The gap is closing? The mens record has improved much more than the womens in the last 20 years. You are talking nonsense.
Both are doped. But in the early '60's blood doping hadn't entered the sport and EPO had yet to be invented. That is the gap that today's doped women are closing. Today's professional sport is entirely about doping.
The only accurate term you used in that spiel was "borderline". Indeed you are.
Abebe Bikila set Olympic records at both Games. He was never "slow" by the standards of the time. As I said, but you cannot grasp, women are now faster than when he won his first Olympic gold and are only two minutes away from his Tokyo time. Two minutes in the marathon is no great margin. If women were within two minutes of Kipchoge's record we would say that they are in the same class. 2.03 is enough to win championship titles today. So was 2.14 in the early '60's.
You know nothing about how women train today. But high mileage over varying terrain is the basis for all endurance events. They cannot be doing anything significantly different from how he and his contemporaries trained. The best men in that era were not hobby joggers.
Your myopia about this subject is so acute it is a wonder you can see well enough to type the rubbish that you do.
Whatever Bikila won, the marathon times from the 1960s are not particularly known for being fast. This is an absurd choice of reference for a benchmark based on time. Bikila's Tokyo time shows how slow his Rome time really was, not to mention 6 other athletes from 4 countries -- just from the '60s. Why aren't you ever talking about the great Derek Clayton, who showed the world just how slow 2:12 and 2:15 is, within that same 1960s era? Why pick the guy from the 1960s who ran 3 and 6 minutes slower than the great wonder from down under, Derek Clayton?
That you cling so tightly to such an absurd metric only underscores your lack of perspective. You don't have myopia but cataracts, clouded by your fantastic ideas founded on what you don't know about the performance potential from doping.
But since 2 minutes is so small, tell me how many non-African men have surpassed Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes 2:07:12/13 marathon times, from the mid-1980s, by two minutes, in the last 37 years.
It's rich that you accuse me of not knowing something when all your ideas about doping and performance are completely founded on what you don't know, and pretty much have been for 5 decades.
But don't believe your own lies -- I can grasp your ideas -- they are just absurd. I know about training from the 1950's, how it changed in the 1960's, and how it has changed since. To say it is not "significantly different" once again only highlights what you don't know about the evolution of training.
We have just seen another thread posted in which it has been revealed that 2 more Kenyans have just been banned for doping offences by the AIU (thank you, Thoughtsleader). The violations simply go on and on. How is it possible anyone here can still attach any credibility to their sporting performances?
The only accurate term you used in that spiel was "borderline". Indeed you are.
Abebe Bikila set Olympic records at both Games. He was never "slow" by the standards of the time. As I said, but you cannot grasp, women are now faster than when he won his first Olympic gold and are only two minutes away from his Tokyo time. Two minutes in the marathon is no great margin. If women were within two minutes of Kipchoge's record we would say that they are in the same class. 2.03 is enough to win championship titles today. So was 2.14 in the early '60's.
You know nothing about how women train today. But high mileage over varying terrain is the basis for all endurance events. They cannot be doing anything significantly different from how he and his contemporaries trained. The best men in that era were not hobby joggers.
Your myopia about this subject is so acute it is a wonder you can see well enough to type the rubbish that you do.
Whatever Bikila won, the marathon times from the 1960s are not particularly known for being fast. This is an absurd choice of reference for a benchmark based on time. Bikila's Tokyo time shows how slow his Rome time really was, not to mention 6 other athletes from 4 countries -- just from the '60s. Why aren't you ever talking about the great Derek Clayton, who showed the world just how slow 2:12 and 2:15 is, within that same 1960s era? Why pick the guy from the 1960s who ran 3 and 6 minutes slower than the great wonder from down under, Derek Clayton?
That you cling so tightly to such an absurd metric only underscores your lack of perspective. You don't have myopia but cataracts, clouded by your fantastic ideas founded on what you don't know about the performance potential from doping.
But since 2 minutes is so small, tell me how many non-African men have surpassed Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes 2:07:12/13 marathon times, from the mid-1980s, by two minutes, in the last 37 years.
It's rich that you accuse me of not knowing something when all your ideas about doping and performance are completely founded on what you don't know, and pretty much have been for 5 decades.
But don't believe your own lies -- I can grasp your ideas -- they are just absurd. I know about training from the 1950's, how it changed in the 1960's, and how it has changed since. To say it is not "significantly different" once again only highlights what you don't know about the evolution of training.
Perhaps you would care to explain in detail what is the training programme of the best women marathoners today and how it differs from and improves on what Bikila did, to make them almost as fast as he was?
1) They are so many. In the rift Valley regions , a lot of girls and boys gives a try to distance running, cos is the" easiest" way ( if you have medium / great talent ) to support your family. not everybody has the talent of Kipchoge or Brigid Kosgei, but also if you will be a 63 half marathoner or a 73 half marathoner thats enough to come Europe and to make a living out of it sending the money back to Kenya. In Europe is not like this . You can find in every town hundreds and hundreds of boys playng soccer but very very few runners.
2) in general their BMI is lower than a white caucasian runner. And this is a very good genetical advantage when it comes to distance running. Your power/weight ratio will be better.
