SERIOUS DISCUSSION: 2:15:25 what category are you in SKEPTICAL, PRO, or ANTI!

Skeptical...and here is why:quote]Vipam wrote:

Thank you Mister Uno

I guarantee Hey Stupid! and Sig Edith along with the other Paula clan WILL NOT even try to answer your question; therefore this discussion is going nowhere! The doubters have stated as to why they don't believe/accept readily Paula's 2:15:25; however, Paula's supporters cannot answer the many question posed to them by different posters!

Hey Stupid! to answer your question-Paula will get caught whenever the Chinese, the Ethopian, and Regina get caught! Remember they are drug users too. Now try and answer Mister Uno's question!

Vipam

Until this becomes a discussion and not an insult game this post is the~End~.[/quote]

Vipam,

Just curious. So...if you stand by FloJo, Regina, and the Chinese Women...why not stand by Paula? Some of us here do have opinions on what they think, not based on race or color. Me...I will always be suspicious of FloJo, Regina, Chinese, and yes...even Paula Radcliffe. Can't help but be suspicious when records are just totally shattered. But...you also have to look at the other evidence. I don't discredit in any way any of their performances. They all passed the drug tests...and their records stand. That's all that matters...is that the IAAF recognizes their records right? Not what a bunch of idiots on this message board believes. Just because I am suspicious does not make me necessarily think that they all must have been on drugs...you just wonder. But, there are other telling signs. FloJo's build completely changed from like, '87ish to '88...and she went from a "frequent podium misser" to untouchable and a world record holder. And then suddenly retired. Suspicious...then she died in her sleep at a young age...again suspicious. Regina Jacobs...body structure, again...changed. All of a sudden she was ripped out of her mind. And her PRs are coming in a very wide range of events, I mean, she's a stud 800 runner, and good at the 5K. That's pretty damn good range...and to be at the top of her game at 40...suspicious. Chinese women...all got really good for a couple years, then disappeared. Suspicious. PR...was always at the cusp of being at the top (she did lead most of the 2000 Olympic 10,000 mind you, before crumbling at the end), then broke through with a World Cross Country Championship gold in 2001. Then...she went on an absolute tear. Again...amazing range (5k to Marathon...noone can really touch her). 2:15??? Suspicious. But...the only way to prove, with out confession...is a drug test. And they all turned out negative. So...we can be suspicious all we want...doesn't matter. There is no proof. And believe me...I'd like to see proof. Until then...all you have is opinions...based on suspicious activity...yet...it is possible. Oh...and if you wanna talk about frequent podium missers...what about Michael Johnson?? Same kinda deal...always at the cusp of being the top dog...and never quite getting over the hump...until '96, then he was unstoppable. But you didn't question him either. Not that I think he was doped...but...the margin of which he broke the 200 meter record was phenomenal...and his dominance in the 400 was amazing too. Just another bit of stuff for thought.

ILSW

(1) I am very pro-Paula, because I am very pro-humanity and pro-running. I want to believe that the sexes are equal, but the scientific data says otherwise.

My british doctor here in BKK, who was a UK-team sprinter in the early-80's, says that there are really no true genetic freaks in the world. There is but two things that differentiate the runners of the world: Drugs and really hard work.

Can a woman run 2;15 from just really hard work? I hope so.

Jason

I am a skeptic for one reason. There are obviously elite women's marathoners out there that are on drugs. I can't really see how this is not the case. So, if a female goes out and shatters the marathon record and puts it far far out of reach of any other female, INCLUDING the juiced ones, I start getting suspicious. How can a clean athlete not only beat dirty ones, but beat them by MINUTES?

There are only 4 answers to this that I can think of. A- the dirty athletes aren't nearly as talented as the clean one, so much so that drugs cannot even bring them close the the clean athlete. B- The supposedly clean athlete is actually dirty C- Performance enhancing drugs are not performance enhancing at all, and actually hinder performance. or D- there aren't any talented women's marathoners that are on drugs. There may be untalented ones that are using drugs to post elite times, but not world beating ones.

So, which is more likely? I tend to think A and C cannot be true, so it's either B or D. Paula is either on drugs, or no talented female marathoners are. I guess it comes down to whether you are a pessimist or an optimist. I do have a question though. How many female marathoners have ever tested positive?

SKEPTIC

Jason

Are you training for The Dodge-Ball Championships (because that is the best display of eluding that that I have ever witnessed)? I would say that I am a big Paula fan; however, I am skeptical (baffled) about her recent performance!

Jason are you doing a 360, 180, or 90 degree turn on your original posts/opinion. After your first post(your thread) on the subject, you have been posting on the subject but not really saying anything!

Vipam

I think both Radcliffe and Drossin's 10k PRs will be updated significantly (I think 29:20 for Radcliffe and 30:15 for Drossin are reasonable estimates) although that would still put them both ahead of Tergat as far as marathon/10k ratio.

