Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bikila dominated marathon running in an era when endurance training was becoming an integral part of competition from the middle distances to marathon running. That was not so in the Finn's era. Bikila was also a fantastic athlete. I do not believe that training has changed so much that female competitors in those events should now be equal to male distance runners of his calibre. In the same era, male competitors (Snell, Elliott) were running the 800 and 1500 in 1.44 and 3.35. So why aren't women also running those times? That women are now hard on the heels of distance runners like Bikila is evidence to me of the benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity (but not strength, which is also important in the middle distances, which women are not able to match to the same degree - even with steroids). I believe EPO also lies behind the recent significant improvements in the men's distance events. I say this because we know that EPO can considerably boost endurance, that its use has been prevalent since the late '80's, and that most athletes who are using it will not be caught. As we learn of its widespread use we also see world marks have improved dramatically.

It is ironic, that in the discussion about transgender athletes competing in women's sport, in which we hear about the advantages of being born male, that women distance runners today are matching the very best men of the past. So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men. How has training evolved to such a degree that it can explain that? There is a better, simpler, explanation than changes to training methods - but one that is unwelcome to those who wish to simply ascribe these improvements to "progress".

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bikila dominated marathon running in an era when endurance training was becoming an integral part of competition from the middle distances to marathon running. That was not so in the Finn's era. Bikila was also a fantastic athlete. I do not believe that training has changed so much that female competitors in those events should now be equal to male distance runners of his calibre. In the same era, male competitors (Snell, Elliott) were running the 800 and 1500 in 1.44 and 3.35. So why aren't women also running those times? That women are now hard on the heels of distance runners like Bikila is evidence to me of the benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity (but not strength, which is also important in the middle distances, which women are not able to match to the same degree - even with steroids). I believe EPO also lies behind the recent significant improvements in the men's distance events. I say this because we know that EPO can considerably boost endurance, that its use has been prevalent since the late '80's, and that most athletes who are using it will not be caught. As we learn of its widespread use we also see world marks have improved dramatically.

It is ironic, that in the discussion about transgender athletes competing in women's sport, in which we hear about the advantages of being born male, that women distance runners today are matching the very best men of the past. So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men. How has training evolved to such a degree that it can explain that? There is a better, simpler, explanation than changes to training methods - but one that is unwelcome to those who wish to simply ascribe these improvements to "progress".

Another tautology for the Tautology King.

Athletes take drugs, how do you know, because they are running fast, and why is that?….. wait for it ….. because they take drugs.

And then the real mind blowing comment.

“So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men”

You heard it first from the Tautology King on your very own Letsrun.

At least no excrement insults from Mr A , but perhaps such may be better that the insults to the readers intelligence from the man who is proud to say that he posts as a six year old.Insult to six year olds?

letsdrum wrote:

How many times do you want to repeat the same? Gidey has run super fast, nobody questions this. Her HM time is worth around 2:13 for a Marathon, that's what you have calculated (is it just a bad coincidence that you have three times falsified the times in the direction you like?).

Why do you want to make it look even faster?

What's your intention in pointing on the fact that some male runners with similar times in this race have run much faster in a Marathon? Do you think Gidey can run 2:07 in a Marathon? No? So, what's your point?

In some sporting events (mainly endurance) the best women are better than the big majority of the men.

What's the fastest times allowed for you (also in the womens 100m - Elaine Thompson)? That's a absolute fair question which automatically imposes itself when someone categorically claims all great performances are the product of doping.

100m: 11.30, 11.50, 12.00, 12.50?

HM: 1:05, 1:10, 1:15, 1:30?

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

How many times do you want to repeat the same? Gidey has run super fast, nobody questions this. Her HM time is worth around 2:13 for a Marathon, that's what you have calculated (is it just a bad coincidence that you have three times falsified the times in the direction you like?).

Why do you want to make it look even faster?

What's your intention in pointing on the fact that some male runners with similar times in this race have run much faster in a Marathon? Do you think Gidey can run 2:07 in a Marathon? No? So, what's your point?

In some sporting events (mainly endurance) the best women are better than the big majority of the men.

What's the fastest times allowed for you (also in the womens 100m - Elaine Thompson)? That's a absolute fair question which automatically imposes itself when someone categorically claims all great performances are the product of doping.

100m: 11.30, 11.50, 12.00, 12.50?

HM: 1:05, 1:10, 1:15, 1:30?

I am really not interested in your weak arguments - or your questions. The fact you keep ignoring is that Gidey is now running at the level of many elite men - not to mention previous male Olympic greats. Gidey may not be able to run 2.07 for the marathon - yet - but she is running the half at the same level as a 2.07 male - as the figures above have shown. Women have previously never been anywhere near the level of elite men.

