Donavan Brazier Training: 20-30MPW?

Olympic Truth wrote:

Fine it FAT without starting with a gun and a running start. DO YOU RUN?? JUST because it an electronic timing system doesn't make it FAT look at the rule book.I don't agree with you definition and the link is not the rule book. Like I said its electronic, but it cannot be FAT if it is started manually during the relay.

Wait. You're assertion is that, because his split is not gun-started it's not FAT? And further, that his split is manually started at some point during the relay?

Holy Christ on a crutch, you may be the dumbest jackwagon I've ever met. And you claim to research stuff for a living? I hope you're not well paid for that because you suck at it.

Let me break it down for you. The relay (first leg) is gun-started and the automatic start sensor conveys the signal to the FinishLynx system. As each runner breaks the start/finish line, timestamped photos are evaluated and splits are recorded to 1/1000 of a second (for FinishLynx - there are biking systems that are even more accurate). For a split, it doesn't matter when the baton is taken - the current leg runner owns the entire 400m. Other than the first runner, legs tend to be a few meters longer than 400m, but that's irrelevant for recording splits. You own tape-to-tape regardless. It is fully automatic. There is no manual component.

So what exactly do you think you've proved? Have you ever used a FAT system? Watched one? Possibly looked at something on youtube? Maybe do that and come back, eh?

Olympic Truth wrote:

who educated who? LOL

Indeed. LOL.

I'm sorry I am very good at my job. We seem to disagree on the definition of FAT. Did you read the information on the link. It actually says in the link that you cannot actually start it manually(meaning no reaction to the gun) or without a gun. Your assertion is because its electronic its FAT. Come on! so the 1/1000 blah blah doesn't matter. It can never be FAT because the 2,3,4 runner start without a gun!!!! So its electronic and you can call it FAT but the start makes it not FAT and the inaccurate distance makes it NULL. Do you get that.

Let me break it down for you, I am an Olympian, so I have seen the stupid system live and I have set it up at smaller track meets like the ones you watch.

And in the end this doesn't matter because.... let me be clear a split is a split an open 400 does not equal a split. So if you ran a 65.38 split you cannot say my PR is 65.38.

You never answered the question. Have you ever ran in a competitive race?

Lets stop the name calling, and have a real discussion. I really did run in the Olympics for another country.

The question is did he use. I say of course because his improvement is to great. That is how the split timing started. You said he ran a 45 in an effort to prove his improvement was not that great. My comment is even with the 45.9 its still too great of an improvement in the 800 and the time was a split, his PR was 47. And his 800 drop was unreal in 6 months to a 145 indoor after his 148 I think.

Think what you will or me, but the facts of his last time in HS state and his Indoor in college was toooo good. The meets in between don't matter. I am looking at his improvement from June- Jan. When he started using PED will dictate his improvement began not cover the % of improvement.

Can you have a discussion without insults? If not then don't expect a response.

Yeah I guess you refuse to understand and learn and you will think how you do. So I have not edcuated you because of your inability to learn or even view that someone else's has a point of view.

Of course, you have no info to teach me and even if you did it might make me less intelligent.

So you think you educated me by posting a link to a timing system,which did not prove your point in my eyes and I know I did not educate you because of you inability to learn. I thought it would be clear in the link i sent but it was not. It is very frustrating that a simple thing like a split is viewed differently by 2 people. We probably view the world very differently. For sure our definition of FAT is different and what an PR in the 400 is vs a split.

Of course you know a split is not an open 400, so why the argument? The split should always be faster because of the 1 running start 2 probably less than a 400 not greater, and 3 no gun start. But you insist on using it as a reference point like its a real 400. So I'm confused. Or just pick one of the insults you made against me. You have to be a young man in his 20 or 30s.

That big-time D1 coaching really worked out for you.

You are acting like a chld. By reading what you wrote it shows you don't understand alot and cannot follow the coversation. Of course I know about electronic timing. But just because its electronic and accurate with a running start makes it ....just a split.

I don't know why you and the other person have to insult people its very strange to try and have communication with people that are, only insult to try and prove their point. So you disagee, with me, so call me names and use NO LOGIC to discuss. just disagree.

You are correct it either 398 or 402 and if you read....IT DOESN'T MATTER, the original question he does he use. And thus, the facts...FACTS say he ran 148 in JUN and then 145 in Jan. accomplished by drugs.

