An edit to my earlier post-- she ran 5:30 for the last 2k of her 10k, not 5:40. That is 27:30 pace. Not possible. Not on the greatest drugs in the world. Never. It wasn't a full 10,000 meters.
An edit to my earlier post-- she ran 5:30 for the last 2k of her 10k, not 5:40. That is 27:30 pace. Not possible. Not on the greatest drugs in the world. Never. It wasn't a full 10,000 meters.
113 wrote:
Of course it was drug use, but there aren't any drugs in the world that can make a woman running 30 minute pace close her last 2k in 5:40. That's just ludicrous. There had to be something else going on. And again, the men's results were not mediocre, and therefore do not disprove that something was odd about the length of the track. Four men's national records were set on the track. How many times do you see four national records broken in a domestic, late-season meet? The fact that those records were subsequently broken just means that the Chinese men were either not doped or did not respond to doping in the way the women did.
This wasn't some crappy late season domestic intersquad session. The National Games are the premier sporting event in China. Certainly twenty years ago, you could argue that they rivaled the Olympics in terms of prestige within China. This is China's once-every-four-years Super Bowl that only they play. You could make the case that this was more important than the World Championships for Ma and his Army.
Look at the results from that meet and tell me which of the women's results isn't at the very least world class. Are you contending that with a short track, the very best Chinese man in the most important meet of the year couldn't break 20.92 for 200m, even though he ran faster than that outside of China? On a 385m track, a 21.3 200m effort would yield 20.55.
113 wrote:
Again, there has been all sorts of doping in the history of track, especially in the 90s. It makes no sense to conclude that Ma had access to something that could produce such untouchable performances that were so far beyond what any other doped athletes could do.
He had access to control like no other coach I've known. Until they finally revolted, he dominated every aspect of their lives and he hit them with murderous training so that the only ones left standing were untouchable and he had a free ride with respect to doping controls in 1993. When has that ever happened, before or since?
113 wrote:
As to the timers and the international observers, there are two possibilities, both of which could coexist with the short track. The first is that you can't tell with a naked eye how long a track is. If you went to Franklin Field and the rail had been moved in or out a lane, would you be able to tell which lane was a "true" 400 meters? Of course you wouldn't. That stadium had a huge international track with all sorts of extra Mondo surface inside and outside of the oval. It would have been very easy to add an inside lane-- a lane zero-- and run races there.
The second possibility about the observers and timers is that it was all a deliberate conspiracy. I don't find that likely, but I also always assumed you couldn't buy off doping control in the Tour de France, and I was pretty wrong about that. Chinese athletics have a long history of brazen rule-breaking for the sake of bringing home more glory to China. I wouldn't put a deliberately short track past them at all.
This is where you're wrong. Tell me how short the track could be that the women ran so fast and yet the men come nowhere near that level of performance. Even world class. Give me an estimated length of the track that a 20.6 man runs 20.9. On a short track. Who would have installed such a track? Was there such a company in China that could build and install synthetic tracks in 1993?
How could the women set still standing national records at 400m, 800m, 1500m, 3000m, 10000m, 100m hurdles, 400m hurdles, the heptathlon and the 4x400m relay and yet not a single men's mark set on the same supposedly short track survives today? Why did nothing look out of ordinary in the same venue at the 1990 Asian Games? How could they run such phenomenal 1500m times again on a different track four years later?
On what basis are you stating, "no drugs could make a woman close in 5:30?" These weren't normal conditions. No one has ever done this outside of Ma, having taken the best women he could get his hands on, pump them full of drugs and run them into the ground with only the best surviving.
It's impossible that this a conspiracy on false starting points. The splits (particularly in the 3000m and 10000m) bear this out and when have tens of thousands of peoples including outside observers ever successfully conspired in such a way? It would rival the moon landing conspiracy.
It's impossible that the track was short. Besides Omega's due diligence, and even assuming they someone shrunk down the track from the 1990 Asian Games (and then did the same thing in Shanghai four years later) how short could it have possibly been that so many of the men ran ordinary times? The fact that the incredible performances were limited to only women screams male hormones.
As I wrote earlier, this is different than what we saw in the Eastern Bloc in the way it was forced on the athletes. This was really pushing the limits of what the chemically enhanced human body could do.
