Amby Burfoot says it out loud - Chepngetich is doping

moorest wrote:

Amby put down your ego filled beer wrote:

So Ruth Chepngetich runs 2:09:56, and suddenly the male ego collectively implodes like it’s been personally insulted. Because, of course, when a woman shatters a marathon record, it’s not a historic moment—it’s a direct assault on manhood everywhere. Meanwhile, Kelvin Kiptum blasts through with a 2:00:35 in Chicago, and we treat him like Zeus himself, cape fluttering in the wind. Eliud Kipchoge clocks 2:01:09, and we’re all ready to name an Olympic stadium after him. No one’s asking if he’s a ‘real man’

But the moment a woman does the impossible, the world seems to tilt off its axis. Men suddenly stare off into space, realizing they’ve come up short in life. Maybe their kids won’t be the fastest ever, maybe that ‘superhero’ status they were hanging onto wasn’t quite as solid as they thought….And let’s not forget: three Mormon boys from Utah and some kid from Michigan and Indiana ran absolutely unreal races in Paris, but not a peep from the running gatekeepers like Amby B.

Apparently, you’ve got to break the rules of time and space, and now male ego to get noticed.

Let’s set the whole doping and performance-enhancing conversation aside for a moment.

Clearly, we’re all just fine celebrating plenty of enhanced performances when they fit the narrative or when it comes from our tribe, right?

Honestly, what’s the real issue here? Is it that a woman ran 2:09 or that deep down we’re all forced to confront the fact that we might not be as superhuman as we’d like to believe? It’s primal, it’s unsettling, and it stirs something even in the wokest minds—because when your identity hangs on the notion of being ‘the fastest,’ a record like this hits hard.
But maybe, just maybe, it’s time to recalibrate our definition of ‘superhero.’

Because if a woman running 4:57 per mile rattles your sense of self, that’s not on her—it’s on you.”

I enjoyed reading this and think that you hit on some good points. But the simple truth is that this world record is exceptional even among world records. That’s what makes it suspicious. It’s way out of line with women’s 5k and 10k records.

annoyed track fan wrote:

Stop sign wrote:

I am unclear why she is being maligned so much more than anyone else. At that level, they are all on drugs. Yes, Burfoot is outraged, but why is he emphasizing that women deserve better? Maybe the running community as a whole? I am a woman and feel Ruth C. is being told she shined too bright, which is far more problematic to me (^^^as a woman…) than the effect of her performance on women’s running. Is her record unfair to the pro women who are not doping? YES. Is she hurting “women’s running”? Not any more than anyone else’s enhanced performances, of which there are many.

"At that level, they are all on drugs." - CITATION NEEDED!!

"anyone else’s enhanced performances, of which there are many" - CITATION NEEDED!!

Please provide evidence for these outrageous claims!!

salem1692 wrote:

Amby Burfoot wrote:

For the record, I didn't write that Chepngetich is/was doping. I don't have a clue. I said there were ample reasons to be suspicious of her 2:09:56. It's curious to me what's going on at WMM doping controls. Chicago, for example, has had five winners and 1 podium finisher later fail a doping test. Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong. But they always pass the tests presumably given at the event. Same for other WMM. It's not just Chicago's problem.

Thank for your candor, Mr. Burfoot.

I agree that we "don't have a clue".

I don't seriously think that you were doping; I was asking a rhetorical question to those who seem to question what we saw on Sunday in Chicago.

Would we ask the same of you?

See, I don't like the "accusation is evidence" climate that I see on LRC.

Ruth may be doping. We don't know.

I want to see the temperature lowered, and I look to you as a hero of our sport to help influence the climate.

