Nick Willies throws shade at Sifan Hassan on twitter

If any of you honestly believed that everyone except for nick willis and grant fisher are doping, you wouldn't be following the sport so closely and constantly visiting letsrun.

Leave Hassan alone

bennyyyv wrote:

If you think Nick Willis is a terrible person then I feel bad for you.

Then you will need to feel bad for me. If you admit you know nothing about someone and then right after that you backhand them by suspecting doping and take away from their recent success (again, you know nothing about this person whatsoever) and you do it to hundreds of thousands of twitter users.....that's a douche move

Hounddogharrier wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Nick’s fine to say what he said, but if Sifan wanted to cheat would it make sense to join a coach under investigation for doping in a country with a far-more comprehensive anti-doping infrastructure? Or would it be better to join a group in Ethiopia and Kenya?

Hmm, or join a group sponsored by the richest sports company in the world who defended Lance Armstrong for 15 years ??? Naw , that’s too crazy

Disingenuous response. How did they defend Asbel Kiprop? No offense to Hassan but comparing how they'd react to the preeminent American cyclist of his age is a ridiculous one. Everyone knew Lance, whereas Sifan barely registers to non-Distance Running fans. Alberto is somewhat protected and will be defended by Nike lawyers, but Sifan would be dumped like a bad habit.

I don't think it long before Salazar is given a life ban, especially if he appeals the current 4 year smack on the wrist!

ric flair wooooooo wrote:

bennyyyv wrote:

If you think Nick Willis is a terrible person then I feel bad for you.

Then you will need to feel bad for me. If you admit you know nothing about someone and then right after that you backhand them by suspecting doping and take away from their recent success (again, you know nothing about this person whatsoever) and you do it to hundreds of thousands of twitter users.....that's a douche move

Finally the thread is back on topic. Well said.

I assume Nick Willis has one of the longest running biological passports on file. His career has been tracked from university onward. He has trained and raced in numerous countries. He has participated in more championships than most of his peers. It's silly to attack him for stating the obvious when a coach gets banned and the coach's athlete simultaneously wins a historic double.

Barry Bonds's trainer went to jail for the whole BALCO scandal. Now tell me about how Barry Bonds is free of suspicion and your opinion on it.

Wang Junxia and her comrades with 'Ma's army' showed WR obliterating performances from 1500 m to 10,000 m in '93. Probably long road races as well if given the chance. This does raise questions.

I knew a guy on my college team who genuinely believed everyone that beat him is doping. Even at the college level. He always said he doesn't want to compete after college because it's pointless when everyone that beats him is doping so he will never get anywhere with it. He wasn't bad, he was a 1:46 high guy for the 800m.

The same concept applies to letsrun: "Everyone who runs fast is doping." And, honestly it's a valid discussion. If you start competing in May, you can very easily use PEDs from November-March and get to a level of fitness where you can take over from there because your body is fit. Remember, EPO doesn't make you faster on its own, you still have to run the workouts. EPO just allows you to recover faster so you can do insane workouts day in and day out. After 5 months of that your body will be able to handle it on their own the rest of the summer and by the time you get to competitions that test it will be out of your system.

All of that said, if they aren't caught doping it's pitiful to constantly say someone is doping. Do something else with your life.

His post reminds me of Paula Radcliffe being outspoken about cheats in her day.. ya the lady who ran 2:15 when EPO had its hay day in running and cycling sitting in the stands with a sign that read EPO cheats out

lol

I can't think of a single male athlete who was the best in the world - and the best by far - over 1500 and the 10k. That isn't simply having a wide range - like Dixon had - that's like having two Mt Everests in separate continents. I think most here would recognise that, at the very top, the 1500 and the 10k are different countries.

Shoebacca wrote:

I assume Nick Willis has one of the longest running biological passports on file. His career has been tracked from university onward. He has trained and raced in numerous countries. He has participated in more championships than most of his peers. It's silly to attack him for stating the obvious when a coach gets banned and the coach's athlete simultaneously wins a historic double.

Barry Bonds's trainer went to jail for the whole BALCO scandal. Now tell me about how Barry Bonds is free of suspicion and your opinion on it.

Barry Bonds also didn't fail a drug test. He was caught when he was exposed as a Balco client. Relying on drug tests to reveal cheaters is a pretty slim hope, and we also know the passport can be beaten.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can't think of a single male athlete who was the best in the world - and the best by far - over 1500 and the 10k. That isn't simply having a wide range - like Dixon had - that's like having two Mt Everests in separate continents. I think most here would recognise that, at the very top, the 1500 and the 10k are different countries.

Said Aouita probably comes closest. In 1986, he was ranked #1 in the world in the 10000m and #4 in the 1500m.

Or maybe Kip Keino. In 1968, he was ranked #1 in the 1500m, #3 in the 5000m, and #7 in the 10000m.