But the one thing you have confirmed is that there is no point at which you are prepared to say a performance is doped. How fast would Gidey have to run before you would say she is doped? You aren't prepared to say. The question is not what is the best level of a clean performance but when does it suggest doping. For you, it never does. It doesn't matter how fast it is. By that reasoning, no performance is doped. It can always be explained away in your books. This is despite doping being prevalent for decades, becoming more and more sophisticated so that very few are caught and when up to one in two championship athletes - male or female - may be using. No performance today can be presumed clean and the likelihood is that the best aren't. But you would have to know something about doping and elite performance to know that. You don't. You are effectively a doping apologist - and chiefly because you are obsessed with trying to prove me wrong. You keep failing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bikila dominated marathon running in an era when endurance training was becoming an integral part of competition from the middle distances to marathon running. That was not so in the Finn's era. Bikila was also a fantastic athlete. I do not believe that training has changed so much that female competitors in those events should now be equal to male distance runners of his calibre. In the same era, male competitors (Snell, Elliott) were running the 800 and 1500 in 1.44 and 3.35. So why aren't women also running those times? That women are now hard on the heels of distance runners like Bikila is evidence to me of the benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity (but not strength, which is also important in the middle distances, which women are not able to match to the same degree - even with steroids). I believe EPO also lies behind the recent significant improvements in the men's distance events. I say this because we know that EPO can considerably boost endurance, that its use has been prevalent since the late '80's, and that most athletes who are using it will not be caught. As we learn of its widespread use we also see world marks have improved dramatically.

It is ironic, that in the discussion about transgender athletes competing in women's sport, in which we hear about the advantages of being born male, that women distance runners today are matching the very best men of the past. So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men. How has training evolved to such a degree that it can explain that? There is a better, simpler, explanation than changes to training methods - but one that is unwelcome to those who wish to simply ascribe these improvements to "progress".

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bikila dominated marathon running in an era when endurance training was becoming an integral part of competition from the middle distances to marathon running. That was not so in the Finn's era. Bikila was also a fantastic athlete. I do not believe that training has changed so much that female competitors in those events should now be equal to male distance runners of his calibre. In the same era, male competitors (Snell, Elliott) were running the 800 and 1500 in 1.44 and 3.35. So why aren't women also running those times? That women are now hard on the heels of distance runners like Bikila is evidence to me of the benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity (but not strength, which is also important in the middle distances, which women are not able to match to the same degree - even with steroids). I believe EPO also lies behind the recent significant improvements in the men's distance events. I say this because we know that EPO can considerably boost endurance, that its use has been prevalent since the late '80's, and that most athletes who are using it will not be caught. As we learn of its widespread use we also see world marks have improved dramatically.

It is ironic, that in the discussion about transgender athletes competing in women's sport, in which we hear about the advantages of being born male, that women distance runners today are matching the very best men of the past. So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men. How has training evolved to such a degree that it can explain that? There is a better, simpler, explanation than changes to training methods - but one that is unwelcome to those who wish to simply ascribe these improvements to "progress".

This is a rather brave post, because it makes clear how much you have to ignore about all of the things that have really changed in the last 60 years, in order to prop up a set of unproven beliefs about the power of EPO for elite runners in the marathon. Since the ‘60s, besides training methods, the sport transitioned from amateur to professional; tracks have improved; shoes have improved. In the marathon, the athletes have changed from aged end of career athletes to young athletes going straight to the roads at their physical peak. Competition schedules have changed, and athletes have specialized. Racing tactics and pacing change with higher competition and pacemakers. All this, and training has also been greatly refined from the early pioneering days of Lydiard and Cerutty (and earlier greats like Igloi, and Arthur Newton, etc.).

Some questions:

What is the best conversion from the half to the marathon?

A common method is to look it up in tables like Purdy or VDOT or IAAF tables.

Purdy equates 1:02:51 to 2:11:58, while Daniel’s equates it to 2:11:42.

These look like they need modern updates, as it doesn’t really work for the men either:

57:32 gives 2:00:40 and 2:00:34 respectively, or predicts about a minute faster than the current records.

This suggests 2:12:45 to 2:13:00 is a better ballpark for the women, or about a minute slower than Bikila.

But such calculators must always be taken with a grain of salt, as individuals will vary.

The IAAF scoring tables are updated regularly, but the 2017 version (before fast shoes) gives curiously wide results for men versus women:

1:02:51 for a man scores the same as 2:14:52, but for a woman scores the same as 2:11:11.