Tergat

42k/10k

125.8/26.466 = 4.753

Radcliff (date)

135.4166/30 = 4.514

Radcliffe (est.)

135.4166/29.333 (est.) = 4.616

Drossin (date)

141.25/30.83 = 4.581

Drossin (est.)

141.25/30.15 = 4.685

it should be pointed out that strictly by to date performances Drossin also has a better marathon/10k ratio than Tergat, even as many, including myself felt she was capable of a sub 2:20 performance yesterday. And I think this summer's track season will yield signficant PRs for both women.

Vipam:

Answer ILSW's question. Why are you the first to go to bat for Regina Jacobs, but all of a sudden you're a skeptic about Paula Radcliffe?

i like Paula but I am extremely skeptical of the time she posted. sorry i just don't believe 130 mile weeks, hard work, living and training at altitude and ice baths can make you so fast that you shatter your own world record by that much time...

so I remain a Pro-Paula Skeptic

trackhead wrote:

I think both Radcliffe and Drossin's 10k PRs will be updated significantly (I think 29:20 for Radcliffe and 30:15 for Drossin are reasonable estimates) although that would still put them both ahead of Tergat as far as marathon/10k ratio.

Tergat

42k/10k

125.8/26.466 = 4.753

Radcliff (date)

135.4166/30 = 4.514

Radcliffe (est.)

135.4166/29.333 (est.) = 4.616

Drossin (date)

141.25/30.83 = 4.581

Drossin (est.)

141.25/30.15 = 4.685

it should be pointed out that strictly by to date performances Drossin also has a better marathon/10k ratio than Tergat, even as many, including myself felt she was capable of a sub 2:20 performance yesterday. And I think this summer's track season will yield signficant PRs for both women.

Why not compare with Lopes who ran the 2nd best 10k (27:17.41) 2 months before he ran his first marathon in 2:08.39? Also Ron Hill's ratio is very impressive 2:09.28/29.53. Consider also Peters who shortly after his WR 2:17.39 ran his best ever 6 miles in 28.57.8. I think that you're right about PR running faster in the 10k in the near future (Kristiansen encouraged PR to run the marathon in part because it would improve her 10k).

Dont forget that women are inherently tougher than men, i..e child birth and such and can tend to take more pain.

I think all you wittle girls on this message board just feel their manliness being threatened because a chick can run faster than you could ever run. Go buy one of those penis pumps and grow your dick 3 inches to make yourselves feel better about being a man.

Although I was, and still am, critical of PR for her complicity in the pacing arrangement at London, I'm not particularly suspicious about her use of banned substances or practices in ways that violate the clear, express, and generally-recognized rules of the sport.

Mikeswift wrote:

i like Paula but I am extremely skeptical of the time she posted. sorry i just don't believe 130 mile weeks, hard work, living and training at altitude and ice baths can make you so fast that you shatter your own world record by that much time...

so I remain a Pro-Paula Skeptic

Look it, the male elite finished in a very tight sprint finish, the women spaced right out which means the womens' race is far from developed as the mens' so times are still a lot softer...Radcliffe improved 3.5 minutes TOTAL in two races since her record debut last year which is a pretty awesome performance but should surprise nobody.

Look at the huge improvement in Vipam's performance -- two days ago he was down there throwing dirt at Paula and now he's merely skeptical -- does that prove he is a drug cheat or just working hard?

Edith

a few points to ponder:

1. why this ratio business is so important. if paula's sole focus has been the marathon these past 12 months or so, to the point of skipping world XC, she very likely has also passed up chances to lower her 10k time.

2. even excepting my above statement, there have been, are, and will be runners that just happen to do better at 10k, and others that happen to do better in the marathon. remember when everyone was talking about tergat running 2:03 because of his 10k time and his HM time? well, hasn't happened yet...you're all just talking about correlating times, which does NOT happen with an R-squared value of 1.00 when you graph runners.

3. there are numerous physiological parameters which would allow an individual to run more efficiently in the marathon vs. even 10k (and especially 5k). pain tolerance, fat:glycogen usage ratio, LT, biomechanical efficiency at particular stride lengths, footstrike times, % slow-twitch fibers, degree of fast-twitch oxidative development.

4. why the "paula on the cusp" argument even holds. she's been top-notch her whole career, not just the last couple of years, but was never a polished racer...she had to "learn" toughness to go with the natural talent--she has plenty--that got her world junior XC champ.

5. why all the skepticism. when ron clarke ran 27:39 in 1965, he was, we believe, clean as a whistle. according to rojo's calculation(see link), that's a 27:14. do you think that with more modern training, knowledge of nutrition, recovery, massage, altitude tents, and sponsorship good old ron could have run sub-27 on a 58 degree night with 20,000 screaming fans in olso, so close to the track they could spit on him? i do. could ron clarke run 26:22? that's where the debate would begin. but for now, i'll go on record as stating that if ingrid had run with all the benefits, etc. (pacemakers included) that paula did, and lived in an altitude tent, i think ol' blondy could have run 2:17. which is not that different than paula's race, given her extreme talent from the get-go.