The argument isn't that "everyone who runs faster than me is doping". It isn't even that anyone who runs fast is doping - or Hassan wouldn't be singled out, as she has been. But when you have a dirty coach and you have shown off-the-charts performances in the period you have been working with him it's going to give rise to questions.

kpr18 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can't think of a single male athlete who was the best in the world - and the best by far - over 1500 and the 10k. That isn't simply having a wide range - like Dixon had - that's like having two Mt Everests in separate continents. I think most here would recognise that, at the very top, the 1500 and the 10k are different countries.

Said Aouita probably comes closest. In 1986, he was ranked #1 in the world in the 10000m and #4 in the 1500m.

Or maybe Kip Keino. In 1968, he was ranked #1 in the 1500m, #3 in the 5000m, and #7 in the 10000m.

Aouita - the same runner who was fired as coach by an Australian team because he told them they needed to dope? Maybe not a helpful example. Keino, perhaps yes, but apart from Mexico '68 he probably wasn't better than a fit Ryun over the shorter distance, and 7th in the 10k is up there but still not the best. If he had won the 10k at Mexico by the same margin he won the 1500 we likely would have been asking the same questions now being asked of Hassan.

+1

Excellent explanation.

I don't want to be involved in any argument concerning one single athlete (in any case, for me Sifan is completely clean), but I see that your idea about the effects of doping is based on wrong principles.

You, like many Others, look at a very wide range of an athlete as "suspicion" he/she can be doped. Nothing more wrong : if you believe in the effects of doping for enhancing the Aerobic level, the most suspicious athletes are the SPECIALISTS of one event only, because they need a high level of Aerobic Power and Lactic Threshold, but in their training there is NOTHING for raising these parameters.

With training, we can achieve these results with the continuous increase of volume at a speed of LT, enhancing the speed of Threshold that is the base for specific speeds (all over the Threshold) related to every distance.

The first improvement, in any result, depends on the improvement of speed and specific endurance maintaining the same INTERNAL LOAD. This is one of the effects of training : without changing the internal load (in other words, using the same level of effort), in a period of 3-5 months of training the most important parameter (specific speed endurance) become better and better, but the effort is Always at the same internal level.

I give you an example. We have an athlete able running 4' in 1500m. He doesn't have a wide range : PB of 1'55" in 800m, and of 8'30" in 3000m. In his training, the longest run never lasted longer than 1 hour, and the speed was 4' per km (so, 15 km of max extension). On track, he never went for some test longer than 400m, alternating speeds faster than the speed of the race (for example, 58") in very small quantity, and with long recovery (4 x 58" with 4'/5' recovery), and specific speed for 1500m (for example, 64") with a total volume of 3 times the distance of the event (for example, 14 x 64" recovering 2').

It's obvious that when the athlete is able to run 5 times 58" instead of 4 times only, with the same recovery, the athlete can have MORE specific endurance at that speed, and when is able to run 4 times in 57", instead of 58", with the same recovery, he increases his speed. The real problem is : What the athlete has to do for reaching these goals ? To continue to have in training 4 x 400 trying every session to run faster, and on the other side to try to tun in 64" trying in every session to have some test more ?

The secret is to ENHANCE the aerobic power, and the main type of training for doing this is CONTINUOUS RUN FAST (Tempo a little bit faster than the LT, something you call VO2 max training) and the use of LONG TESTS on track at speeds Always faster than the speed of the longest race he used (in this case, 3000m in 8'30" that means 1000m in 2'50").

When athletes work frequently in that direction, they improve the ability to LAST LONGER at a speed that was already comfortable for shortest distances. But in this way, they are also able to IMPROVE their speed endurance, and their speed (related at the short distance).

For example, I ask the athlete to run 10 x 400m in 64" with 1 minute recovery, and at the end he has a lactate of 11 mml.

In the next 3-4 weeks, I work with "Tempos" in 2 direction : the ability to run faster, training after training, at a speed near the one used in his PB of 3000m (for example, is the PB was 8'30", running at 3' per km 5 km the first time, and 6 km after some day, and 7 km before the end of the period), looking for the EXTENSION of some speed that was comfortable, and the ability to increase the AVERAGE SPEED of the long run (we spoke about one hour at 4' for 15 km), moving to 1 hr at 3'50", and then 1 hr at 3'45".

All these workouts can increase the endurance of the athlete at a speed SLOWER than the speed of their events, and the Internal Load at the end of the period is the same of one month before, when they were not able to run so fast for the same time.

So, 5 km in 15' one month before had the same impact on the body of 7 km in 21' after one month, and 15 km in one hour the same impact of 16 km now.