3) Born and living at altitude, and the dedication they put in training , big training group, but these last two things can happen everywhere.
4) then the most controversial point, it seems then when it comes to doping their are second to none. The hundreds of runners suspended in last few years say everything no need to explain much more. When you catch people lile Rita Jeptoo (2 chicago and 3 boston then DSQ, Paris , Milan Lisboa, Stockolm) , jemima sumgong (Olympic gold and London marathon winner and Rotterdam) Asbel Kiprop (olympic gold and 3 times World Champion) and many many others.... you know that the problem is Huge......
So you put togheter the above 4 point and you have your answer. But considering the fact that in the rest of the world very few people try to make a career out of running . Their domination would be the same also in a world without doping,,,,,
Whatever Bikila won, the marathon times from the 1960s are not particularly known for being fast. This is an absurd choice of reference for a benchmark based on time. Bikila's Tokyo time shows how slow his Rome time really was, not to mention 6 other athletes from 4 countries -- just from the '60s. Why aren't you ever talking about the great Derek Clayton, who showed the world just how slow 2:12 and 2:15 is, within that same 1960s era? Why pick the guy from the 1960s who ran 3 and 6 minutes slower than the great wonder from down under, Derek Clayton?
That you cling so tightly to such an absurd metric only underscores your lack of perspective. You don't have myopia but cataracts, clouded by your fantastic ideas founded on what you don't know about the performance potential from doping.
But since 2 minutes is so small, tell me how many non-African men have surpassed Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes 2:07:12/13 marathon times, from the mid-1980s, by two minutes, in the last 37 years.
It's rich that you accuse me of not knowing something when all your ideas about doping and performance are completely founded on what you don't know, and pretty much have been for 5 decades.
But don't believe your own lies -- I can grasp your ideas -- they are just absurd. I know about training from the 1950's, how it changed in the 1960's, and how it has changed since. To say it is not "significantly different" once again only highlights what you don't know about the evolution of training.
Perhaps you would care to explain in detail what is the training programme of the best women marathoners today and how it differs from and improves on what Bikila did, to make them almost as fast as he was?
Perhaps you would care to do the same for their doping programmes.
What happened since the 1990's is a higher volume of intensity after years of preparation.
We have just seen another thread posted in which it has been revealed that 2 more Kenyans have just been banned for doping offences by the AIU (thank you, Thoughtsleader). The violations simply go on and on. How is it possible anyone here can still attach any credibility to their sporting performances?
Which performances? These are 2:22 - 2:24 runners, nowhere near the suspicious benchmark of Bikila's second best marathon.
Oh wait, they are both faster than the great Suh Yun-bok of Korea from 1947, and both within 2 minutes of Ingrid Kristiansen from 1985.
Looks like Diana Kipyokei got 2 minutes slower from 2019 to 2021. Looks like doping works.
David Rushida! One of the all-time greats alongside Abdi Bikklia or Juan Torena.
3:18? More like 3:33. And learn to count up to 5.
Ryun was almost 5 seconds slower at altitude than his sea-level record. Keino's 3.34x was on that basis more equivalent to 3.30-32 at least at sea level - an absurdity in 1968 and probably a greater achievement than Beamon's freakish effort in the long jump. This is especially so when we consider that Keino left a hospital bed to race.
Five different Kenyans have run between 3:30.89 and 3:32.03 in Nairobi, at early season meets or championships. It's questionable if they are effected at all by this altitude. Mexico is even higher so I give Keino a two second disadvantage and his 3:34.91 becomes around 3:33.
The gap is closing? The mens record has improved much more than the womens in the last 20 years. You are talking nonsense.
Both are doped. But in the early '60's blood doping hadn't entered the sport and EPO had yet to be invented. That is the gap that today's doped women are closing. Today's professional sport is entirely about doping.
Since end of 2003, the men's record has improved by 3:46 minutes and the women's record by 1:21 minutes.
The women's record is improving, so it's natural that the gap to some fixed time shrinks. You are talking nonsense.
It's an absolute fair point, to ask why you choose 1960 as your male benchmark.
The fastest women today are 13 minutes slower than the fastest men. Are the women doping? The men? Both? I don't know, it's not to see from this numbers.
I chose the early '60's as a fairly safe benchmark for suggesting distance running was still clean then because the biggest aids to performance had not found their way into the sport or had been invented. Blood doping was not identified as a factor in elite sport until the late '60's, and it was only believed to be present in skiing and alpine sports in Scandinavia. It was not suspected in running until the mid-70's, with the Finn's (who, interestingly, are part of the Scandinavian winter sports fraternity, who were already claimed to be using it). EPO, which is even more effective, was not developed until the late '80's.
Although I have focussed on women in this discussion, to make a point questioning the credibility of recent improvements, my arguments apply equally to men. It is my view that doping is a key factor in modern performances at elite and professional levels. I take that from those who have investigated the issue of doping in sports.
I thought blood doping had entered the world of elite cycling by the latter part of the '60s, in particular used by some of the Dutch or maybe it was Belgium. Seems to me there might have been an early death or two in the cycling world thought to possibly be blood doping related, but maybe my memory fails.