But lets get back to his SPLIT SPLIT SPLIT, if its 398 with a running start, thats a big advantage. Worth at least1.5 which is about right with his 47 real to his 45 split. If you run, you kinda know this. The drop varies person to person.

If spit was soooo great why didn't he run the 800 faster. And again it doesn't matter he could have already started using. But I know he used to go 147-145.

And the kid in the vid, was a shot puter that didnt make the qualifying standards and ran the 100. He still went and you didn't. He is from an island and has very little access to training. I bet you had great opportunity and you did????

Same deal with the other guy. If you insult me again, I won't respond. If you disagree with me, thats fine. Try to have a decent theory as to how he improved, not point to a split or some practice run. I'm not dumb, I have advanced education(although I know alot of dumb grad.students) and I know track. He used. I have trained personally and have trained 100s of athletes and that type of improvement is not natural. Kids use in high school in order to get to a college. And there is a "new" drug out that is probably amphetamine based, which explains the drop in the weight of most sprinters/middle.

I think he can run 142 as well, with his current dosage.

Olympic Truth wrote:

But lets get back to his SPLIT SPLIT SPLIT, if its 398 with a running start, thats a big advantage. Worth at least1.5 which is about right with his 47 real to his 45 split. If you run, you kinda know this. The drop varies person to person..

*sigh*

Every time you post, you reveal how ignorant you really are. This has been explained to you at least a half-dozen times in this very thread. We know the split time is accurate (for a split - more in a minute) and we know it was exactly 400m. How do we know this? It is what the system is designed to do. We know where the split started timing - at the exact instant the last 400m started (note - not necessarily the last runner, but the last 400m, which is what a split is - you seem to be struggling with this concept as well). We know the exact time that split started, because it is recorded in a time-stamped photo. We know exactly when the split ended - exactly 400m later - and exactly when it ended, because, again, it is recorded in a time-stamped photo. It is not a time for 398m or 402m or 712m or whatever other jackassery you want to throw out there. It is exactly 400m, and exactly 45.92 seconds. There is no question.

Now, converting it to an open 400m is a question. Standard conversion is between 0.5-0.7 seconds to account for (1) reaction to the gun, (2) acceleration from blocks, and (3) the "free" distance gained from passing the baton forward. That would put him at an open 400m of around 46.5ish - still fairly impressive for a high schooler.

Nonetheless, your complete lack of a basic understanding of how FAT systems work cause me to call into question...well, everything you've claimed. I can't believe you've actually helped set one of these systems up and don't understand how they work. I can't believe you've actually run in the Olympics when you've shown a fundamental inability to grasp how splits are timed. These are basic concepts, and you can't seem to grasp them. I think everything you've said is a lie. I think you are most likely a troll. You've looked at some numbers on a computer screen and decided that they show something you want to believe, and have steadfastly refused to consider anything to the contrary - going so far as to actually argue that a FAT-timed split is inaccurate. I mean, can you even begin to grasp how damn stupid that sounds?

You know nothing about the kid other than the numbers you see on your screen. That's it. That is the extent of your "evidence."

Olympic Truth wrote:

if its 398 with a running start, thats a big advantage. Worth at least1.5 which is about right with his 47 real to his 45 split. If you run, you kinda know this. The drop varies person to person.

Why do you keep talking about the split possibly being less than 400m??? The discussion is about a split taken by the finish lynx camera. That means the time is recorded from finish line to finish line which is 400m or more. It can't be less. Yes it is possible that one of the individual runners could possess the baton for less than 400m but the time is still recorded from finish line to finish line no matter when the handoff occurs. So the time is for the baton to cover 400m.

We are not talking about someone with their watch timing the split that doesn't know what they are doing. We are talking about using the official finish line timing system to time the splits. Those times are for 400m splits and they are FAT. There is no manual component to the time. It is fully automatic.

Now you are correct when you point out that it is a split and the runner gets a running start. So the split is essentially a flying 400m time. It is not equivalent to an open 400m with a gun start. But the time itself is FAT because the start and finish are both FAT times recorded by the finish lynx system. The difference between a FAT time and a FAT time is still a FAT time.

I think there is a valid point to be made that #1 its not FAT if its not started by a gun, with a reaction time, why do you not recogize that tact.