Conclusion: a woman needs to run a 2:12:00 marathon first, rather than attempting to equate a woman’s half-marathon to a man’s marathon. The record is currently 2:14:01, in a marathon paced with men, and the predicted benefit of shoes.

Again. Why Bikila?

- Bikila’s 29:00 for 10K and 2:12 for the marathon are not particularly fast compared to today’s elite men.

- Do you believe “wejo” and Ritz are better than Bikila? What is more likely is that Bikila is better than his PBs.

- 2:12 isn’t even that fast for the ‘60s, as Derek Clayton ran a 2:09:37 just 3 years after 1964 Tokyo, and 2:08:34 by the end of the decade. Similarly Ron Clarke ran 27:39.

- In any case, no women has beaten either of Bikila’s times yet.

Why do you believe EPO is even an “explanation” for the marathon, let alone the better, simpler explanation?

- EPO and the marathon not studied by any researchers for any athlete, amateur or elite. No proof aerobic endurance translates to faster marathon times (which are limited by other factors like energy depletion).

- Sunday Times reports 2000-2012 blood results shows high blood values were not important for medalling in the marathon. (11% for the marathon, versus 28% for the 5000m/10000m, versus 54% for 1500m).

- Best confirmed cases are 2:05:xx for the men and 2:18:xx for the women.

- Distance events, from 1500m to the marathon, improved across the board between the ‘60s to the mid to late ‘80s, before EPO was prevalent.

- None of the EPO milestones make sense for the marathon. No improvement in the world record in the ‘90s, when no test existed, until the end of the decade. Slight improvement until 2007, when Geb moved to the marathon, then massive progression after the ABP was rolled out.

- Among non-Africans, the results are even worse, with very few results better than Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones from the mid-80s. How do words like “prevalent” and “endemic” make sense for the marathon if the very best times doesn’t include any elite non-Africans, with just a dozen or so men faster than Lopes and Jones?

Why EPO and not altitude?

- EPO research and training at altitude research show similar gains for non-elites.

- East Africans are born and raised at altitude, from ancestors born and raised at altitude.

If you want to believe EPO “works” for the marathon, with limited evidence after 4 decades of research, you should view living at altitude the same as continuous micro-dosing, which for East Africans, starts from the moment they are born.

To establish your credibility, you have a lot of work to do to connect the hypothetical “benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity” with the observed realities of elite marathon times.

No proof Gidey ever doped, or that she would be faster for it.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am really not interested in your weak arguments - or your questions. The fact you keep ignoring is that Gidey is now running at the level of many elite men - not to mention previous male Olympic greats. Gidey may not be able to run 2.07 for the marathon - yet - but she is running the half at the same level as a 2.07 male - as the figures above have shown. Women have previously never been anywhere near the level of elite men.

But the one thing you have confirmed is that there is no point at which you are prepared to say a performance is doped. How fast would Gidey have to run before you would say she is doped? You aren't prepared to say. The question is not what is the best level of a clean performance but when does it suggest doping. For you, it never does. It doesn't matter how fast it is. By that reasoning, no performance is doped. It can always be explained away in your books. This is despite doping being prevalent for decades, becoming more and more sophisticated so that very few are caught and when up to one in two championship athletes - male or female - may be using. No performance today can be presumed clean and the likelihood is that the best aren't. But you would have to know something about doping and elite performance to know that. You don't. You are effectively a doping apologist - and chiefly because you are obsessed with trying to prove me wrong. You keep failing.

There is a big difference from saying “may be doped “ to “ are doped” . You stated you position earlier as “ was doped” including supporting the position “ to the gils”.

By the way; for the n th time ; what is a doping apologist?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

Bikila dominated marathon running … I do not believe that training … I believe EPO …/quote]

This is a rather brave post, because it makes clear how much you have to ignore about all of the things that have really changed in the last 60 years, in order to prop up a set of unproven beliefs about the power of EPO for elite runners in the marathon. Since the ‘60s, besides training methods, the sport transitioned from amateur to professional; tracks have improved; shoes have improved. In the marathon, the athletes have changed from aged end of career athletes to young athletes going straight to the roads at their physical peak. Competition schedules have changed, and athletes have specialized. Racing tactics and pacing change with higher competition and pacemakers. All this, and training has also been greatly refined from the early pioneering days of Lydiard and Cerutty (and earlier greats like Igloi, and Arthur Newton, etc.).

Some questions:

…

Such a long post to argue your unvarying position, that no one ever dopes. Gidey could run faster than a horse and you would still find no proof she ever doped.