You may feel "amazing" but you are still aging. It doesn't just suddenly start happening some time in your distant future, after decades of eternal youth. Biologically, it began some time in your late twenties. Training may only compensate for some of its effects but it won't reverse them.
If Kipchoge was training to the highest level when he was running track from his teens, then how is he able to train even harder for the marathon from his late twenties? I read previously that he was supposedly "pacing" himself ('scuse the pun) better this past decade so that he wouldn't wear out. That isn't training harder. That's responding to aging.
Disagree. I was peaking in my 30s and everything pointed to no degradation. You just can't say everyone ages and peaks the same.
Kipchoge isn't necessarily training harder now. He's likely training as hard but doing different training while he does this.
You weren't getting younger in your 30's. You aren't an exception the biological process. We may age at different rates but we are all aging and it begins in the late twenties. Training can compensate for it but not reverse it.
It's hard to compare Eliud to others because he's doing things no one's done before. Confirmed dopers haven't been able to do what he does or have the same longevity.
Most dopers aren't confirmed. But clean athletes aren't superior to the best doped athletes or drugs would not be performance enhancing and we wouldn't have a doping problem.
It's hard to compare Eliud to others because he's doing things no one's done before. Confirmed dopers haven't been able to do what he does or have the same longevity.
I think the problem with these types of threads and these drug fanatics is that they don't know any elite athletes, so they fill in the blanks with fantasy.
I think the problem with these types of threads and these drug fanatics is that they don't know any elite athletes, so they fill in the blanks with fantasy.
I know several elite athletes, ones from my generation. As a group they're very, very, skeptical about the legitimacy of today's performances.
Were people from the 20s skeptical about the 70's?
Disagree. I was peaking in my 30s and everything pointed to no degradation. You just can't say everyone ages and peaks the same.
Kipchoge isn't necessarily training harder now. He's likely training as hard but doing different training while he does this.
You weren't getting younger in your 30's. You aren't an exception the biological process. We may age at different rates but we are all aging and it begins in the late twenties. Training can compensate for it but not reverse it.
I did not say I was getting younger.
Does everyone go through puberty at the same rate?
Question for everyone here who believes Kipchoge is clean: If a 2:01:09 with a sub-60 first half at nearly age 38 isn’t enough to raise your suspicion, then what kind of performance and at what age would it take for you to start questioning him? 1:59? 1:58? Age 39? Age 40? At what point do his performances become too incredible for you?
This line of believing presupposes that such a PED exists, for the marathon runner, young or old, or that such a threshold exists, that can clearly separate dirty performances from the upper ceiling of clean performances.
If such a PED truly existed for the aging East African marathon runner, it must also exist for the non-East African runner, and we should be able to find comparable examples in history of similar improvements, as precedents, or as confirmation.
In 1985, Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones ran 2:07:12 and 2:07:13 respectively. These were world record performances at the time, but relatively slow times by today's modern marathon standards. What has happened among non-East Africans since? In the following 37 years, among the non-East African population, a total of 51 athletes have run as fast or faster, a total of 75 times. This population includes Russians, Moroccans, Bahranians, Spanish and other Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Oceanians, and North and South and Central Americans. The fastest among them is a Moroccan Bahranian who ran 2:04:43, or 2m30s faster. A Japanese runner, a country not often suspected of doping, has run a similar time of 2:04:56. The fastest European runner is a Norwegian runner who has run 2:05:48, or 1m25s faster . The fastest American, disregarding the wind-aided 2:04:58, is a Moroccan (2:05:38), and the fastest non-African American is 2:06:07, only 1m05s faster.
All 51 of these athletes were at most 2m30s faster than the 1985 performances of Steve Jones, and Carlos Lopes. This represents the cumulative benefit of any doping improvements, fast courses, incentivized paced races, super shoes, and event specialization, among the worldwide population of non-East Africans, for the 37 years since. Compare this to a total of 304 East Africans running as fast or faster, a total of 733 times, now the fastest being 6m03s faster.
The old "doping doesn't work" for African runners argument, because you can't work out where to draw the line between a doped and a clean performance. The line is that drugs are widely used - and we see especially by Africans - and typically not detected. The athletes clearly know what you don't about the effects of drugs.
I know several elite athletes, ones from my generation. As a group they're very, very, skeptical about the legitimacy of today's performances.