Now, we go on track repeating the same workout (10 x 400m in 64" with 1' recovery), and at the end we discover the level of lactate is only more 9 mml. So, I ask the athlete to reach the SAME INTERNAL LOAD he had the previous month, and the athlete can add other 3 times 400m in 64", reaching the quantity of 13 x 400 in 64" recovery 1 minute WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF EFFORT. So, it's clear the athlete had an improvement in the extension of his SPECIFIC SPEED ENDURANCE, and this is one of the reasons because the athletes in their career can, step by step, look at longer distances.

But now I ask the same athlete to reach again the same level of INTERNAL LOAD remaining with the volume of 10 x 400, using the same recovery of 1'. For reaching 11 mml after 10 x 400m, the speed of the tests becomes 62"/63" instead 64", SO THE ATHLETE CAN IMPROVE HIS SPEED TOO, and this is the reason because, working for increasing the SPECIFIC ENDURANCE, the athlete becomes also able to improve in his shortest distances.

When you see at a long period in the career of an athlete (of course, aerobically talented), using continuity with this system

produces in the years athe possibility of a wider range, from 1500m to HM.

In this picture, 800m anf Marathon are different events : in the first case, we need to have more strength and more training in the lactic area, in the second we need to change the way of fueling at the specific Marathon speed, "teaching" the muscle fibers to use more fatty acids and less glycogen at the specific speed.

For example, in 1971 the Italian Franco Arese bettered ALL the National Record : he started with 10000m in 28'27" on the first of May, than with 7'51" in 3000 winning in Budapest (4'04" + 3'47") after 2 weeks, then 13'40" in 5000m in June, than 3'36"3 in 1500m the first of July in Milan beated by Marty Liquori (3'36", at the end of the season were the 2 best times in the World), after won European Championships in 3'38"3 beating Szordykowski and Brendan Foster, after bettered for two times the NR of 800m in August (1'47"3 and 1'47"1), in late September bettered the NR of 1000m in 2'16"9, and on 31st December won the Rome Marathon in 2h24'.

The European Champion of 10000m in Helsinki 1971 was Juha Vaatainen, who had a PB of 10.8 in 100m and was a specialist of 800m till two years before. Rod Dixon, one of the great athletes from New Zealand (3'33" in 1500m), never ran a 10000m in his life, but won in the second part of his career NY Marathon in 2:08:59 in 1983.

So, a wide range is symptom of TRAINING, not of doping, while a small range can be more suspicious, because the athletes who needs to have a high level of Aerobic Power but don't work in that direction, many times can have the temptation to use EPO for reaching the same level of Aerobic Power.

For talented athletes in aerobic direction, the extension of the volume of the intensity is the key for their improvement, and this what we used to do 40-50 years ago. Coaches who had the courage to go back to the past (of course with more intensity) are the one able to build athletes with wide range of performance, and for doing this don't need any blood doping. If the athletes use some illegal supplement, this is not connected with blood doping, but with something else.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can't think of a single male athlete who was the best in the world - and the best by far - over 1500 and the 10k. That isn't simply having a wide range - like Dixon had - that's like having two Mt Everests in separate continents. I think most here would recognise that, at the very top, the 1500 and the 10k are different countries.

Imagine Elg winning an Olympic 10k in around 27-20 where he blasts the last 1500m in 3-35. Then he carries on and wins the Olympic 1500m at the same competition front running to finish in around 3 mins 27. That would be the male sort of equivalent.

Elg wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can't think of a single male athlete who was the best in the world - and the best by far - over 1500 and the 10k. That isn't simply having a wide range - like Dixon had - that's like having two Mt Everests in separate continents. I think most here would recognise that, at the very top, the 1500 and the 10k are different countries.

Imagine Elg winning an Olympic 10k in around 27-20 where he blasts the last 1500m in 3-35. Then he carries on and wins the Olympic 1500m at the same competition front running to finish in around 3 mins 27. That would be the male sort of equivalent.

Or even Cheruiyot winning the 10k at Doha in addition to the 1500.

Renato, it is possible that an athlete trains in the fashion you describe and also dopes. The gains are likely to be greater than from training alone.

It also appears that you base your argument for achieving range on a variety of interval training - albeit of a highly sophisticated kind. That was very much the methodology of coaches like Stampfl. It wasn't superior as a method of developing range, as it became superseded by the conditioning training introduced by Lydiard. Mileage appears to be the better base for developing range.

That said, the nature of modern track is that it has increasingly lent itself to specialisation in both middle distance and long distance. Most of the top 800m runners specialise in that distance, similarly the 1500m, and even in the 5 and 10k we are tending to see specialists. That is because each of those events have their own peculiar demands and it is very difficult for a top athlete to be equally good over a wide range.

What makes Hassan's range questionable is not that she has such a range - we have seen athletes in the past who were competitive over a variety of events - Keino and Dixon come to mind - but that Hassan is so utterly dominant over that wide range. That she can now crush her opposition from 1500 to 10k is virtually unprecedented in modern track - even for men - and yet she was nowhere near that level of athlete before she went to Salazar.