Laura MF Muir 3:55

Algonquin wrote:

Admit that Scotland's history of not being 1/50th as good as Ethiopia in running means her performance, all other things equal, is more suspicious than an Ethiopian's similar performance.

Yes, Scotland has better testing which flips the suspicion. But the point is that "context" is a lot of things. And we can all pick one bit of context and come up with doping suspicion scales but really it is all made up. No one knows. For a long time, Lance A. and Marion J. were thought highly likely to be clean.

Have you read one post I have written? I wrote about the advantages East Africans have. I put her as a 5 out of 10 on a suspicion index. You and I agree!

You're arguing with me like I said she is cleaner than Snow White. I never said that, inplied that, or hinted at it. You and I agree! There should be suspicion! Not as much as Dibaba, for example, whose coach was found with EPO, yada yada. But more suspicion than if she was still just running 4:02

What is wrong with the forum today! I have spent all my replies havng tonredirect people from what they think I mean, to what I actually wrote. Stop imagining my points and read my posts. Actually read my posts and stop inventing an argument just so you have someone to spar with.

I hope this helps wrote:

Clerk wrote:

Infeel like I meed to copy a disclaimer and post at the bottom of every reply I make: "Read everything I wrote for meaning. Don't just read to find something you can distort."

I never read any of your posts, and probably very few people do, if any.

This is helpful. Better than anything else the last two pages. Thank you for actually discussing my post instead of imagining some point to argue with.

Hey Mr. Clerk

You may have noticed that many people at this forum have a lot of problems with: understanding context, understanding what they read, understanding the results of blood tests which indicate an autologous blood transfusion by Paula Radcliffe in 2003, understanding sarcasm, understanding humor, how to do math, spelling, typing, editing, the ability to think…and various other cognitive problems which I do not want to go into detail about right now.

For example:

Here is a post by rojo on this thread:

So I've been at a wedding all weekend. I hope on here to see what people are saying. I just don't get the logic.

It appers that popple like the guy above are saying that Muir is 100% doped because she's run fast. My question to you then is why didn't the dope work in Rio?

Or is the argument that she didn't medal in Rio because she tried to run for gold and go with another person they also think is doped because she ran fast??

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7642538&page=6#ixzz4IfKWODpw

"I hope on here…"

"It appers that popple…"

"I just don't get the logic."

Please do a detailed analysis of his post... if you would like to do that.

I think it is a waste of time.

Oh well.

Algonquin wrote:

Yes, Scotland has better testing which flips the suspicion.

I disagree. UKAD (like the Russian and Ethiopian equivalents) has never caught one of their own athletes, in contrast to US, Kenya and Jamaica. Even worse, they let their own people get away with blatant test evasions (doorbell, untrained tester - as laughable as ridiculo).

On top of that, the UK continues to perform better than say the Russians at the Olympics. Yes, in 2012 as well, not just this time. Something has changed on that island, and it smells fishy.

That's a bold declaration, but......I liked it quite a bit too. Spot on satire.

casual obsever wrote:

Algonquin wrote:

Yes, Scotland has better testing which flips the suspicion.

I disagree. UKAD (like the Russian and Ethiopian equivalents) has never caught one of their own athletes, in contrast to US, Kenya and Jamaica. Even worse, they let their own people get away with blatant test evasions (doorbell, untrained tester - as laughable as ridiculo).

On top of that, the UK continues to perform better than say the Russians at the Olympics. Yes, in 2012 as well, not just this time. Something has changed on that island, and it smells fishy.

It's the smell of money, not fish, they've been throwing bucket loads leading up to the London Olympics and have continued to do so. Lottery funding.

rjm33 wrote:

Everyone ends up having to come up with their own criteria. How fast is "too fast"? How much improvement is "too much"?, etc...

The sum total often becomes a subjective "feeling" about a runner.

I know that my "feeling" changed for Genzebe Dibaba last year. She was a very talented runner from a young age. She was not always coached by Jama Aden. Then all of a sudden, she broke the world record, dropping 5 seconds from her PR. In 2016, there was Operation Rial at Sabadell, Spain.

Many people at this site thought she was clean when she ran the new world record. Things changed this year for many people. Some people believe she has always been clean and is still clean today.

My view of her is neutral for now, when I start reading that she is going for lone training camps in Kenya and Ethiopians for months at a time I will definitelybe suspicious. How does Scotland produce such a fast runner anyhow it's way too cold there to train for much of the year.

Ok, we probably do agree.

One way to go with this is that everyone is dirty.

Another way to go with this is that a lot of people are clean (some people of course are dirty--human nature). For instance, let's assume that Muir is clean. If we can believe Muir is clean, we can believe almost everyone else is clean. If we start from people and performances we know are clean, we can be much more optimistic about how many people are clean. On the Men's side, if Jim Ryun could run 3:51.3 on dirt in 1967 and Ron Clarke could run 13:16 on dirt in 1966, and we pretty much know those performances are clean, then it is not crazy, for instance, to think that Bekele was clean

Muir's 3:55.22 is the 11th fastest time ever. Ever. Her 800 PR is 2:00.42 and 3000m is 8:38.47 (from last year and a major improvement from the 8:57 she started 2015 with). I always look at either side of good milers to see strength and potential. Her 800 is very weak and her PR 8:38.47 ranks 455th on the all time list. But the 3:55 indicates she should be able to run 8:20ish. So I have to assume we'll see her running 3000m and even 5000m in 2017.

