Ruth Chepngetich just ruined the sport of marathon

Posted elsewhereButPertinent wrote:

Posted this on another thread but it's pertinent for this conversation

Other than the 64 flat half converting to 2.10, I don't think this record stacks up against others as being any more or less suspicious.

Her differential from Kiptum's time was around 7.5%, which is pretty massive but I think this race today is better considered compared to Kipchoge's sub 2 given the conditions.

Namely, she has the massive advantage of being paced by two men who metronomed the effort, running in a big pack until around 20-25k and then coming through the back of the men's field in the last few kilometres. No solo running on a very fast course

TheRuth C.

Compare that with Assefa and Kiptum - 9.5% or Kipchoge's 2.01.09 vs Kosgei at Chicago (also paced) at 9.2%.

Take it back to Ratcliffe's 2.15 (paced by men etc) in 2003 compared to the then world record of 2.05.38 then the percentage gap there is 7.7% - a mere 0.2% difference between that and today's time compared with Kiptum's.

You're now comparing an exceptional performance to a derivation of 0.6-0.9% between previous record holders. Then only a 0.2 difference between that and the most alike comparison possible from history.

It's outstanding but not as impossible or improbable as some are making out

NERunner03533 wrote:

Ghost1 wrote:

Why is it that a man who runs 2:09 who has best times of 14 minutes and 29 minutes (5k/10k), does not come under suspicion but a woman does - this is not logical.

People are jumping to irrational conclusions.

If you add to this that women are more efficient fat burners than men, just look at Channel swimmers for women who are equal to most of the men, and one can accept this new time.

Not saying that she didn't cheat but the burden of proof rests on the accusers not the accused.

Maybe because she's never run 14/29. She was a 1:04/2:14 runner before today. 2:11 already seemed like a big improvement on the WR. It was 60 degrees/low-50s dew point/windy in Chicago today. So I'm to believe that she's another 60-90s faster in more ideal conditions & that 2:08-mid is the new standard for (clean) women? The math doesn't math.

I've always been someone who says let's appreciate performances & then condemn results as soon as we know something is up. It would be disappointing to be a fan without being able to watch like this but it just feels too naive to do in this situation. & I'm sorry the burden of proof rests on everyone competing. It's too easy to evade testing. Be an open book. Show us you don't have any whereabouts. Be unapologetically for clean sport. Etc.

Guess I should add that I don't know if I'd say she's ruined the sport of marathoning. I agree that the mark isn't way out of line to other records. But I'm not buying that she's the athlete to do it & I'm not buying those records as being clean either. I don't really think people are saying they don't believe in this result but believe in all of the men's WRs. I think it's bad for the sport that we're so focused on records & running fast. We've lost sight of what good/exciting tactical races look like on honest courses. It encourages runners to cheat to compete for the limited prize money & available sponsorship dollars that do exist. The races/brands don't care when a runner gets popped. They'll just move onto the next fastest runner until they get popped.

gulpgulp wrote:

Ghost1 wrote:

I think if she ran on the track with her present form she would achieve around 14:10-14:20/29:20-29:30, not the fastest but up there.

No shot a 29:20 pulls off a sub2:10. Those are 2 very different runners. Maybe a 27 high but a 29 low person isn't even in the same race as a 27 high one.

It's pretty wild there are still folks out there that either don't understand how much of an impact EPO can have on an aerobic event (which is idiotic) or are attempting to steer the narrative and take the spotlight off the athlete and suspicion. EPO was specifically created to enhance aerobic metabolism in the body. Just not for athletes. For patients. That is precisely why it shines in this sport. Go ahead and try it if you aren't competing for money or at the professional level. Seriously, go ahead and let us all know how it goes.

Whether she gets busted or not, it doesn't matter. The audacity of performances such as these are astounding. Like, at least sit around at the finish line, puke a few times, then maybe walk around a little. Don't start running again. That looks bad. Really, really bad.