Amby put down your ego filled beer wrote:

So Ruth Chepngetich runs 2:09:56, and suddenly the male ego collectively implodes like it’s been personally insulted. Because, of course, when a woman shatters a marathon record, it’s not a historic moment—it’s a direct assault on manhood everywhere. Meanwhile, Kelvin Kiptum blasts through with a 2:00:35 in Chicago, and we treat him like Zeus himself, cape fluttering in the wind. Eliud Kipchoge clocks 2:01:09, and we’re all ready to name an Olympic stadium after him. No one’s asking if he’s a ‘real man’

But the moment a woman does the impossible, the world seems to tilt off its axis. Men suddenly stare off into space, realizing they’ve come up short in life. Maybe their kids won’t be the fastest ever, maybe that ‘superhero’ status they were hanging onto wasn’t quite as solid as they thought….And let’s not forget: three Mormon boys from Utah and some kid from Michigan and Indiana ran absolutely unreal races in Paris, but not a peep from the running gatekeepers like Amby B.

Apparently, you’ve got to break the rules of time and space, and now male ego to get noticed.

Let’s set the whole doping and performance-enhancing conversation aside for a moment.

Clearly, we’re all just fine celebrating plenty of enhanced performances when they fit the narrative or when it comes from our tribe, right?

Honestly, what’s the real issue here? Is it that a woman ran 2:09 or that deep down we’re all forced to confront the fact that we might not be as superhuman as we’d like to believe? It’s primal, it’s unsettling, and it stirs something even in the wokest minds—because when your identity hangs on the notion of being ‘the fastest,’ a record like this hits hard.
But maybe, just maybe, it’s time to recalibrate our definition of ‘superhero.’

Because if a woman running 4:57 per mile rattles your sense of self, that’s not on her—it’s on you.”

definitely not true wrote:

Dr Yuengling wrote:

is this actually true in this day and age? I feel like people are imagining epo sludge blood and the kidney/heart/etc destruction that joe from the gym who eats steroids for breakfast might get.

I find it hard to believe that modern doping under the supervision of a qualified professional would be any more unhealthy than running excessive miles or riding the line between anorexic and slim.

There is an article on this from 2003 where the author submits to taking performance enhancing drugs under the supervision of a doctor. And he took a lot of different ones from HGH to Steroids to EPO. It is a good read. But it definitely made it sound like it was not particularly dangerous as long as you stayed within certain levels and were supervised by a physician. Link is below.

Link:www.outsideonline.com/health/training-...

salem1692 wrote:

Amby Burfoot wrote:

For the record, I didn't write that Chepngetich is/was doping. I don't have a clue. I said there were ample reasons to be suspicious of her 2:09:56. It's curious to me what's going on at WMM doping controls. Chicago, for example, has had five winners and 1 podium finisher later fail a doping test. Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong. But they always pass the tests presumably given at the event. Same for other WMM. It's not just Chicago's problem.

Thank for your candor, Mr. Burfoot.

I agree that we "don't have a clue".

I don't seriously think that you were doping; I was asking a rhetorical question to those who seem to question what we saw on Sunday in Chicago.

Would we ask the same of you?

See, I don't like the "accusation is evidence" climate that I see on LRC.

Ruth may be doping. We don't know.

I want to see the temperature lowered, and I look to you as a hero of our sport to help influence the climate.

xzcvcxzv wrote:

PCRF-Guy wrote:

I did some back of the envelope math on the world records:

- 100m: difference is 9.5%
- 200m: 11.2%
- 400m: 10.6%
- 800m: 13%
- 1500m: 11.16%
- 3000m: 10.95%
- 5000m: 9.2%
- 10000m: 10.38%

Marathon is a massive outlier. Despite the fact that the men’s WR is already insanely fast.

Moreover, many of those differentials are cases where the women world record holder is either from a known doping program with documents proving their doping use, or widely suspected of doping because they came from nowhere to destroy those records.

100m Flo Jo's likely wind-aided (gauges had been indicating high winds in Indy) 100m record; her sudden improvement, huge muscle gains, in 1988 and early death prompted suspicions of doping.

200m See 100m, just not wind-aided.

400m Doping records from the former East Germany show Marita Koch's 47.60 is not legit.

800m The eye test shows that Jarmila Kratochvilova of Czecheslovakia was on a similar steroid diet at Koch.

3000m Ma's army ran spectacular times for a couple years, maybe even aided by a short track at their own national champs, and then the doping positives and dnf's started before a flood of accusations leveled at Ma from his own former athletes.