The Butchart/Muir breakout is worth investigating and this girl running the 11th fastest time over 1500m EVER...come on now. Oh yeah, and after Dibaba, Muir is the second fastest woman competing today. Butchart not as close, but still 6th overall at OLY final.

The Scot Probe.... wrote:

Muir's 3:55.22 is the 11th fastest time ever. Ever. Her 800 PR is 2:00.42 and 3000m is 8:38.47 (from last year and a major improvement from the 8:57 she started 2015 with). I always look at either side of good milers to see strength and potential. Her 800 is very weak and her PR 8:38.47 ranks 455th on the all time list. But the 3:55 indicates she should be able to run 8:20ish. So I have to assume we'll see her running 3000m and even 5000m in 2017.

The Butchart/Muir breakout is worth investigating and this girl running the 11th fastest time over 1500m EVER...come on now. Oh yeah, and after Dibaba, Muir is the second fastest woman competing today. Butchart not as close, but still 6th overall at OLY final.

She's #13 all time, not #11.

If we beloved Muir is clean, then we have to accept the fact that, maybe, the Chinese and some of the eastern Europeans are clean. Yes, they had a history and accusations of doping, but if muir is clean, then some of them could well be clean too.

Hilarious that there's six Chinese ahead of here who all ran their times on the same date of 18 October 1997.

Hilarious......... wrote:

Hilarious that there's six Chinese ahead of here who all ran their times on the same date of 18 October 1997.

What is hilarious about that?

She's actually 16th fastest time ever, 13th fastest woman.

1 3:50.07 Genzebe

2 3:50.46 Qu Yunxia

3 3:50.98 Jiang Bo

4 3:51.34 Lang Yinlai

5 3:51.92 Wang Junxia

6 3:52.47 Tatyana Kazankina

7 3:53.91 Yin Lili

8 3:53.96 Paula Ivan

9 3:53.97 Lan Lixin

10 3:54.11 Genzebe Dibaba

11 3:54.23 Olga Dvirna

12 3:54.52 Zhang Ling

13 3:55.0 Tatyana

14 3:55.01 Lan Lixin

15 3:55.07 Dong Yanmei

16 3:55.22 Laura Muir

17 3:55.30 Hassiba Boulmerka

Clerk wrote:

jeff tallon wrote:

a lot of people seem to think that because shes scottish,and ran 4.07 in 2013,shes clean.i dont know if she is,or not,but if she were chinese,russian,moroccan,turkish, or ukrainian,and ran 4.07 in 2013,and then ran 3.55 in 2016,there would be an outcry,and a massive amount of condemnation.no turk has ever ran as fast as she has,no american either.russia has been banned from athletics,yet none of their heavily drugged superwomen have run as fast as laura muir,and no soviet has run 3.55 since the 80s.

Scotland doesn't have history of a doping culture. Scottish coaches haven't been linked to doped athletes. UKAD has shown massive incompetence (purposeful or not), but seemingly has more integrity than IAAF or the NADOs of Russia, Turkey or Morocco.

Context matters.

They probably do have an underground doping culture, they just get away with it, and it's perhaps the side effect of their accent, they all sound like a comedy festival. Anybody heard of Allan Wells?

Look up Chris Hoy thighs on the net, forget the lizard in Kipchoge's leg, Hoy's quads come from Chernobyl.

Maybe she didn't like the heat and was not suited to a 1:57 close in Rio. Or maybe she was overtrained, like Hill at U.S. trials. Or maybe she and other major names failed in Rio because they knew that testing is far more serious at the Olympics and that they will re-test the samples in future years, whereas they may or may not be tested on the circuit and likely won't ever re-test those samples.

Mope Dealer wrote:

They probably do have an underground doping culture, they just get away with it, and it's perhaps the side effect of their accent, they all sound like a comedy festival. Anybody heard of Allan Wells?

Look up Chris Hoy thighs on the net, forget the lizard in Kipchoge's leg, Hoy's quads come from Chernobyl.

Chris Hoy is something else, of course. But just for fun, here's Exhibit B, Robert Forstermann (on the right, next to Andre Greipel on left)

My first post in the thread was about the surge of Scottish athletics for this Olympics. My biggest concern were the three still unidentified UK athletes who were said to have had doping facilitated by a now arrested Kenyan doctor. Muir, Bruchart, Hawkins though, had not trained in Kenya (all train seperately) and have different coaches.

Total rubbish wrote:

She's run 6 800s this year with 2 being in June/July. With the exception of 2015, 800 has been a staple event - 8 races in 2014 and 7 in 2013. The idea that she closed in sub-2 is absurd considering her racing history over 800.

The Scots are throwing up red flags. But nobody is testing positive and they're all tweeting #cleansport. It's a joke.

What red flags?

jjjjjj wrote:

Maybe she didn't like the heat and was not suited to a 1:57 close in Rio. Or maybe she was overtrained, like Hill at U.S. trials. Or maybe she and other major names failed in Rio because they knew that testing is far more serious at the Olympics and that they will re-test the samples in future years, whereas they may or may not be tested on the circuit and likely won't ever re-test those samples.

Testing is more serious at the Olympics.

A good example is the Sochi Winter Olympics…with Russian agents, holes in the wall of the anti-doping lab, switched urine samples and tamper-proof bottles…that were not tamper-proof.

Dr. Martial Saugy was also there.

All samples for future retesting from the Sochi Olympics are stored…at the Lausanne, Switzerland WADA lab... with lab director Dr. Martial Saugy.

It is just a coincidence.