Super shoes + new coach: Ashete Bekele didn't break 2:23:43 in her first 16 marathons. Now she thinks she ran 2:17-18

Here is the article.

https://www.nnrunningteam.com/news/2020-05-12-the-winning-game/

Juice + juiced shoes = big marathon PR.

I assume you're being a little cheeky about since this profile screams of doping. It seems pretty obvious to all of us who care about a clean sport that Ethiopians, among others, are continuing to dope with impunity.

rojo wrote:

...

After seeing those stats, the main question I have is, "How bad must her training have been in the past or how good must the new shoes be?"

A consistent 1:10/2:25 performer suddenly drops to 2:21 and 1:06(!). Sure Rojo it's gotta be the shoes no other explanation here.

She was second at altitude at Cuidad De Mexico in 2017. The winner of that race in 2018 was busted for doping and according to someone I know that is very close to this athlete she was training with NN team and was set to cooperate with anti doping officials to expose what NN is doing. I don't know the status of this situation anymore but hopefully it's seen through.

kingojamin wrote:

Juice + juiced shoes = big marathon PR.

There is that... but the title is quite misleading: she has already run 2:20:14, so to dream of 2:17-2:18 (with better shoes/drugs/coach/pacing/...) is not exactly absurd.

I don't know, perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but going from 2:23 in 2015 to 2:20 in 2019 (Berlin) does not seem that ridiculous. I'm not sure how fast the different courses she ran were, or what kind of splits she ran, but she seemed to hover in that 2:25 range before hitting hitting her last 4 in under 2:24.

Maybe the shoes played a part, maybe the courses are easier, maybe there's another reason, and maybe consistently higher mileage has let her finish stronger than she has before...

At least in Toronto, she was on low 2:24 pace at the half before crashing the last ~15k

The Floyd wrote:

After seeing those stats, the main question I have is, "How bad must her training have been in the past or how good must the new shoes be?"

[/quote]

Not really. Yes, normally that would be the assumption but why would NN running want to risk their reputation on a 2:23 marathoner? It makes no sense as one positive hurts the entire group.

So I'm just curious how many people are like this.

yeah definitely the shoes....

c'mon people, in like 99% of cases where someone goes from an also ran to really good in their late 20s.....its the juice. she's as doped as kipchoge or el g

looking at nothing other than those marathon performances and the year they were run, I'm actually not at all shocked by her progression.

2:34 debut then gets to 2:31 the following year. okay, no big deal. for all we know these were all blowups, which could be checked looking at splits. Actually I'll check!

her 2:31 race was tactical as she got 2nd place by 12 seconds and third was 30 seconds behind her. hard to find splits

2:27 a year later...nothing crazy here.

2:24:59 the next year, that's fairly quick improvement but again, nothing crazy, even in 2014.

2:23:43 the next year. just good improvement, slowing down as expected.

2016, no improvement (2:25 again) but split 70:40ish halfway in Tokyo, so that shows she was fit.

2017 2:25 again in Seoul.

2018 2:23 then 2:21. yes there are new shoes but 2:23 in 2015 to 2:21 in 2018 isn't crazy.

2019 2:20. keep in ind she had split 70min for halfway several years before this, so maybe she had just been racing poorly before 2018 or so.

nothing to see here. not saying she's clean but none of this seems sketchy to me.

I think your just mad that is she is going to "chick" you.

you're*

I don't see anything especially unusual about that progression -- steady improvement during the first five years, with a total improvement of about ten minutes. The next four years show no significant improvement, with the faster times during the last two years well within what might be expected with changes in shoe technology. Here's the progression, showing just her fastest times of each year:

2011

2:34:00

2012

2:31:23

2013

2:27:47

2014

2:24:59

2015

2:23:43

2016

2:25:50

2017

2:25:57

2018

2:21:14

2019

2:20:14

The recent studies were showing 1:40 gain for the top men and 3:00 gain for the top women in the marathon on average for the Vaporflies. Some, like Molly Huddle, don't respond as well (only ~1% benefit) to the new super shoes, and some respond better. So 3+ (maybe 5?) minutes could easily be shoes only for women. That women that ran 44:xx for 15K was surely a super responder.

I see that everybody continues to underrate the importance of the coach when some athlete improves his/her PB.

Getaneh is a coach with a lot of experience, in the past coached Tsegaye Kebede, for example, and many Others able to run well under 2:06 (before the shoes…).

He started to coach women few years ago only, and was the first coach in Ethiopia to organise a training camp outside of Addis Abeba.

Comparing with the previous situation, is not something strange to think the athlete can improve of 5-7 minutes, this is normal when athletes able running 2:25 (women) or 2:07 (men) with hard training but without a right methodological strategy finally go under a coach with experience in the advanced way of training.

Here everybody speaks about doping or shoes, but the main reason for top performances Always remains TRAINING, and not all coaches have the same knowledge and the same impact on the athletes.

Looks like a pretty normal progression to me.

My PB without the shoes is 2:25. First time I wore the shoes I ran 2:19. *shrugs*

She thinks she ran 2:18 even though she ran 2:23?!?! Wow!

Imagine what the amazing superior JS could do with this athlete, with his 40 or 50 reps of 200s, for every workout. Surely that would yield a 2:16 for her?