Phil don't know where you get your information from but its incorrect, ron Hill ran sub 29 many times on the track for 10k and several times on the road. He rarely ran as slowly as 29.53!
Phil don't know where you get your information from but its incorrect, ron Hill ran sub 29 many times on the track for 10k and several times on the road. He rarely ran as slowly as 29.53!
I believe that's what Jason is trying to say. Greg there is a point when someone who goes out of their way too much to prove their naturalness it's almost seems fake. If a salesman came up to you tried to sell you a Rolex that throught the transaction keep saying and insisting that it was real and to test it that'll raise some red flags with me.
Jason,
glad to see you openly admitting a relationship with a doctor who promotes the use of drugs in sport. I take this as an admission of your use of performance-enhancing substances.
Remember, the first step is admitting you have a problem. Now let's get you onto the other 11 steps.
btw,
your claim of no true genetic freaks is clear BS. Wayne Gretzky was scoring 200 goals per year from the time he was a wee lad. I'm fairly certain his dad Walter wasn't pumping him full of EPO or making him sleep in an oxygen tent. Just plain, "god"-given talent, and his dad's devotion to building a back yard rink every winter.
Again,
get off the drugs, man.
And Radcliffe was finishing 299th in the English XC Champs, by god she was a phenomenon from day one, just like Wayne. Radcliffe has got where she is through hard work no doubt about that, she isn't the most talented individual, however usually hard work only takes you so far, Radcliffe had reached that level and had plateaued for about 5 years, with no great improvements, then BANG! She stopped racing frequently, she became a virtual recluse, never seen on the circuit , (having been one of the most raced athletes and championing the fact that she thrived on races and had to race frequently to stay on top of her game) and racing 3 or 4 times a year, unheard of in the modern day (name one other world leader who does this?) and every time she raced last year, thats every single time, she raced to a record time, with nobody in sight of her. What changed? Maybe we will see the male equivalent, lets say Alois Nizigama of Burundi ( aperennial 4th/5th placer in Olympics and Worlds) come out next year and run records at every distance from 3k to marathon and become untouchable, lets hope so!
Alan Culpepper doesn't race much. His marathon debut was pretty spectacular, I think. He's no Paula, or even KK - yet - but perhaps there's still something to be said for quietly working hard, away from the race circuit to build yourself properly to the point of a breakthrough.
You say, "she isn't the most talented individual," and I would counter that you are wrong - she is BY FAR the most talented lady marathon runner. She just didn't know for sure until her sub-2:20 (sub 2:20!!!) debut (debut!!!) at London last year.
And let me add, as I forgot in my last post, that I believe Jason Mayeroff is on drugs. Not sure if I've mentioned that before...
I'll say I think she's clean. There are lots of variables that go into someone setting WR in the marathon, and comparing Paula's times to anyone elses really shouldn't tell you much - except how the other women did.
Here's the thing:
1) There are close to 7 billion people on this planet. Only a small percentage of them ever train to become runners meaning that there have undoubtedly been unfound talents who lived their whole lives not knowing they could have been the best in the world had they given it a try. Could Paula truly be one of the best talents in the world and then she just happened to discover she had the talent? I believe yes. Look at the example of small vs. large high schools in the US. The larger divisions consistently produce the fastest times - it is simply because they have a bigger pool of students to get their athletes from - once in a great while a smaller school produces an athlete who is WAY better than all the others (Scott Fry in high school for example). Current elite runners are like the small school. The rest of the world is like the big school. There for sure has to be some great talent that we never will know about. Paula could be the diamond in the rough.
2) Paula has been vehemently against the use of drugs. That is an odd stance for someone who is using them - I don't think it is a cover either. She has REALLY spoken out against them. We don't see Regina or Marion Jones doing that.
3) She always comes up clean clean clean.
4) Someone talked about progression from 10k to the marathon - well, perhaps she is just exactly suited for the marathon!
5) Why do we suddenly think drugs just because she has improved and put up an impressive time? We only think of it as an impressive time because it is better than what other women have been doing, but perhaps those women are underachieving. Why do past times get to be the benchmark? Training methods improve all the time. Paula by all accounts trains harder than anyone. Maybe that along with talent and desire is what it takes.
