Most Talented Runner in History? Daniel Komen or Kenenisa Bekele?

Thank you for your perspective, JRinaldi. It's nice to hear from actual competitors and not armchair QB's like Deanouk. Thank you.

Awesome to hear from someone who actually trained with Ngeny! That's hard core!!

Are you still in touch with him? Wonder what he's up to nowadays...coaching perhaps

More info on Noah (and other KIM athletes) in this thread:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1498029

Deanouk wrote:

It is also strange that if he indeed was born in 1972 and ran 1:49 at 12, he was unable to break 1:47 for another 5 years, until he was 17!

There have always been 'issues' with some nations (e.g. Kenya) not being altogether honest about athletes' ages, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kipketer was one of those athletes, having read the following from a Sports Illustrated article:

"O'Connell wasn't sure how old his pupil was because Kipketer has

always been coy about his age. The latest International Track &

Field Annual, which lists his birth year as 1970, notes that

Kipketer has competed at international competitions at which he

has given his birth year as 1968 or 1972."

Maybe this 1:49 is not correct?

Deanouk wrote:

exrunner wrote:

Personally, I think the most talented runners of the last 150 years were all born in England a couple years apart and around their peak in the period where doping was legal with steroids and blood transfusions and there was no testing.

You have been corrected on this blatant lie several times, but keep peddling it.

What is the lie? [/quote]

The lie is that you claim Ovett, Coe & Cram were at their peak when steroids was legal! Steroids were made illegal in 1975, long before any of their peak years. In 75 Ovett was 19, Coe 18 and Cram 14.

Your second lie is that you make a sweeping generalisation by stating 'there was no testing' during their career. This is simply not true. No, it wasn't as robust a system as today, but it was certainly happening at major champs, for world record performances and randomly by the BAAB from the early 80's in and out of competition, and out of season from 1985.

The testing in 1985 would have been better than it was in 1975, which would have been better than it had been in 1965. It's called natural development and scientific improvements.

But to say there was NO TESTING during their careers is utter nonsense.[/quote]

I've never said that. I said that they were at the peaks of their careers when blood doping was legal. That is absolute fact.

Steroids were banned in 1976 but 60% of athletes at the 1984 Olympics said they were using. The drug testing was much poorer than it is today, everyone was using. Out of competition testing barely existed, as I said the norm back then was that you would be tested at a competition and informed beforehand. They started some 'suprise' testing in 1983 but you didn't have to comply, there was no penalty like today.

Listen to what I am saying. The same argument that "EPO was rife in the 90s" because there was no test for it is exactly the same argument as "blood doping was rife in the 80s" because it was legal to blood dope.

British cyclists doped (and still dope). There is no cleanliness about British sport.

I'm not saying certain athletes did or didn't dope. I am pointing out the obvious similarities between the 80s and the 90s which only a fanboy would ignore.

Appreciate the perspective. I feel like I’ve seen you and others share similar perspectives on it. I’ve always wondered on your last point with regard to longevity for a guy like Nick Willis. He’s openly noted he runs 6 days a week, and has prioritized longevity over burning himself out. It’s worked obviously but he ran 3:29 at an advanced age, and you wonder if he’d trained like the KIM group/Solinsky/Webb if he could’ve popped a 3:27/3:28 at age 26-28 (likely shortening his career).

I think Bernard Lagat has an argument. He always ran low mileage and took 5 weeks fully off every year (and gained 8lbs in that time, according to him) and still was one of the best runners of all time, definitely the best US distance runner of all time.

I understand that the breaks helped him mentally and the lower mileage probably allowed him to compete into his later years much better than most, but i have to think if he had pushed the boundaries a bit more in his career he may have ended up with a WR or two and that some more of the silvers and bronzes would be gold.

I respect the heck out of the way he decided to do things, however. I would probably make the same choice too. Always prioritized his mental recovery, happiness, and passion for the sport over training himself into the ground.

Depends on distance. 5k and 10k Bekele, marathon Eliud Kipchoge. 100m and 200m Usain Bolt.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that?

ex-runner wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

You have been corrected on this blatant lie several times, but keep peddling it.

What is the lie?

The lie is that you claim Ovett, Coe & Cram were at their peak when steroids was legal! Steroids were made illegal in 1975, long before any of their peak years. In 75 Ovett was 19, Coe 18 and Cram 14.

Your second lie is that you make a sweeping generalisation by stating 'there was no testing' during their career. This is simply not true. No, it wasn't as robust a system as today, but it was certainly happening at major champs, for world record performances and randomly by the BAAB from the early 80's in and out of competition, and out of season from 1985.

The testing in 1985 would have been better than it was in 1975, which would have been better than it had been in 1965. It's called natural development and scientific improvements.

But to say there was NO TESTING during their careers is utter nonsense.[/quote]

I've never said that. I said that they were at the peaks of their careers when blood doping was legal. That is absolute fact.

Steroids were banned in 1976 but 60% of athletes at the 1984 Olympics said they were using. The drug testing was much poorer than it is today, everyone was using. Out of competition testing barely existed, as I said the norm back then was that you would be tested at a competition and informed beforehand. They started some 'suprise' testing in 1983 but you didn't have to comply, there was no penalty like today.

Listen to what I am saying. The same argument that "EPO was rife in the 90s" because there was no test for it is exactly the same argument as "blood doping was rife in the 80s" because it was legal to blood dope.