So I disagree with your definition, its an electronic time and you can call it FAT, but standard track jargon is FAT is a gun starts the clock not the system.Or they we say spit/FAT to show it not a person. Otherwise It gives the false impression that that is his 400. Which is what the first poster was trying to assert, not completely, but he refused to recognize that there is an advantage to a split.

I dont mind calling it (FAT with a running start) or FAT SPLIT. But they always seemed to leave the advantages of the SPLIT out when they are trying to prove their point. Because they were using it to say the split time is proof he can ran that fast. Its not. he has that potential but its just not his 400. So a split time is a split time is a split time NOT a open 400.

You have eloquently proved my point,#1 its a split and by recognizing #2 running start and #3 potential possess the baton less than 400. That's it. that all I was saying.

Olympic Truth wrote:

#3 potential possess the baton less than 400. That's it. that all I was saying.

THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE SPLIT TIME.

Christ, this is such a basic concept. It boggles my mind that you are completely incapable of grasping this.,

naw, he's doing just 10MPW and hot yoga.

After seeing him in the trials, all I can think is what happened? Did his lack of mileage catch up to him? Was he burned out (hard to imagine as he was doing so well just before)? Just a bad day? Maybe he just wasn't peaking for the trials since it seemed he wasn't planning to run it before his 1:43. But I was expecting a lot more from Brazier.

Just because the coach, runner, agent, newspaper reporter, etc. say someone ran less that 30 miles per weeks does not mean that is truth.

If you don't believe me ask people who are familiar with Spygate, and deflatagate. Guess what people cheat. They "forget" to tell you about the warmup or the training the athlete did on his own.

Another thing to consider is how much better the athlete would have done if he had believed long distances would help him.

Keep it real okay? wrote:

Just because the coach, runner, agent, newspaper reporter, etc. say someone ran less that 30 miles per weeks does not mean that is truth.

If you don't believe me ask people who are familiar with Spygate, and deflatagate. Guess what people cheat. They "forget" to tell you about the warmup or the training the athlete did on his own.

Another thing to consider is how much better the athlete would have done if he had believed long distances would help him.

The usual idiot argument. "Oh, I bet he doesn´t count the warmups, cooldowns and morning jogs". You might as well argue the other way: many people exaggerate their mileage. Just because they hit 100 mpw once in a while doesn´t they mean their average mileage is anywhere near it.

Keep it real okay? wrote:

Just because the coach, runner, agent, newspaper reporter, etc. say someone ran less that 30 miles per weeks does not mean that is truth.

If you don't believe me ask people who are familiar with Spygate, and deflatagate. Guess what people cheat. They "forget" to tell you about the warmup or the training the athlete did on his own.

Another thing to consider is how much better the athlete would have done if he had believed long distances would help him.

Dumb post. Spy gate in football is based on play calling that's critical in the NFL. Lying about mileage improves no one. The coach said 20-30 mpw. Until you know something different- dumb post.

Just me wrote:

Olympic Truth wrote:

who educated who? LOL

Indeed. LOL.

Who educated *whom?

better double check the whom. not correct.

"If he thinks that he can get by with running 27-30 miles a week, well I’d like to see it,” Gray said. “He’ll never be able to compete at the high level that he’s going to be expected to compete at unless he puts in more mileage. Now you can run fast off of 30 miles a week, but you only can do it once or twice. But to find that consistency and step into the Olympics and go through rounds, [he needs to run more miles].

“He did it at the NCAAs. That might happen. He’s so young and talented, he might get away with it. But now that the expectation’s on him, it’s going to become harder. And unless he changes his mileage, he’s going to have a problem with it.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/12/growing-pains-donavan-brazier-went-breaking-50-year-old-ncaa-record-bombing-olympic-trials-21-days-later/

We have our answer.

ttc wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

I broke 1:50 never running more than 30mpw. You're assessment of 60-80mpw is just your opinion. Brazier hasn't revolutionised anything with his training. This is how 400/800 and 800m specialist train.

The notion of 'special endurance' has been laughed at around here before, but it works. Jogging about for x miles a week doesn't directly help the endurance needed in an 800m in the same way that running hard 700m reps do.

Sub-1:50 is excellent. But 1:43's medalist territory & no 1:43 runner in history's done it off 20-30 mpw.

I hope that the extreme speed approach isn't working, because in part he still has last year's mpw strength & XC racing strength- that would "wear off". Last year's 40 mpw is almost double the 20-30 mpw now.

Man this did not age well. This whole thread aged like vinegar.