6) There is a little girl here in the US who is normal by all accounts except that she can't feel physical pain. Her doctors thought her parents were abusing her because when they xrayed her for a broken arm, they found several other healed breaks. This girl also had burned herself badly several times and had the scars to prove it. When her parents told the doctor that she never complained about pain of any kind, they did the test - and yep, she can't feel pain. Sounds like a physical freak to me. Is Paula just like that? Probably not. Could she have some sort of physical gift that allows her to endure pain better than others? Perhaps.
I'm pro Paula. I think that had she started racing marathons at 24, we might have seen some more 'human' performances out of her, however because she waited we've only witnessed her at the peak of her game. I believe that her attitude in not placing barriers or limitations on herself is very important and coupled with intelligent training, expert support, etc. the sky seems to be the limit.
It's certainly been a while, but I recall pondering on Derek Clayton's 2:08:33 when I was a kid in the '70's and feeling unable to understand how somebody could run so fast for so long. It's really nice to be standing on that ground again.
Monty
Look at the graph above. What do you notice? If you were to extend the men's curve out to 1900 you would see the same curve you see on the women's side. Simple progression. As I've said before, she is only dropping the women's record to where it should be. I think both records are done with being dropped by minutes. I don't see either record getting under 2:05/2:15 any time soon.
Alan
"No other athlete have displayed the ability to run 26.2 miles at such a high percentage of their 10000m person-Not even Haile and Paul Tergat-if they did the marathon record would be 2:02:high)
Paula 10000m 30:01.09 averages to APPROX. 4:52 per mile
Paulas Marathon 2:15:25 avgs to APPROX 5:10.1-5:12 p/m"
I'd be willing to be an awful lot of other elite marathoners have been able to perform at a very level in the marathon relative to their 10k bests. Remember Tergat and Geb are the greatest 10000 meter runners ever.
Look at KK, what's his 10000 meter best?
for the same reasons everyone else is. i wish it was true that she is clean...i mean, i hope it is.
A certain runner had a PB of 66min plus for 21K, and was not considered good enough for what some would call a state team for the half marathon.
He then went and debuted over 42K with a 2:13 marathon, winning the race with a powerful final 1K .. This was a National Championships event.
His next marathon he went to the World Championships in Edmonton, where he finished in the Top 20 ...
Then came London 2002, and he produced a staggering 2:07:06.
Now I had the privilege of writing about this athlete after his 2:13 debut.. and I commented that this seems to be an out an out marathon runner in the making .. and that there are certain runners who are just made for the distance ...
Khannouchi, I believe is another ..
When this runner was asked what was the difference between his 2:13 and 2:07 training.. he mentioned the pace he now does his long runs at ...
In order to be able to train at such a high level you have to be able to recover ... Paula lives to run .. trains and sleeps .. This 2:07 marathoner, was doing the same and he moved to an area to be with his new coach, a 2:06:33 marathoner, in his build-up to 2002, he trained , ate , slept and trained ... no other distractions
Whereas, after his 2:07, he was on the road a great deal racing the circuit in the US and has not reproduced the same performance ...
Paula on the other hand races less now, as she does not have to run the European Track circuit to pay her bills.. London 2002 put an end to this .. She can now focus on set goals ...
Radcliffe has arrived at her distance, and after as much as 17 yrs battling to get to where she is now, she has arrived..
Kristiansen came from a xcountry ski background, and was not able to further improve on times, maybe due to the finance differing nowadays to then ..
Tim Noakes has stated that the women will close the gap significantly over the marathon distance, and this seems to have happened ..
Radcliffe is clean until proven otherwise, she has made herself available for every test and has volunteered for more .. [ more so than any otehr athlete ot discuss blood testing one needs to understand that traces of anything can be picked up as much as up to 3 months in arrears, a urine sample is easier to beat the system as traces can only be found up to a month before ]
When an athlete arrives to go on to become a champion, there is a significant change in their mental attitude and self-belief ..
Radcliffe has arrived, and with it has come a whole new self-belief ..
[apologies for the long post]
Vipam, this is NOT a serious discussion. YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS with this thread. Either fans think she uses drugs or not. It's yes, or no.
What's serious are allegations, insinuations and inuendo that link PR with drugs. Being skeptical is mild compared to fans claiming she's on 'the stuff'. For the most part, this board could be renamed Skeptics.com. Lots of doubters out there.
Running Art- Good point, I think I agree, but what when she runs even faster as she says she will? Still part of normal progression? Still nothing shady? Do you think men and women?s records will at some point nearly be equivalent?
runningart2004 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2945709.stmLook at the graph above. What do you notice? If you were to extend the men's curve out to 1900 you would see the same curve you see on the women's side. Simple progression. As I've said before, she is only dropping the women's record to where it should be. I think both records are done with being dropped by minutes. I don't see either record getting under 2:05/2:15 any time soon.
