zxcvzcvx wrote:
Coe was nothing special as a prospect until Loughborough "weight training" and probably blood doping.
You make excellent points, though I don't know how blood doping would help 400 and 800 meters.
Perhaps you meant steroids or something else quite similar.
dunes runner wrote:
zxcvzcvx wrote:
Coe was nothing special as a prospect until Loughborough "weight training" and probably blood doping.
You make excellent points, though I don't know how blood doping would help 400 and 800 meters.
Perhaps you meant steroids or something else quite similar.
Yes, he likely meant steroids ("weight training") and blood doping.
No evidence that Coe cheated at all, and lots of circumstantial evidence that he didn't.
Knowledge of steroid use was still crude back then, unless Loughborough were well ahead of the combined might of the GDR. Amazing how Coe was able to cycle steroids whilst doing public weightlifting workouts and apparently develop very little muscle. As for blood doping, the 'evidence' for this is his blood infection, when the universal method of blood doping back then was using one's own blood in order to avoid infections. Coe also was a key figure in getting blood doping officially banned - in 1986 when he enjoyed one of his best seasons and later still able to run 1:43 at just under 33 in 1989. Pretty sure too that Putin's intelligence agency could have found evidence of Coe doping if he had.
cvzxvzcx wrote:
asmither wrote:
Off of whom?
*a bunch of examples that don't make the point*
They aren't drafting before 200m in those. They are in lanes for 100m and then cutting in for 100m. Look at that London one again - it takes them all the way to 200m to move over and tuck in behind Rudisha.
DMulvee wrote:
BMC race this weekend, the start list will be:
Jake Wightman - ran 1'44.61 in 2018
Elliot Giles - ran 1'45.04 in 2018, pb is 1'44.99 from 2017
Kyle Langford - ran 1'45.16 in 2018
Max Burgin - ran 1'45.36 this year
Charles Grice - pb of 1'45.53, though 3'33.60 and 3'52.64 over other distances
Jamie Webb - ran 1'45.73 in 2018
Zak Curran - ran 1'46.88 in 2018, pb of 1'46.78 from 2016
Christian von Eitzen - ran 1'46.88 in 2017
Spencer Thomas - ran 1'47.10 this year
Joseph Reid - ran 1'47.77 this year
Will be interesting to see what place Burgin finishes as well as his time
Wow, that's going to be a great race. Six 1:45 or quicker guys including a 17 year old sensation. And that's without Thomas Staines and Guy Learmonth.
Will be streamed live at runjumpthrow dot com.
dunes runner wrote:
You make excellent points, though I don't know how blood doping would help 400 and 800 meters.
Perhaps you meant steroids or something else quite similar.
Historically, the 800 and 1500 had been the worst when it comes to blood doping.
The 800 in particular benefited from the free roids and free blood transfusions of the early 80s - not even Caster can get the world record of the women, and the 1:41 from 1981 was only bettered by two runners in 38 years! Win win win.
Sure, because all elite athletes who wish to take PEDs choose a substance that is detectable potential years after injection. Note also that this was well before nandrolone precursors like 19-norandrostenedione came onto the market. Be informed if you want to troll.
dunes runner wrote:
zxcvzcvx wrote:
Coe was nothing special as a prospect until Loughborough "weight training" and probably blood doping.
You make excellent points, though I don't know how blood doping would help 400 and 800 meters.
Perhaps you meant steroids or something else quite similar.
Antonio Pettigrew tested positive for EPO and the Conte scandal highlighted that even sprinters benefit in their training from increased RBCs. Coe was competing during an era were blood doping was the only alternative to EPO.
LDoc wrote:
Sure, because all elite athletes who wish to take PEDs choose a substance that is detectable potential years after injection. Note also that this was well before nandrolone precursors like 19-norandrostenedione came onto the market. Be informed if you want to troll.
Nandrolone and it's hybrids have a long detection life using modern testing, it was detectable back in the 1990s but not as well.
douglas burke wrote:
Will he go to an NCAA School next Year, If he does the NCAA 800 will be great with Bryce Hoppel, Devin Dixon and Burgin, Maybe all 3 break 1:44.00 NEXT Year.
The NCAA would be a complete and total waste of time for Burgin. He should be aiming to go top the Olympics in 2020 for the experience and to medal at the 2021 World Championships rather than waste time in a early-season college competition.
The NCAA is, in all honesty, beneath him. It's great for someone who is going to be a 1:46 guy at his peak but he has already surpassed that at 17 and 1 month. Someone like Burgin should be aiming for at least a 1:42 so why waste time with an inferior competition?
By "worst" do you mean "effective" or "ineffective"?
that is an easy one wrote:
dunes runner wrote:
You make excellent points, though I don't know how blood doping would help 400 and 800 meters.
Perhaps you meant steroids or something else quite similar.