British cyclists doped (and still dope). There is no cleanliness about British sport.

I'm not saying certain athletes did or didn't dope. I am pointing out the obvious similarities between the 80s and the 90s which only a fanboy would ignore.[/quote]

That is NOT what you originally wrote, so you are merely changing the goalposts.

You wrote, "....around their peak in the period where doping was legal with steroids and blood transfusions and there was no testing."

Either you purposely lied or you have very poor grammar!?

Your original words clearly read/imply that when Ovett & co were at their peaks (c. 1977 -1986), it was a period when doping was legal with steroids and blood transfusions. You are correct that blood transfusions were banned ( pushed by the UK government's white paper from Coe and Moynihan) in 1985, which was within their peak period, but steroids were NEVER legal during this time, having been banned in 1975. They would have been tested throughout their career for steroids. That is an absolute fact. Which is completely at odds with your add on, ..."and there was no testing."

There was no reliable test for blood doping, no, I agree with you, but the caveat to that which I have reiterated on here, is that the only instances of blood doping in this period were for distance runners, in particular from Finland and Italy. There has never been any evidence or confessions from any middle distance runners, and I question if the prevailing scientific and physiological thinking of the day would have advocated the benefit of such practices to 800 and 1500m runners!? Long distance cycling and running would likely have some (but I doubt all) practising blood doping, but that doesn't mean everyone was doing it. The times set in the period '77 - 86' were matched and bettered in the following 6 or 7 years , when testing became more stringent world wide (IAAF introduced random OOC and OOS testing at the beginning of the 1989 season). Yet the times set from 1000m to 10k between '95 and 2006', the period when there was either no EPO test (an unreliable one came in Sydney 2000) or an unreliable one, have not been matched by anyone in the 15 years since. This suggests that those times set in the late '90's / early'00's were EPO enhanced.

Moreover. it is not the case that blood doping and synthetic EPO give the same benefit. The latter is much more effective, has no down time and the effects last much longer.

dodge ball wrote:

Depends on distance. 5k and 10k Bekele, marathon Eliud Kipchoge. 100m and 200m Usain Bolt.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that?

Dolt had incredible 200m talent as a kid, no doubt—but the modern-era sprint talent award has to go to Saidy Ndure. 9.99/19.89, and he spent most of his time getting high. I have heard that he was high during “training”.

Nobody has anything on that guy. This is him straight?

I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist over specific wording. During Coe/Ovett/Cram's peaks blood doping was legal and steroids were widely used with only rudimentary testing programs in place. Those are facts.

Blood doping is more effective than not blood doping. EPO achieves the same thing as blood doping, greater RBC, but of course synthetic substances can push that further.

An argument given as proof of drug abuse in the 90s is that nobody runs that fast today, times like 3:26/7:20 and 12:37. But the same argument can be said about British athletes, comparing our best in the 1980s to any other period right up until today. 1:41/1:42 times are unthinkable by any good Brit. And I highly doubt any of them could put down a 3:46 mile with a fast last lap.

It's the same argument. If we go around believing athletes dope simply because they can, then this is the logical argument we conclude with.

Great performances in the 90s whilst there was no test for EPO apparently means the best athletes were on EPO.

Great performances in the 80s whilst blood doping was legal therefore means the best athletes were blood doping.

Sapel wrote:

Thank you for your perspective, JRinaldi. It's nice to hear from actual competitors and not armchair QB's like Deanouk. Thank you.

You need to remember that even back in the late 90s, possession of EPO, hgh or steriods in Australia would have resulted in jail time. Australia has oceans for borders and customs screens incoming people and items. So it is extremely unlikely that McDonald's group would of had any drugs with them.

mature procedure: look at ALL the facts and try to combine them to get your position in the point in question

Deanouk's procedure: look to find SPECIFIC facts (and stretch them wide if necessary) which seem to support your already fixed position

Deanouk's handling (to be seen in dozens of threads) is the absolute norm in politics but obviously not at all helpful to find out the truth (not surprising, when there is no interest at all to find out the truth)

Subway Surfers wrote:

Sapel wrote:

Thank you for your perspective, JRinaldi. It's nice to hear from actual competitors and not armchair QB's like Deanouk. Thank you.

You need to remember that even back in the late 90s, possession of EPO, hgh or steriods in Australia would have resulted in jail time. Australia has oceans for borders and customs screens incoming people and items. So it is extremely unlikely that McDonald's group would of had any drugs with them.

I was unaware that Kimbia and the training of Ngeny, Komen et al took place in Australia!?

I thought they trained in Kenya and Europe!

restrunner wrote:

mature procedure: look at ALL the facts and try to combine them to get your position in the point in question

Deanouk's procedure: look to find SPECIFIC facts (and stretch them wide if necessary) which seem to support your already fixed position

Deanouk's handling (to be seen in dozens of threads) is the absolute norm in politics but obviously not at all helpful to find out the truth (not surprising, when there is no interest at all to find out the truth)

Not quite sure what point, if any, you are trying to make!?

Ex Runner made a general sweeping statement that was only partly true. I have pointed that out to him several times on this thread yet he fails each time to confront his mistake and accept his wording was incorrect and implied something (that there was no testing for steroids during the late 70's and early 80's) that wasn't true! I am quite aware that almost everything he has repeatedly stated subsequently is factual, but he originally wrote something that was only partially true.