Alan
Al does have some good potins. But as he proved earlier, Paula's record is basically equal to the other?s women?s World Records in relation to men's times. And what did I make a very strong case for in that other Paula thread? That ALL of the women?s WR holders are very suspicious. Someone, please make a strong case for any of the other women WR holders(in any of the major track distances) not being suspicious on some level. I defy you to do it.
So, if Paula?s record is clean/fair, than it is the only clean women?s record on the books in my opinion.
The men? Sure many are likely doped. But, I offer 2 reasons why I think more women?s records are doped ones than the men?s:
1. I do believe that drugs will help women more than men. Men are already naturally endowed with greater amounts of testosterone and HGH. So there are men out there with great natural levels of these hormones. Drugged men often just catch up, or only barely surpass the gifted ones in these levels by doping. And the ones that go overboard with these drugs suffer such negative consequences as to cancel out the benefits. But women have much lower natural levels of testosterone/HGH. So when they take even small doses, they go way beyond what any ?natural? women will have. And if they take enough, they almost become men chemically (eventually with horrendous consequences). So drugs make a bigger difference to women than men I believe. Thus it is more likely that an off the map time by a women is drug-aided than one by a man.
2. I do believe that the African men, through superiors genes (contrary to popular belief, there are some studies out there that show that Kenyans/Ethiopians are indeed different/superior aerobically due to their ancestral background of always living at altitude as opposed to groups that move to such locations much later in their history, not to mention running always being a part of their ancestors and recent relatives? cultures), perfect running up-bringing(running to school and many other places, often barefoot to strengthen feet/legs), and great running environment (hills, soft surfaces, altitude) can beat drugged athletes with lower natural talent. That is why I firmly believe that many(maybe not all) of the African?s World Records are clean records.
So I do feel it is less likely for a clean, non-African women to destroy all other drugged non-African women or clean African women, or drugged African women (especially that last one, if there are any drugged African women runners competing internationally) than it would be for a African male to destroy all other non-African men(drugged and clean ones). And Paula is DESTROYING all other women.
But a few key points that might support Paula:
1. Compared to men, there are very few international African women competing. When they become more involved/are allowed more opportunities to compete, a 2:15 Ethiopian women may very well emerge some day soon.
2. It has always been theorized that women athletes should be closest to men in endurance events. This was not the case until now when comparing women?s times to men?s in the 100m & the marathon. In such events as ultra-long swimming events, women sometimes actually beat the best men (but of course these events are not contested by that many athletes. The more serious men swimmers might not be interested. But still, it is worth noting). The 100m is a power event, and due to much lower levels of muscle-building hormones, women would be at a distinct disadvantage. In long distance races, where power is less important, this would not be such a big disadvantage. In short, at the marathon, one would expect women (who are naturally slighter than men, which is an advantage) to be nearest, in relative terms, to men. This also makes the women?s sprint marks that much more suspicious(the fact that they are relatively close to men?s marks).
So, maybe Paula is clean after all, and she has brought the women?s marathon time to where it should be.
But why is no one mentioning her altitude tent? Maybe she has the best one, uses it the most diligently, and thus, has received a huge natural, currently legal, EPO boost in her body. That might have given her a big training advantage. Does she still use it?!?!?! I think ?mum?s the word? on that one these days. Maybe it is indeed the ace up her sleeve.
hey waz,
I think you're on drugs. Come on, you can't hide it from everybody indefinitely. The reason you've taken your position is to help you rationalize your own drug use.
That goes double (or maybe triple) for Jason. Remember kids, he's admitted his own drug use by telling us about his shady doctor and not denying any of my accusations.
Vipam, you too. J'accuse. You're on drugs. As a sports psychology major, I'm sure you've got better access to pharmaceuticals than most of the rest of us. No need to rationalize any further. Just come out with it and admit it. Only 11 more steps after that...
"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."
Is it just running or other sports as well wherein folks are differentiated only in drugs and hard work? I know it is a tired refrain, but if you believe that, you must believe that through hard work, Tergat and Geb would be able to bench 714.5 pounds (the WR for that event). Or, with mere hard work, he'd be able to run the 200m in 19.7. This is so blatantly unsupportable (just noticing the huge phenotypic range of different ethnic groups should end this sort of nonsense) as to be laughable, but it is likely useful for you as it serves to make you delve for talents you will never know you have unless you try.