Whatever Bikila won, the marathon times from the 1960s are not particularly known for being fast. This is an absurd choice of reference for a benchmark based on time. Bikila's Tokyo time shows how slow his Rome time really was, not to mention 6 other athletes from 4 countries -- just from the '60s. Why aren't you ever talking about the great Derek Clayton, who showed the world just how slow 2:12 and 2:15 is, within that same 1960s era? Why pick the guy from the 1960s who ran 3 and 6 minutes slower than the great wonder from down under, Derek Clayton?
That you cling so tightly to such an absurd metric only underscores your lack of perspective. You don't have myopia but cataracts, clouded by your fantastic ideas founded on what you don't know about the performance potential from doping.
But since 2 minutes is so small, tell me how many non-African men have surpassed Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes 2:07:12/13 marathon times, from the mid-1980s, by two minutes, in the last 37 years.
It's rich that you accuse me of not knowing something when all your ideas about doping and performance are completely founded on what you don't know, and pretty much have been for 5 decades.
But don't believe your own lies -- I can grasp your ideas -- they are just absurd. I know about training from the 1950's, how it changed in the 1960's, and how it has changed since. To say it is not "significantly different" once again only highlights what you don't know about the evolution of training.
Perhaps you would care to explain in detail what is the training programme of the best women marathoners today and how it differs from and improves on what Bikila did, to make them almost as fast as he was?
Not saying it would prove anything, but the best women today are not almost as fast as Bikila was.
In Berlin Bikila almost certainly would have run sub 2:10.
I thought blood doping had entered the world of elite cycling by the latter part of the '60s, in particular used by some of the Dutch or maybe it was Belgium.
Or even earlier, see for example doi 10.1136/bjsm.2003.007195:
The first alleged use of blood boosting in sport was in the 1960s, when a French four times winner of the Tour de France (1961–1964) was named as one of the first cyclists to use the technique. Widespread use among endurance athletes (especially running, cycling, and cross country skiing) started after the 1968 Olympic Games
Other put the start of "widespread use" in running into the late 70s or even early 80s, so the evidence isn't that clear.
Do you seriously believe that the reference is about Jacques Anquetil using transfusions to elevate Hct count? I think I've corrected the record for like 2-3 times that the reference is to a weird ozone-therapy nonsense pretty much nothing to do with blood doping, but you just keep quoting this "gem" you found.
Is it too much demanded by me that you memorize the real story or am I really an a-hole, who is stealing a lollipop from kid's hand by tainting your reference?
We have just seen another thread posted in which it has been revealed that 2 more Kenyans have just been banned for doping offences by the AIU (thank you, Thoughtsleader). The violations simply go on and on. How is it possible anyone here can still attach any credibility to their sporting performances?
Which performances? These are 2:22 - 2:24 runners, nowhere near the suspicious benchmark of Bikila's second best marathon.
Oh wait, they are both faster than the great Suh Yun-bok of Korea from 1947, and both within 2 minutes of Ingrid Kristiansen from 1985.
Looks like Diana Kipyokei got 2 minutes slower from 2019 to 2021. Looks like doping works.
Bikila was handpicked for his obvious and outstanding natural talent among hundreds of thousands of young Ethiopian soldiers, put on a government training scheme at a high altitude military camp, ran with ultra-modern mileage and training methods with a single-minded aim of humiliating Italy at the Rome Olympics and gaining revenge for the Emperor. Yet he only ran 2:15 and 2:12 at his best. It's hard to believe that the improvement since then is all down to shoes and some relatively small refinements in training.
Bikila was handpicked for his obvious and outstanding natural talent among hundreds of thousands of young Ethiopian soldiers, put on a government training scheme at a high altitude military camp, ran with ultra-modern mileage and training methods with a single-minded aim of humiliating Italy at the Rome Olympics and gaining revenge for the Emperor. Yet he only ran 2:15 and 2:12 at his best. It's hard to believe that the improvement since then is all down to shoes and some relatively small refinements in training.
You should write fiction.
It's important that people know that what you wrote about Bikila is a bunch of lies.
As for only running 2:15 and 2:12 "at his best", you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing new.
I never claimed you did, but if you believe Anquetil had nothing to do with blood doping, why to bring his case up in the first place if you knew the back story?
I never claimed you did, but if you believe Anquetil had nothing to do with blood doping, why to bring his case up in the first place if you knew the back story?
If you understand that I didn't, why do you provoke me so hard then?
"Do you seriously believe" - "stealing a lollipop from kid's hand"
Troll somebody else. I am thankful for the ignore function. Bye.
Bikila was handpicked for his obvious and outstanding natural talent among hundreds of thousands of young Ethiopian soldiers, put on a government training scheme at a high altitude military camp, ran with ultra-modern mileage and training methods with a single-minded aim of humiliating Italy at the Rome Olympics and gaining revenge for the Emperor. Yet he only ran 2:15 and 2:12 at his best. It's hard to believe that the improvement since then is all down to shoes and some relatively small refinements in training.
It's important that people know that what you wrote about Bikila is a bunch of lies.