Were people from the 20s skeptical about the 70's?
People from the 1920s? I don't know. A lot of them were dead. There was no internet so there wasn't a lot of opportunity to talk to them. In the 70s there was very little suspicion that distance runners were doping. EPO didn't exist. Most doped athletes were taking steroids and distance runners thought taking them would add weight and slow you. When blood doping came along there was immediate speculation about who was or wasn't doing it. But it was legal so it wasn't the same kind of discussion as you get now.
Were Foster and Campbell setting wr's and annihilating all opposition?
Of course not. But they were running their best then so people who think Kipchoge's performances are unaided will see them as proof that he's not too old to be getting PBs.
He didn't come to the sport late as they did. They are likely to have been faster if they were younger. Unlike them, his pbs are an annihilation of all other marathon runners as he gets older.
Kipchoge has been competing at a world class level for nearly 20 years. He's had hundreds of drug tests...hundreds of close contacts over the years. It's extremely unlikely he's managed dope and get away with it all these years. The anti-Lance.
He'll slow down over the next year or two. It's not crazy for an extremely talented 37 year old with massive aerobic base to knock one out of the park. Maybe he's got one or two more good ones left in him.
At last! Some sanity in a cesspit of circumstantial bile and speculation.
He's apparently not one of "the dumb or the careless".
Were people from the 20s skeptical about the 70's?
People from the 1920s? I don't know. A lot of them were dead. There was no internet so there wasn't a lot of opportunity to talk to them. In the 70s there was very little suspicion that distance runners were doping. EPO didn't exist. Most doped athletes were taking steroids and distance runners thought taking them would add weight and slow you. When blood doping came along there was immediate speculation about who was or wasn't doing it. But it was legal so it wasn't the same kind of discussion as you get now.
Dead? Maybe the guys who died in wars. Nurmi was alive when Viren won in Munich. A bunch of guys from back them made it to 100 or close to.
Surely you realize old timers could have been interviewed in that time.
The NZ guys were furious with the suspicions around Viren in Montreal.
I know several elite athletes, ones from my generation. As a group they're very, very, skeptical about the legitimacy of today's performances.
Were people from the 20s skeptical about the 70's?
Herb Elliott talked about how "tired" he felt during the 1500 final at Rome '60, where he set a wr. Seeing Kipchoge gaily breeze through the line after running 26 times further than Elliott and at the speed of motorized transport shows the Australian hadn't run up enough sand hills. Or something else.
You weren't getting younger in your 30's. You aren't an exception the biological process. We may age at different rates but we are all aging and it begins in the late twenties. Training can compensate for it but not reverse it.
I did not say I was getting younger.
Does everyone go through puberty at the same rate?
So how many go through puberty in their 30's? It's over by your late teens and aging begins about a decade later, even if faster for some than others.
Herb Elliott talked about how "tired" he felt during the 1500 final at Rome '60, where he set a wr. Seeing Kipchoge gaily breeze through the line after running 26 times further than Elliott and at the speed of motorized transport shows the Australian hadn't run up enough sand hills. Or something else.
The pain of 800m or 1500m is quite different to a marathon, you know that, so what's the point here?
Sure most were alive and could have been interviewed but there were two publications in the US that covered track and both focused on the current sport. Not many people seemed interested in interviewing them. I do recall a comment here and another there from a guy or three from before WWII about the state of the sport and its performances. The comment went like, "Sure, they're so much faster than we were but they're training so much more." Some saw that as a good thing. Others thought it would lead to burnout, maybe harm current runner's health, lead to an unbalanced life.
These aren't guys from the 20s, but Bruce Kidd once told Martin Hyman he, Kidd, had begun running twice a day frequently. Hyman got mad at him saying it would definitely faster to run doubles. But then everyone would run twice a day and to beat those guys you'd need to run three times a day. And when everyone ran three times a day you'd need to run four times. He accused Kidd of ruining the nice life that distance runners have.
Of course not. But they were running their best then so people who think Kipchoge's performances are unaided will see them as proof that he's not too old to be getting PBs.
He didn't come to the sport late as they did. They are likely to have been faster if they were younger. Unlike them, his pbs are an annihilation of all other marathon runners as he gets older.
I know. I'm just saying that there are people who will simply cite examples of people running PBs at advanced ages as evidence that it can be done and won't look at further details.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.