Historically, the 800 and 1500 had been the worst when it comes to blood doping.
The 800 in particular benefited from the free roids and free blood transfusions of the early 80s - not even Caster can get the world record of the women, and the 1:41 from 1981 was only bettered by two runners in 38 years! Win win win.
Don't be getting your hopes up. Should be a good race anyway though ... the older lads have to up their game now.
asmither wrote:
cvzxvzcx wrote:
*a bunch of examples that don't make the point*
They aren't drafting before 200m in those. They are in lanes for 100m and then cutting in for 100m. Look at that London one again - it takes them all the way to 200m to move over and tuck in behind Rudisha.
They are drafting before 200m in those. After 100m they cut in and have settled mostly in a line midway between 100 and 200m.
Yes, I suspect steroids with the early adopters of weight training. Loughborough was a center for steroid research at the time as proven in the above study and its reference to another steroid study there concerning athletic performance, as well as a newspaper advertisement for participants there. His musculature did improve markedly but studies have shown too that functional strength can improve remarkably without large visible differences, especially for distance runners doing significant mileage (remember Deano's own description of Coe as originally a scrawny 5'5" guy, and one who through heavy but limited repetitions and lots of circuit training gained a great deal of strength and a fair amount of weight from where he started. I don't have Peter Coe's book with me right now but I recall he shows Seb doing high weight squats).
He just wasn't that great a prospect until Loughborough. My own hs teammate, at a hs that developed no one, was significantly faster than him at 400/800 at 15-16 off of limited miles and soccer training.
zxcvvcxz wrote:
I don't have Peter Coe's book with me right now but I recall he shows Seb doing high weight squats).
Page 294 of the second edition.
https://www.runnerstribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Seb-Coe-Weights.jpgzxcvvcxz wrote:
Yes, I suspect steroids with the early adopters of weight training. Loughborough was a center for steroid research at the time as proven in the above study and its reference to another steroid study there concerning athletic performance, as well as a newspaper advertisement for participants there. His musculature did improve markedly but studies have shown too that functional strength can improve remarkably without large visible differences, especially for distance runners doing significant mileage (remember Deano's own description of Coe as originally a scrawny 5'5" guy, and one who through heavy but limited repetitions and lots of circuit training gained a great deal of strength and a fair amount of weight from where he started. I don't have Peter Coe's book with me right now but I recall he shows Seb doing high weight squats).
He just wasn't that great a prospect until Loughborough. My own hs teammate, at a hs that developed no one, was significantly faster than him at 400/800 at 15-16 off of limited miles and soccer training.
Utter bull. Loughborough was a center of research for everything sports related then, and still is now.
His muscularity did not improve markedly given that he was performing high weight squats and according to you roiding to the gills.
He wasn't a Max Burgin or Steve Ovett as a young teen, but he was a very good prospect, winning the English Schoolboys Cross Country Championship at 16, the AAA junior championship 1500m at 18 and a bronze at the European Juniors - all before he started at Loughborough. He missed the 74 season as a 17 year old with injury.
zxcvvcxz wrote:
Coe as originally a scrawny 5'5" guy, and one who through heavy but limited repetitions and lots of circuit training gained a great deal of strength and a fair amount of weight from where he started.
Nonsense.
Yes Coe developed musculature in his legs, but his weight was always well below what the accepted range for someone of his height: 5'9" (1.76m).
In 79 his weight was listed as 58kg (around 9 stone), by 86 it was generally listed as 54kg (about 8.5stone).
Compare to the likes of Ovett, Cram, Beyer, etc. He was always very slight.
LetsRun logic :
A junior who runs exceptionally fast (Max Burgin or Jakob) = doper.
A senior who didn't run exceptionally fast as a junior (Coe) = doper.
Coevett wrote:
LetsRun logic :
A junior who runs exceptionally fast (Max Burgin or Jakob) = doper.
A senior who didn't run exceptionally fast as a junior (Coe) = doper.
Your racist logic:
A Kenyan junior who runs exceptionally fast (Zakayo, Rhonex) = doper and age cheater.
A white junior who runs exceptionally fast (Max Burgin or Jakob) = clean and the great hope against the evil blacks.
And you say you are not racist.
lolz
worser wrote:
By "worst" do you mean "effective" or "ineffective"?
Statistically speaking, most suspicious blood dopers. (Well, blood transfusions were legal during Coe's 1:41, so one shouldn't call that blood-doping.)
http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/index.html#/Suspicious medals (blood doping only):
1500: 54%
800: 30%
5000: 28%
10000: 28%
Marathon: 11%
Or, go by super stars caught blood doping...
casual obsever wrote:
Suspicious medals (blood doping only):
1500: 54%
800: 30%
5000: 28%
10000: 28%
Marathon: 11%
Or, go by super stars caught blood doping...
The marathon will be way, way dirtier than these stats would suggest.
