If every top athlete is doping, what is the ultimate human potential for CLEAN athletes?

12:49 26:39 58:35 2:02:03 (2:03:47 without vaporfly)

George213 wrote:

12:49 26:39 58:35 2:02:03 (2:03:47 without vaporfly)

edited:58:33

800m - 1:42

1500m - 3:29

5K - 13:00

10K - 27:00

Marathon - 2:05:00 (without vaporfly)

Beetroot Juice wrote:

A great majority of the people on the boards seems to think that every world record holder or pretty much any top international athlete is doping one way or the other.

An ignorant person might think that. Especially given the expulsion of Russia, most of the top athletes at the last world championships were legitimate. Nasser was one of the notable exceptions where we all simply looked at each other with frustration and knew we’d just witnessed a thief run away with the gold.

Road racing is more problematic, given that there are so many more competitive athletes than there are available spots for out-of-competition testing.

Nasser was one of the notable exceptions where we all simply looked at each other with frustration and knew we’d just witnessed a thief run away with the gold.[/quote]

What was specially wrong with her at the time. I think you are only saying this now because she just got busted for whereabouts failure. You're just predicting the past.

Does anyone have an opinion on what it would be for females?

Beetroot Juice wrote:

What was specially wrong with her at the time. I think you are only saying this now because she just got busted for whereabouts failure. You're just predicting the past.

Running a PR by one second in the 400m to run the third fastest time ever behind a couple generally accepted dopers tends to raise red flags. If you think people are only just now crying foul because of the whereabouts failures then you weren't listening at the time.

It is not that everybody dopes. The problem is that a) so many dope, likely about half of the world championship athletes, and b) doping is so powerful that it helps some 1 - 4 % (depending on which expert you want to believe).

1 - 4% is often much more than the difference between place 1 and place 4, which is why a lot more than half of the medalists dope.

To answer the question: the current potential is between 1 and 4% slower than the current world records.

Current, because technology and training and nutrition knowledge will continue to improve and contribute to better times.

just a guess wrote:

800m - 1:42

1500m - 3:29

5K - 13:00

10K - 27:00

Marathon - 2:05:00 (without vaporfly)

Wow, I was about to post the exact same numbers including the without vaporfly comment. I might lower the 800 to 1:41, otherwise I agree with these times.

DC Runnerman wrote:

just a guess wrote:

800m - 1:42

1500m - 3:29

5K - 13:00

10K - 27:00

Marathon - 2:05:00 (without vaporfly)

Wow, I was about to post the exact same numbers including the without vaporfly comment. I might lower the 800 to 1:41, otherwise I agree with these times.

I’d have to disagree with you on this one 5k,1500 and 10k . 5k is at least in the 12:40s Jakob Ingebrigtsen ran 13:02 and tbh I really don’t think he has doped. But I guess sometimes it’s the people u least suspect. Also he’s run 3:30 and I’m not sure what he ran in the 10k but I know it somewhere close to 27:00 minutes

casual obsever wrote:

It is not that everybody dopes. The problem is that a) so many dope, likely about half of the world championship athletes, and b) doping is so powerful that it helps some 1 - 4 % (depending on which expert you want to believe).

1 - 4% is often much more than the difference between place 1 and place 4, which is why a lot more than half of the medalists dope.

To answer the question: the current potential is between 1 and 4% slower than the current world records.

Current, because technology and training and nutrition knowledge will continue to improve and contribute to better times.

Just about everyone dopes with certain nations (Russia, Belarus, Morroco, etc.), and Kenya is at a level of prevalent and widespread doping. Other nations are probably not as bad in this ABP-era and will have varying levels of doping contingent on the events they put more emphasis on (e.g, sprints, middle-distance, distance, marathon, etc).

You're right....according to experts, "1-4%" is what they're saying but that could be a lot higher with full-throttle doping and high responders (we saw that with Ramzi at Helsinki with double gold and a PB in the 800 - all while riding on astronomically high Off-scores. Lol).