Stupid comments wrote:
Must be small book.
She never tested positive , zero.
She and the group of women she trained with were not caught up with so called standards in training and racing of the day. The crazy concoctions coach Ma was brewing up , worm fungus etc . for them , tested out as nothing on a banned list.
Star TV did a documentary on her , excellent , pointed out they had no idea about drugs , they trained hard, period.
Do a little research. Most of his group were caught using PEDs and China wouldn't send any of them to Sydney for the Olympics because they didn't want to be embarrassed.
113 wrote:
An edit to my earlier post-- she ran 5:30 for the last 2k of her 10k, not 5:40. That is 27:30 pace. Not possible. Not on the greatest drugs in the world. Never. It wasn't a full 10,000 meters.
Chinese women didn't only run well there. They dominated the world for a few years and then went away.
8:06 is ridiculous. Anyone who thinks this was legal, doesn't know track.
ioncd wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:Keep posting your crap everyone knows they doped
You're confusing "thinks" and "knows". If you think she's so doped, then do you also think Geb was doped? You should just to be fair.
I know she was doped beyond reasonable doubt
J.R. wrote:
Reality Check
2:15:25 / 2:03:38 x 3:26.00 = 3:44.94
The plethora negative attitudes and drug believers repress the real potential of athletics, not only for men but especially for women competitors.
I agree, the Women's 1500 record should be around 3.45
And the drugs issue is a repression of the real potential of male and female athletes.
People are so completey and utterly brainwashed by drug obssesion, it's ridiculous.
Seyta wrote:
kdkl wrote:People from other countries have come within striking distance of her times or ability. And they have done it under stronger testing too. Dibaba and Defar's performances over 5000 and 10000 are equal to Wang's performances over 1500-10000. In fact, their 5000m best times are BETTER than Wang's. If they really wanted to, they could run the times that Wang ran. Do you not agree?
I'd actually just like to address this portion of the post.
Dibaba and Defar, with an army of male pacers helping them along the way, most definitely could not approach Wang Junxia's times, and their 5000m and 10000m times are pitiful when compared to Junxia's performances.
Wang Junxia's performances are as follows:
1500m- 3:51.92
3000m- 8:06
5000m- 14:51 (officially)
5000m- 14:26 (unofficially as the second 5000m of her 10000m record)
10000m- 29:31
Defar's Performances:
1500m- 4:02
3000m- 8:24
5000m- 14:12
10000m- 29:59
Dibaba's Performances:
1500m- ????
3000m- 8:29
5000m- 14:11
10000m- 29:54
Do you really think 29:54 is within striking distance of 29:31???? Dibaba would be almost 150 meters back! Junxia completely outclasses the other two in every event except the 5000m, and incidentally, her real 5000m PR is the 14:26 she split at the end of her 10000m record.
The only reason the 5000m record survived is because it wasn't a premier event in 1993, or else the Chinese likely would've had their drugged up women put that one out of reach as well. If Junxia had run the 5000m in Beijing in 1993, there's a chance that the damn record could be under 14:00.
Dibaba and Defar are likely drugged as it is. However, Junxia would absolutely put them to shame, both in performance, and in just how drugged up the performance was.
~14:10 is equal to Wang's performances. Look it up. Junxia did not put them to shame at all. If they ran the 1500 or 10000 all out, then they would run around what Wang ran.
And yes Dibaba's 10000 best is within striking distance of Wang's time. Dibaba ran that time in a tactical sit and kick race during the Olympic final.
kdkl wrote:
~14:10 is equal to Wang's performances. Look it up. Junxia did not put them to shame at all. If they ran the 1500 or 10000 all out, then they would run around what Wang ran.
It would be interesting if the Ethiopians had a similar series of races, but it's not going to happen is it?
What those Chinese runners did was perhaps an example of what others should do?
I used to believe in the short track hypothesis, but now I am more open minded. China has a long history of innovation in industry and art both of which far outweigh what other countries did and in some cases many centuries ahead of the rest of the world in these innovations.
kdkl wrote:
~14:10 is equal to Wang's performances. Look it up. Junxia did not put them to shame at all. If they ran the 1500 or 10000 all out, then they would run around what Wang ran.