RunningBecky wrote:

Posted elsewhereButPertinent wrote:

Posted this on another thread but it's pertinent for this conversation

Other than the 64 flat half converting to 2.10, I don't think this record stacks up against others as being any more or less suspicious.

Her differential from Kiptum's time was around 7.5%, which is pretty massive but I think this race today is better considered compared to Kipchoge's sub 2 given the conditions.

Namely, she has the massive advantage of being paced by two men who metronomed the effort, running in a big pack until around 20-25k and then coming through the back of the men's field in the last few kilometres. No solo running on a very fast course

TheRuth C.

Compare that with Assefa and Kiptum - 9.5% or Kipchoge's 2.01.09 vs Kosgei at Chicago (also paced) at 9.2%.

Take it back to Ratcliffe's 2.15 (paced by men etc) in 2003 compared to the then world record of 2.05.38 then the percentage gap there is 7.7% - a mere 0.2% difference between that and today's time compared with Kiptum's.

You're now comparing an exceptional performance to a derivation of 0.6-0.9% between previous record holders. Then only a 0.2 difference between that and the most alike comparison possible from history.

It's outstanding but not as impossible or improbable as some are making out

That is an excellent post and very well researched. But there is another aspect to this that your stats do not cover. That her performance exceeded anything she has ever done before by such a wide margin. THAT is also extremely suspicious. Not only was this time way faster than her previous marathon times but none of her shorter races indicated any ability to run sub 2:10

Ghost1 wrote:

gulpgulp wrote:

No shot a 29:20 pulls off a sub2:10. Those are 2 very different runners. Maybe a 27 high but a 29 low person isn't even in the same race as a 27 high one.

It's pretty wild there are still folks out there that either don't understand how much of an impact EPO can have on an aerobic event (which is idiotic) or are attempting to steer the narrative and take the spotlight off the athlete and suspicion. EPO was specifically created to enhance aerobic metabolism in the body. Just not for athletes. For patients. That is precisely why it shines in this sport. Go ahead and try it if you aren't competing for money or at the professional level. Seriously, go ahead and let us all know how it goes.

Whether she gets busted or not, it doesn't matter. The audacity of performances such as these are astounding. Like, at least sit around at the finish line, puke a few times, then maybe walk around a little. Don't start running again. That looks bad. Really, really bad.

I disagree as there are dozens if not more of new 29 minute to 30 minute 10 kilometer runners who run around 209 or 210 for the marathon examples include Panamanians, Argentinian runners and others and I can supply you the names.

RunningBecky wrote:

Posted elsewhereButPertinent wrote:

Posted this on another thread but it's pertinent for this conversation

Other than the 64 flat half converting to 2.10, I don't think this record stacks up against others as being any more or less suspicious.

Her differential from Kiptum's time was around 7.5%, which is pretty massive but I think this race today is better considered compared to Kipchoge's sub 2 given the conditions.

Namely, she has the massive advantage of being paced by two men who metronomed the effort, running in a big pack until around 20-25k and then coming through the back of the men's field in the last few kilometres. No solo running on a very fast course

TheRuth C.

Compare that with Assefa and Kiptum - 9.5% or Kipchoge's 2.01.09 vs Kosgei at Chicago (also paced) at 9.2%.

Take it back to Ratcliffe's 2.15 (paced by men etc) in 2003 compared to the then world record of 2.05.38 then the percentage gap there is 7.7% - a mere 0.2% difference between that and today's time compared with Kiptum's.

You're now comparing an exceptional performance to a derivation of 0.6-0.9% between previous record holders. Then only a 0.2 difference between that and the most alike comparison possible from history.

It's outstanding but not as impossible or improbable as some are making out

That is an excellent post and very well researched. But there is another aspect to this that your stats do not cover. That her performance exceeded anything she has ever done before by such a wide margin. THAT is also extremely suspicious. Not only was this time way faster than her previous marathon times but none of her shorter races indicated any ability to run sub 2:10