of Flo Jo.

This is just flat-out false. Typical performance differences between men and women across sports are 10-12%. If you look at the 2018 lists, here's what you see for the fastest times in a few events:

400m: 48.97 / 43.61 -> 12.3%

100m: 10.85/9.88 -> 9.8%

If you look at Koch's 400m compared to the men's WR in 1985 (which was Lee Evans' altitude assisted time), you get:

47.60 / 43.86 -> 8.5%

If you look at Flo Jo's time, which you brought up yourself, compared to the men's record when she set that mark, you get:

10.49 / 9.93 -> 5.6%

Those two performances are great examples of a narrower gap between men's and women's performances during the era of unfettered steroid use.

I'm not comparing year to year in male and female world records, just observing a 10% gender difference in the all time lists. World records are usually outliers are they not?

And why do you think that men's times in the 80s when doping was rife were slower than todays's times?

Is doping even more rife now than " during the era of unfettered steroid use"?

Coevett wrote:

Not that I want to justify myself as a target, but I was the first person an English running forum to point out that on of Aouita's doctors had been arrested for supplying peds, or that Beyer's (and Jens Peter Herold and Kirov's) former coach had been convicted of supplying life-threatening peds to kids in Germany. I might be a nobody, but it's apparent I've upset a few people here. Hopefully they are just crazed nobodies like you, and I'm not in any danger.

You're not in any danger. Nobody really cares who you are or what you believe.

I'm aware of the situation with David Torrence. I don't see any commonality with your situation.

Coevett wrote:

And why is comparing my situation with David Torrence bizarre? Hopefully it's not comparable at all, but the fact is he died in suspcious circumstances after receiving death threats online, and his family and many here feel it might have been due to his discussion of the doping problem in Kenya. I'm going to take seriously threats against me made on the leading running forum for highlighting the doping problem in Kenya. I appreciate you're low IQ, but at the end of the day, the only thing that should concern you is if you made any of these threats, and whether you did so under your regular IP.

As far as being 'anonymous' I've had a number of implied threats of doxxing, and one person did so explicitly.

I study exercise physiology and you're point is utterly wrong.

rekrunner wrote:

I stopped reading there. I don't think Lombard is part of the Tim Hutching's discussion about sub-12:50 runners.

A fully doped Lombard would get lapped by Bekele, in the 5000m, and is still half a lap behind the "natural level" runners today.

That's not point - the poster brought up Lombard and you throw out your usual gibberish - you think every EPO user is apotential WR record holder.

An elite runner experiencing a significant improvement with EPO?

Who ever heard of such a thing?

It can't be.

And it's irrelevant anyway because the guy isn't a potential WR record holder.

Nothing to see there.

rekrunner knows everything because he reads books on logical fallacies.

Que Sera Sera.....

You need to keep studying. Learn about theromoregulation.

What's the obsession with Cathal Lombard? Get over it. Get over him. Get over the whole EPO cult nonsense.

People keep reporting that the EPO era cyclists were producing 7 watts per kilo at 'threshold'

When it was actually 6 watts per kilo. The madness goes on and on. It's a weird religious cult. Get away from it.

Nobody knows or cares who you are, you utter nutcase.

Stating public records like arrests and court convictions are not new information! Torrence potentially had inside info because he was an elite athlete not a 60 year old park runner.

I know posting on here makes you feel important, but you have 0 impact in the real world. At least I realise this is just a forum for harmless and meaningless discussion. A time waster like watching YouTube.

You think you're fcking changing the world!!

Ah, but it is the point. Bringing up Lombard is completely off-point. Tim Hutchings called out sub-12:50s, which excludes Lombard.

Same as it ever was... wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I stopped reading there. I don't think Lombard is part of the Tim Hutching's discussion about sub-12:50 runners.

A fully doped Lombard would get lapped by Bekele, in the 5000m, and is still half a lap behind the "natural level" runners today.

That's not point - the poster brought up Lombard ...

I could be sympathetic if I saw the threat. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I missed it in another thread.

Coevett wrote:

Because I have a life and haven't time at the moment to go through the other thread. He used the exact same language referring to me 'needing help'. Pretty sure if you were getting these threats you wouldn't be so blase and dismissive, and I'd like to think I'd give you a bit of support actually, even if I disagree with your arguments and apparent agenda.

EPO isn't a 1-2% improvement. The study in Australia before the Sydney Olympics (1998-2000) showed a 10% improvement for runners who were 33-37 min athletes (so not top level).

Cathal Lombard wasn't a top level athlete but he went from 30'33 in 2002 when he was legit to 27'33 when he took EPO, before he was exposed. Again not a 1-2% improvement

Yup 10% improvment. It must be true, the studies say so.

Still off-topic.

DMulvee wrote:

EPO isn't a 1-2% improvement. The study in Australia before the Sydney Olympics (1998-2000) showed a 10% improvement for runners who were 33-37 min athletes (so not top level).

Cathal Lombard wasn't a top level athlete but he went from 30'33 in 2002 when he was legit to 27'33 when he took EPO, before he was exposed. Again not a 1-2% improvement

rekrunner wrote:

What I find odd is your attack:

- Saying "(You) need help" is not a vague threat -- it could be an insult, or genuine advice, but not a threat

- Avocado didn't say it anyway

- Avocado didn't say " he was going to come and give it to (you)"

Comparing your situation with David Torrence only seems even more bizarre.

You could prove me completely wrong and provide the quote where he said those things -- maybe I just missed it.

Coevett wrote:

Hmm..are accusing me of lying? He, or somebody exact same language as this person uses, posted that 'I needed help, and asked if he should come and give me some'.

Very odd that you're defending this guy now.

rekrunner:

You're exactly right. I didn't say any of that, on this or any other thread. In fact, I just finished reading through all of my comments relating to this guy. Nothing in those comments remotely resembles the quotation that Coevett falsely and repeatedly attributes to me.

And nothing I've said could reasonably be construed as a threat against Coevett.

But of course, I'm not the only one who has been accused of making threats against this guy, who seems to live in a frightening little world fueled by his own imagination.

If he stays on this site, I suppose he is best ignored.

Kenyan athletes are maybe more susceptible to old school doping practises carried out by exploitative coaches and doctors?

The whole doping culture is sordid and exploitative of young and naieve athletes. What makes it worse for me is how everyone else fans the flame of obsession with the subject. Culpability doesn't just lie with the perpetrators it lies with everyone building up this whole doping culture whether you participate or express your distaste for what you call 'drug cheats' it's all connected with boosting the problem. This is hypocrisy and ignorance, but most of you can't see it. And many of you are afraid to engage in real intelligent debate on the supposed efficacy of these drugs. You just accept it blindly.

It's a cultural problem and you're part of the culture. Peoplel please stop pointing the finger and look at yourselves and what your role is in this culture. Less holier than thouisms please and more rationality.

Stop ignoring my point about power output data of pro cyclists from the 90s They have been exaggerated by 10-15%

See name above in refutation of your "plain nonsense."