IAAF has 14:10 as being on par with 8:15 (which is about right).
If you apply the relationship between Geb and Bekeles 1500m, 3000m, 5000m and 10000m bests to Wang's 1500m and 3000m bests (since she clearly had plenty left in the 10000m)
1500m 3:51.92
3000m 8:06.11
5000m 13:53.8e
10000m 28:56.1e
I'll add that the 5000m is right in line with what the IAAF has in line for 8:06, while they give 29:10 for 10000m. In any case, 8:06 is far superior to anything the Ethiopian women have done.
Seems you are puzzled.Who thinks thyroid medication is performance enhancing? WADA doesn't.Thyroid medication is not banned and doesn't require a TUE.Is there really even a thyroid debate? Debate seems like the wrong word.
grox wrote:
Not being a US citizen or a professional athlete, it is easy for me to say that there should be no such thing as a TUE. It is too difficult to draw the line between curing an illness and gaining an advantage. The thyroid debate had demonstrated it.
I am as puzzled as most people here by the sudden improvement of Mo Farah, and I also feel like he is holding back from running performances a little too eye-popping.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
kdkl wrote:~14:10 is equal to Wang's performances. Look it up. Junxia did not put them to shame at all. If they ran the 1500 or 10000 all out, then they would run around what Wang ran.
IAAF has 14:10 as being on par with 8:15 (which is about right).
If you apply the relationship between Geb and Bekeles 1500m, 3000m, 5000m and 10000m bests to Wang's 1500m and 3000m bests (since she clearly had plenty left in the 10000m)
1500m 3:51.92
3000m 8:06.11
5000m 13:53.8e
10000m 28:56.1e
I'll add that the 5000m is right in line with what the IAAF has in line for 8:06, while they give 29:10 for 10000m. In any case, 8:06 is far superior to anything the Ethiopian women have done.
Other calculators and tables put 14:10 to be equal to 3:48 and 8:06. So, being fair, that puts 14:10 equal to somewhere between 8:06 and 8:15. That clearly means that Dibaba's performances are on par with Wang's.
The women's IAAF tables are skewed too much on the slow side though. It has 14:10 equal to 29:44 when It's clear that Dibaba could have run much faster than that. That puts more credibility to the tables that suggest 8:06 than the IAAF tables.
So, no, NOT in any case is 8:06 better than anything the Ethiopians have done. It's on the same ability level.
rekrunner wrote:
Seems you are puzzled.
Who thinks thyroid medication is performance enhancing? WADA doesn't.
Thyroid medication is not banned and doesn't require a TUE.
Is there really even a thyroid debate? Debate seems like the wrong word.
And IAAF does not think the blades on the bladerunner are performance enhancing, even thought the blades allowed a doughy, top-heavy human make the semi-final of the Olympic 400.
Not a debate, we are debating it right now, nevermind countless other threads on th esubject and elilte American athletes that have weighed in on the subject.
kdkl wrote:
Other calculators and tables put 14:10 to be equal to 3:48 and 8:06. So, being fair, that puts 14:10 equal to somewhere between 8:06 and 8:15. That clearly means that Dibaba's performances are on par with Wang's.
The women's IAAF tables are skewed too much on the slow side though. It has 14:10 equal to 29:44 when It's clear that Dibaba could have run much faster than that. That puts more credibility to the tables that suggest 8:06 than the IAAF tables.
So, no, NOT in any case is 8:06 better than anything the Ethiopians have done. It's on the same ability level.
I disagree completely. Show me the table that puts 14:10 on par with 8:06. It would have to be ancient, dating back to the days when the women's 5000m wasn't a regularly contested event.
To say that a 14:10 is equivalent to 8:06 is to say that 12:40 is equivalent to 7:14.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
I disagree completely. Show me the table that puts 14:10 on par with 8:06. It would have to be ancient, dating back to the days when the women's 5000m wasn't a regularly contested event.
To say that a 14:10 is equivalent to 8:06 is to say that 12:40 is equivalent to 7:14.
You disagree because you ignore my points. The IAAF table is not accurate. Did you read what I wrote about it's suggested 10k time for Dibaba??? There is no way you honestly disagree that she is much faster than that.
