Amby Burfoot says it out loud - Chepngetich is doping

Huh?

I'm not a millennial, and I know the sport very well, thanks. I probably follow it more closely than most people here, which is saying a bit on a specialized site.

That's exactly why I know how limited his achievements are: Boston Marathon win x1, in 1968when the sport was immature (little global participation) and Boston could be won in 2:22? Why care about this guy?

(Pop quiz, since you think you know so much history: how pathetically far from the WR was Amby when he won Boston 56 years ago?)

13 minutes.

He won Boston running 13 minutes off the world record of the time.

Open image

And Trevor Hofbauer 29:24, 1:04:30, and 2:09:51. You make a good point.

If YOU knew as much history as you want people to believe you'd know that there was no world record in the marathon when Amby won Boston 56 years ago.

Yeah, but you can't find any of them in 1968 no matter how fast or slow their track times were.

Did you miss that it was the 78-year old voice of experience, former Boston Champ, and long time writer for Runners World, and author of several running books, with all his "understanding and knowledge that comes from years of experience" who said "I don't have a clue"?

Of course he did. He doesn't have a clue.

Is he now trying to walk back his clear accusations, or pretend he didn't make them. Seems weak.

You just have to look at this thread title to see what an interested reader makes of Amby's blog post.

You are definitely not significantly smarter than me. (It is literally not possible by any widely accepted measure.)

It is bizarre that you cannot grasp that my original post was not even about his achievements as an athlete. (Reading comprehension does not seem to be among the characteristics you pathetically started bragging about.) The post was explicitly about his desperation for relevance. It is also bizarre that you want to promote him as a "journalist" (which he isn't) or a "commentator" (which anyone with an internet connection can claim to be).

Let me remind you what I wrote, Amby/apologist:
"Who? This Amby person seems desperate for relevance in 2024. Sad."

I'll stand by that.

Thanks for proving my point.

The marathon was so immature as an event that there wasn't even a recognized world record at the time.

The world best recognized by the IAAF and ARRS at the time was 2:09, a major breakthrough at the time when Amby was winning Boston 1968 in 2:22.

I believe Amby ran 2:14 in Fukuoka that year, five minutes off the world best?

Won Boston before it was competitive, against a weak field even for the time.

What a weird non sequitur.

In decades of experience dealing with people who think they are special, many of whom are actually very, very talented while most are unimpressive, it is always the least impressive specimens who start talking about who "smart" they are, unprompted.

You seem to be part of that dismal club: perhaps within the top percent of your high school, but not in the top percent of any group that matters.

Dick Beardsley ran 2:08:53 in hot weather in Boston (4:55 pace) and the IAAF list his only other Personal Best of note are a 15k in 44:49 (4:49 pace) and a 10 mile in 48:21 (4:50) pace from around the same time (1981-1982).

Certain distances fit certain people better than other distances. Whether it be the training for it, or their physical or mental predispositions, or whatever, but sometimes you just find your niche where you can excel.

I think several have mentioned Steve Jones coming through the half marathon in 1:01:46 (just 49 second of the HM record at the time) in 1985 Chicago and holding on for a 2:07:13 marathon.

Sometimes certain race tactics suit certain people better, whether it gets ,mentally and emotionally engaged or they are just better at holding on rather then being patient.

I don't remember anyone (Beardsley or Jones) thinking either of them where doping.

Certain distances fit certain people better than other distances. Whether it be the training for it, or their physical or mental predispositions, or whatever, but sometimes you just find your niche where you can excel.

Not saying that this record is clean or dirty but I don't looking at someone's times at other distances, or chosen race strategy, are necessarily a qualifier or signs of doping.

I also think any runner who wants to be taken seriously and have their records or times be taken seriously and not immediately questioned need to pay close attention to who the associate themselves with. I have to wonder if the Kenyan parliament ever asked for an apology from certain European Managers or coaches who have led Kenyan athletes to or helped them dope.

To me it her management team that is the biggest thing leading to my suspicions on this record.

How dare you refer to actual data?

Didn't you read Amby's blog?

After making several elementary numerical observations, he writes:

"Here’s my last statistical argument. As Mark Twain said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Others will use the plethora of running statistics to argue that Chepngetich ran a fair, legal marathon. Don’t believe them."

You see, Amby has foreclosed any further discussion of data; only his data matters. If you or anyone else introduces contradictory data? "Don't believe them."

You are correct. Amby was a very mediocre runner from a small New England State known for being the epicenter of White Privilege. He was a small fish in a small pond

He ran under 2:20 twice, 2:18 and a 2:14, which was an extreme outlier from his performance history. His 2:22 "win" at Boston came on a day that no one ran. It was an Olympic year after all. His average marathon is a dismal 2:31!.

Look at his CV - No wonder he feels emasculated by Ruth Chepngetich

https://more.arrs.run/runner/9399/1/time/desc

3:00:24
2:50:53
2:46:37
2:46:19
2:35:07
2:34:09
2:31:41
2:30:05
2:29:37
2:28:58
2:28:05
2:27:57
2:27:31
2:25:47
2:25:28
2:24:43.4
2:22:17 Boston MA/USA
2:21:21
2:20:24
2:18:56
2:14:28.8

Seems like a great progression for a guy that ran 2;22 at age 22.

BTW, why the ad hominem on Amby?? Don't you think you have valid points? If so make them. The point is not a comparison of Amby vs Ruth it is about Ruth's time being totally out of all credibility wack with other performances, with known limits of one race vs another when you compare against men's limits, which have reached a plateau due to the amount of competition

Yeah, but also bring the sex card too in whenn you don't have a point

Makes his accusations quite interesting, since he never again touched his massive outlier 2:14, or even came came near his 2:18.

Suspicious?

while the ad hominem is clearly a cheap shot and that makes that poster an idiot, he/she does raise a good point regarding misrepresentation of statistical evidence. Ruth's progression is great, but that doesn't necessarily make her a doper. Again, if so, I would argue, based on progression as well as how strong the record was at the time, Radcliffe's 2:15 in 2003 was even more sus than a 2:09 in 2024.

Have you even been reading the thread.

There are plenty of points made about his "arguments."

Here's another.

Amby writes that "All veteran runners understand that it’s impossibly difficult to improve after you have reached a sustained high level deep into your career. On Sunday, the Chepngetich knocked almost five minutes off her previous best. That sort of improvement just doesn’t happen after clearly peaking, as she has at this point in her career.
It just doesn’t happen."

The man has seemingly never heard of Jessica Hull, who improved her PB by the exactly same percentage in one year. (Chepngetich's PB was two years old.) In any case, he hasn't written a similar accusatory screed about Hull.