6. the genetic freak argument: huh? YES, based on basic statistics, simply by the nature of genetics, there MUST be genetic freaks/outliers for a given phenotype. whatever doctor told jason that is drinking too much turtle's blood...

ask roger bannister (not only first sub-4, but also, oh yeah, a doctor). ask frank crick. ask stephen j. gould. they'll all tell you that there are, have been, and will be genetic freaks. jesse owens? wolfgang amadeus mozart? jim thorpe? albert einstein? nolan ryan? the list is nearly innumerable, depending on what type of freak you mean...

7. yes, some of the above points might be refutable. i am, after all, just spouting off the top of my head. but one point, in my mind, is the kicker. NO ONE ELSE INSISTS, repeatedly, on getting drug-tested like paula. she argues for cleaning up the sport. she asks for her blood samples to be tested. she takes extra tests she isn't even required to. what more can you ask of a person? if i were a cheat, i would just take a couple, show i'm clean, and establish my reputation. NO ONE lays his/her rep on the line for being drug-free like paula. i'm not being sexist, or racist (jason), or naive. find me a current distance runner saying/doing what she is to prove their "natural-ness," and i'll be shocked.

where does all the skepticism come from? i'm at least as skeptical as the next guy, but at some point, y'all just have to let it go.

greg ward

boyishgirl, are you a tomboy? Want to start talking? I like athletic girls!! :)

The difference between Paula performance and Regina performing at 39 is not remotely close. While there are many women training for the marathon and NONE have ever achieved nothing close to Paula's marathon. On the other hand there are FEW women of 39 yrs old who are trying to compete this late in their careers. Also Regina had displayed the ability to run sub 2 minute 800m and sub 4 minute 1500m for OVER a decade and finally performed at the level she had been capable of for years.

Regina's 3:59.9 indoor 1500m pr is not significant improvement on the 1500m World Record; whereas, Paula's performance is. I am not saying Paula is DEFINETLY on banned substance, I am just stunned as to how she could improve so much on an already OUTSTANDING mark. It is possibly she was able to achieve her mark cleanly and it is a chance her and Regina are both dirty! Nothing is wrong with be skeptical of a woman running 2:15:25 in 2003.

To the individual who claim I am jealous and could not achieve that standard. That is correct in that being an 400m/800m runner I will never try to run a marathon competively-but jealous, NO WAY.

Vipam

Vipam wrote:

On the other hand there are FEW women of 39 yrs old who are trying to compete this late in their careers. Also Regina had displayed the ability to run sub 2 minute 800m and sub 4 minute 1500m for OVER a decade and finally performed at the level she had been capable of for years.

vipam,

while i am generally a fan of your posts and your rationale, i'm going to call BS on this one. regina had clearly shown her LIMIT, and, as nearly every single aging distance runner in the pre-drug era has shown, your late 30's are not your peak. certainly not your PR, unless you started competitive running MUCH later than regina.

regina's improvements came after she had clearly established her peak ability; reading much of the literature, despite world class training, VO2 max and max heart rate decline irreversibly with age. without some increase in a) muscle mass, b) oxygen carrying ability in the blood, or c) a miracle, it is highly unlikely that regina "made a quantum breakthrough" in her late 30s.

did i say impossible? no. because i have no irrefutable proof that ms. jacobs is dirty. but the circumstances are VERY different than with ms. radcliffe, who has not, as of yet, established her performance limit. she is not in her late 30s. and she has not dodged meets with drug tests.

yes, i'll agree with you that is is possible that regina is clean/paula is dirty. but if i had to wager, about as likely as me whooping on you in the 400.

by the way, vipam: when you say that "NONE have ever achieved nothing close to Paula's marathon" (i understand what you're trying to say), doesn't there have to be a record holder? if not paula, then ndebera? if not ndebera, then drossin? if not drossin, the japanese woman (sorry, bad name recall)? we could have said the same thing about all of them...why now? for someone who so clearly lauds bekele as a freak (genetically speaking), who has done something "no one have ever achieved," you're sure quick to laud mr. bekele and "skepticize" re: ms. radcliffe.

a little consistency, please. or explanation.

cheers,

greg ward

Shaquille wrote:

Dont forget that women are inherently tougher than men, i..e child birth and such and can tend to take more pain.

You say that as if it were a fact. Do you sell used cars for a living?

I don't see how being capable of having a baby makes you a tougher marathoner. My wife had two very tough child berths yet she throws in the towel practically on mile one. The only time I ever see her on a long run is when she gets in her car and sees how I am doing. So there has to be more to running a great marathon than that.

As an answer to this thread, I am very pro Paula but there is a little voice in my head that keeps saying: "How the hell did that happen?" If she is clean, it is too bad because her performance is so great that it almost forces your mind to think drugs.

Well, Paula's performance should not shock you, considering she does 17 mile training runs at 5:21 pace when in Albuquerque.