The other tables are purdy, jack Daniels, and McMillan. Where did you get that 12:40 equals 7:14? How did you arrive at that?
kdkl wrote:
You disagree because you ignore my points. The IAAF table is not accurate. Did you read what I wrote about it's suggested 10k time for Dibaba??? There is no way you honestly disagree that she is much faster than that.
The other tables are purdy, jack Daniels, and McMillan. Where did you get that 12:40 equals 7:14? How did you arrive at that?
What have I ignored? I don't think the IAAF table is perfect, but I believe it to be closer than the numbers you've stated. I would put 14:10 right around 29:30.
If Purdy, Daniels and McMilan have 8:06 equalling 14:10, then I think they are in serious need for revision. You can state your opinion that the IAAF table is inaccurate, which is fine, but if those charts show 8:06=14:10, then they are wildly inaccurate. A woman running 4:03 back to back is like a man running 3:35 back to back.
Look at the three fastest men ever at 5000m and look at their 3000m bests:
12:39.75/7:20.67 = 1.72
12:39.36/7:25.09 = 1.71
12:37.35/7:25.79 = 1.70
But 14:10/8:06 = 1.75
12:40/1.75 = 7:14.3
This doesn't take much guess work. Defar's best for two miles equals 8:18.6 and given her splits that day, she's a bit better than that at her best. Couple that with her 14:12 (on less than ideal pacing) and you have a connection between 8:16 and 14:10.
I'm sure you'll disagree with some or all of this but the fact is we've had two women run within sight of 14:10 and I'm sure we will have more in the future but we will not have anyone come within sight of 8:06. It's well out of reach.
Actually the IAAF thought the blades were performance enhancing. They hired a scientist to test the blades, and the IAAF scientist concluded that the blades gave an inhuman performance enhancing advantage. The CAS over-ruled the IAAF decision on appeal, as lawyers were asked to settle a scientific question with incomplete information.And we are not debating it now. A debate isn't just a declaration of an opposing viewpoint, but also presenting arguments that support a proposition. In none of the "thyroid debates" did I see any supporting arguments that thyroid medication was performance enhancing. Did any scientist, doping expert, or athlete ever say that thyroid medication enhanced their performance above their normal capability? Curiously, in all of the "thyroid debates", it seems that TUEs get mentioned, but the IAAF does not require a TUE for medication which is not banned.I simply repeat: debate is the wrong word.
is evolution even a debate? wrote:
And IAAF does not think the blades on the bladerunner are performance enhancing, even thought the blades allowed a doughy, top-heavy human make the semi-final of the Olympic 400.
Not a debate, we are debating it right now, nevermind countless other threads on th esubject and elilte American athletes that have weighed in on the subject.
I wouldn't agree at all. What is it that NOP is doing to screw up the integrity of the sport?These finishes are not statistically significant.No way you can compare legal, non-performance enhancing medication to whatever cocktail of male hormones Ma's been accused of providing for his girls.Asthma medication is trickier, because there are steroid and non-steroid medications.Caffeine is a "legal PED" that every choses not to disclose. There's nothing lacking integrity about not disclosing substances which are within the rules.MA is way different than Salazar.
I am letsrun wrote:
I agree, PED's will never level the playing field, in fact,it does the opposite. But wouldn't you agree that what NOP is doing right now is screwing up the integrity of the sport just like the Chinese did? Sure, they are not re-writing record books(even though Farah probably could), but they have finished 1,2,1,1,2,1,1,4 in the last three majors. I dought most east Africans are taking their thyroid and asthma meds, at least right now. And who knows what else legal PED NOP is using that they are choosing not to disclose after seeing the mini backlash they are getting for thyroid meds.
MA is no diferent than Salazar, they just found a way to get the edge and did it extremely effectively.
My main argument against drugs being the only explanation is the looks of Wang. Most females being treated with testosterone or anabolic steroids look like a man after a while, but Wang never did. She is not your typical former east German/USSR kinda female athlete who has to undergo surgery to become a man after her career. And EPO alone just doesn't explain the huge gap between her performance in China and outside.
Also male hormones altering the body would last longer than just a few days...