We like to deny our genetic natures (and what we call genetics, is of course, a complex of a shitload of discrete factors most of which involve the ability to BENEFIT by ever harder work as much as factors of benefit during the race itself) because it satisfies our democratic ideals of equality of opportunity, fairness, and justice. But it doesn't remotely square with what we know about human phenotypic variety. And genetic tendencies are clustered within ethnicities, most markedly in tribal and homogenous societies that maintain antiquated strictures on intermarriage.
Why do we even give a damn WHY Radcliffe is so fast. I don't have to believe she is an autonomous self creation to admire the hell out of a striking example of human excellence, regardless of its origin (well, unless the origin were pharmaceutical, of course, but even then I don't think any combination of drugs are enough to turn a mere mortal woman into a 2:15 marathoner).
The debate is so stupid, as if we are somehow putting an asterix by achievements if we note that achievements are built on a multivariate foundation, as if we are "taking something away" from a person by noting they have a talent that facilitiates and rewards hard work unequally. Such "talent" is precisely a part of the "self" that we admire. I feel the "hard work only" view is more duplicitously denying a person their deserved mantel of excellence - for if we just imagined that her achievements were doable by everyone if they merely chose to work hard, there wouldn't be a hell of alot unique to admire. Anyone could just imagine themselves to be potentially Paula's equal (and could merely imagine they CHOOSE not to work as hard) rather than recognizing the fundamental abyss that separates the great from the mediocre.
I also want to answer your charges from another thread that we would all suspect an Asian if doping if they ran that fast. I daresay, we would only suspect a CHINESE, as we would an athlete from any European communist country with a bureacratic national "sports administration" obsessed with athletic victories to prove the superiority of its political ideologies and a track record of doping and "flash in the pan" performances.
Now of course anything is possible and at this point I wouldn't be surprised to learn anyone is doping, but Radcliffe's case is far different from the Ma's Army case in terms of the historical trajectory that led to such performances, the duration of such performance levels, as well as Radcliffe's repeated offers to withstand more rigorous inspection than is required. None of this is complete disproof (and I think Radcliffe would be the first to understand the lax enforcement that has led to my cynical view) but to think we should give Chinese athletes (whose sporting traditions are more similar to the E. Germans and Russians, known dopers, before them) an equal consideration when they run fast times only on their own soil is akin to the loony relativistic anti-war liberal argument that America has no right judging Iraq because we have done bad things in the past.
waz wrote:
And Radcliffe was finishing 299th in the English XC Champs, by god she was a phenomenon from day one, just like Wayne. Radcliffe has got where she is through hard work no doubt about that, she isn't the most talented individual, however usually hard work only takes you so far, Radcliffe had reached that level and had plateaued for about 5 years, with no great improvements, then BANG! She stopped racing frequently, she became a virtual recluse, never seen on the circuit , (having been one of the most raced athletes and championing the fact that she thrived on races and had to race frequently to stay on top of her game) and racing 3 or 4 times a year, unheard of in the modern day (name one other world leader who does this?) and every time she raced last year, thats every single time, she raced to a record time, with nobody in sight of her. What changed? Maybe we will see the male equivalent, lets say Alois Nizigama of Burundi ( aperennial 4th/5th placer in Olympics and Worlds) come out next year and run records at every distance from 3k to marathon and become untouchable, lets hope so!
What changed was she became a marathon runner, which at that level means racing no more than about twice a year,(and also means a three year or so career at the top). Indeed she had plateaued at the 10,000, and Kristiansen, among others, advised her that going to the marathon would also improve her 10k. Also she fits the pattern of great marathon runners of first being a top level XC/track runner before moving up. That type of runner usually explodes on the scene, often in a WR (Peters, Waitz, Zatopek, Lopes, Jones for instance), if PR continues to follow this pattern we might expect her career at the top of marathon running last about another 3 years and as further improvement to about 2:12!
My mistake, I didn't have all Ron's data but I remembered arguably his best 10k race (the O final at Mexico, 1st non-alt. trained athlete). Even if he ran a 28:00 his ratio would be right up there!
waz wrote:
Phil don't know where you get your information from but its incorrect, ron Hill ran sub 29 many times on the track for 10k and several times on the road. He rarely ran as slowly as 29.53!
Too funny, Pete!