Technology on shoes will help somewhat but there's a point of no return (unless they can design miniature rocket boosters or something. Lol). Training hasn't changed much over the years - the bulk of a runner's training is still to run; high mileage, speedwork, tempos, etc. - nothing new there. But doping has allowed athletes to run much higher milage, do harder & more speedwork, reduce injuries - all translating to better performances that they normally couldn't have accomplished clean. And nutrition hasn't done anything to improve performance. If it did there would be no need for doping as nutrition would solve the problem for a legal (and cheap) way to significantly improve performance.

Sadly, the pharmaceutical empire has a strong grip on the athletic world. ?

just a guess wrote:

800m - 1:42

1500m - 3:29

5K - 13:00

10K - 27:00

Marathon - 2:05:00 (without vaporfly)

I always like to look at the world records in 1967. Blood doping and steriods really weren't players at the time and training wasn't totally stupid.

800m 1:44.3

1500 3:33.1

5000m 13:16

10000m 27:39

I then figure 1s/lap for better tracks and shoes(seriously pick up a pair of those 1960s shoes sometime and figure how nuts it was to run 80+mpw in them) is totally in the realm of reasonable. But I also wouldn't be stunned to learn 2s is also in the realm (i.e. getting oftely close to world records) is also doable given much larger population, better competition setups, and training improvements. I wouldn't be totally shocked to learn that a couple of the male running records are legit.

No clean sub 13

Sub 3:30, filthy dirty

Sub 1:45, no clean human alive

Sub 45, don't gimme no jive

Sub 27:30, that's also filthy dirty

Sub 8, that ain't straight

Sub 60 half, don't make me laugh

Sub 7:30, only GOAT Choge

faster than all the current WRs.

Beetroot Juice wrote:

A great majority of the people on the boards seems to think that every world record holder or pretty much any top international athlete is doping one way or the other.

If so, what do you guys believe to be the ultimate human potential without any illegal performance enhancing drus (beetroot juice is fine), in various track events?

I would disagree with your fundamental premise that "A great majority of the people on the boards seems to think that every world record holder". For most events, it is a minority viewpoint. Only selected female world records from Chinese, Russian, Czech, and USA would fit the description of "great majority".

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

I always like to look at the world records in 1967. Blood doping and steriods really weren't players at the time and training wasn't totally stupid.

800m 1:44.3

1500 3:33.1

5000m 13:16

10000m 27:39

interesting. also 10.0 in 100 and 20.0 in 200

nowadays:

better tracks + shoes + nutrition + training methods +more non caucasians and there you go

A few people got natura blood values on pair with epo. But the chances for them having perfect runners body is slim. But theoretically the fastest times would be the same as with doping. Maybe not in practise

I would say something like :

1,43

3'30

7'30

8'05 steeple

12'55

27'

1h00

2h05-06

I come from France and there was a very talented generation (Carvalho, Chadhi, Amdouni, Damanhi, Calvin) who won everything from age of 13 including European cross country champ and finishing world junior championship 4th-7th in 800m and 1500m. They broke many nationnal records while young.

First two ended with 3'33 1500, 28'00 10k and 2h09-2h12 marathon (can still be improved). I think that is close to what you can reach at best with exceptional talent and training without doping.

Last 3 are strongly suspected of doping with PR like 1'44, 7'37, 13'10, 2h09, 31'20 and 2h23 (women). Which is nothing exceptionnal on international level. So it is really worrying to see that they are so far from the best with this talent, and very likely, doping. Maybe training has not been optimal for Amdouni an Damahni but still.

Fore example Damanhi ran 1'48 and 3'43 at age of 16 but could not do better than 1'44 and 3'36 when adult.

I guess also that there is different level of doping and they did not get the best like Armstrong or Kiprop lol.

Genetic engineering is next. A lab somewhere will literally create a human life form all the ideal traits for a certain sport.