He may be breaking rercords, but what in his history are you comparing to? He isn't ever going to break the 10km for example. So you do not know if he is physiologically getting better with age, because you do not have any phyiological data. Without that you are just speculating
He is (they are) probably just bringing the marahon more in line with the physiological limits compared to other distances, as it has been long speculated to be out of line. The things that are enabling that are ,
1) most importantly running economy, and if they were to give you data on VO2/kg/km (not VO2max) he could be closer to Tadesse like numbers now and he has almost a faultless style.
2) Add the shoes, which do not 'enhance' (i.e. no external energy), but lose less energy, then that economy is driven even further down. So both of these mean faster with the same (or even slightly declining) engine
3) Add proper pace judgement, pacers (as evidenced by Vienna where they rotated) then you limit the fade.
There's probably a few other things of lesser value, nutrition, monitoring of physiology, etc etc
Lastly, he is 'out there' available to be tested, they have his blood passport and have access to the O2 consumption.
The accepted medical knowledge is that we peak in absolute terms in our late twenties. From there our decline begins - however imperceptibly for some. This is taught in medical schools. There is no way an athlete who is trained to their peak at their peak age - as Kipchoge was - will get faster or stronger a decade later unless they dope ( or they weren't training at a younger age. He was.) This is what dedicated athletes will do today. That is what success requires.
I don't think you read the points I made.
Running economy improves with more running, better shoes, and also you have better pacing. The times are just correlating better now.
That particular number is the important factor, as from it you can calculate stuff like energy requred and where he is compared to threshold.
That may have had assistance from the V pacing, however this is something that usually does improve with age/amount of running at race pace, form adjustment, better shoes.
On top of that, we are only just bringing the marathon into line with the other distances.
Tadesse was 50ml/kg/min, off the scale and Science of Sport didn't find issues with the testing. However, he probably didn't have 'bottle'.
...and on the shoes, I am not in the camp that they are 'enhancers', as they are no different to going from general sports shoes (like I wore in my first marathon) , to Bowerman's waffle design, to Pegasus etc,.
They do not provide any external source of energy or outside assistance. By virtue of your own (correct) running style, your existing energy return to backswing has less of an impediment. There is just less energy wasted into heat and trauma. It is your own force that is the source of that, whether enrgy wasted or returned.
If anyone has a problem with the shoes, they should show me a pic of them running their marathons barefeet.
That particular number is the important factor, as from it you can calculate stuff like energy requred and where he is compared to threshold.
That may have had assistance from the V pacing, however this is something that usually does improve with age/amount of running at race pace, form adjustment, better shoes.
On top of that, we are only just bringing the marathon into line with the other distances.
Tadesse was 50ml/kg/min, off the scale and Science of Sport didn't find issues with the testing. However, he probably didn't have 'bottle'.
Kipchoge's economy from that study is 185.5 ml/kg/min. Taddesse's 150 number was shown to be a mistake.
"Once again, you appeal to this fictitious group of athletes who you presume possess the knowledge that would confirm your long-held beliefs"(quote).
Innumerable athletes in all sports who have doped for decades is a "fictitious group"? I don't have to "appeal" to them - their choice to dope, which has increased in sports over the years, is the strongest proof that it works for them.
honestly world records will always bring this sort of attention. Innocent until proven guilty is my stance for anyone. Even when "guilty" I don't always think they intentionally doped.(gay, ajee, shelby, brenda)
11 pages into this thread, and as far as I can tell, only 1 person answered the OP's question (replying on the first page '2003', hahaha).
So if Kipchoge continues breaking his own WR for several more years, and breaks sub 2 hours, maybe runs 1:58 at age 41 or 42, it still wont raise any red flags at all, and you'll all continue to be 'inspired'?
Inspiration and doping pretty much go hand in hand.
The shocking thing is not a Marathon in 2:01:09 although a huge achievement . But we know that if we take an athlete able to run clean 2:04 /2:05. With EPO he can go 2:01 2:02. But of course you need also an athlete that never have an injury so you can build up year after year . And a monster in self discipline and training . The shock is if you are able to go that fast totally clean . So as the only GOAT Muhammad ALI ( Cassius Clay at the time) used to shout after beat Sonny Liston “ I ve shocked the world , I ve shocked the world , I m the greatest of all time !!!’ “ So Kipchoge should shout in the same fashion “ I ve shocked the world 2:01:09 without peds I ve shocked the world , 2:01:09 I ve shocked the world !!!! “. Imagine the mediatic effect!!!!! and in every interview saying the same thing in Muhammad Ali style watching straight to the camera and say “ Listen all world should listen I m the greatest of all time I ve run 2:01:09 without using any peds , you fool just waste your money and health using peds Stop it now !!!
12:46 5K runner with a higher running economy and resistance to fatigue (durability) than similarly well trained runners and DOESN’T GET INJURED so he has uninterrupted training, not to mention science-backed training, plus the super shoes and that’s how you get 2:01:09
The accepted medical knowledge is that we peak in absolute terms in our late twenties. From there our decline begins - however imperceptibly for some. This is taught in medical schools. There is no way an athlete who is trained to their peak at their peak age - as Kipchoge was - will get faster or stronger a decade later unless they dope ( or they weren't training at a younger age. He was.) This is what dedicated athletes will do today. That is what success requires.
I don't think you read the points I made.
Running economy improves with more running, better shoes, and also you have better pacing. The times are just correlating better now.
I did read your points, but none of the areas in which you say there are improvements can counter the inevitable decline from aging. He has been physically aging for a decade but continues to get faster. That is doping.
12:46 5K runner with a higher running economy and resistance to fatigue (durability) than similarly well trained runners and DOESN’T GET INJURED so he has uninterrupted training, not to mention science-backed training, plus the super shoes and that’s how you get 2:01:09
So no other runners have talent, are well-trained, avoid injury, apply "science-backed training" (what's that exactly? Training through "physics", or pharmaceuticals?) and use super-shoes? Or is that just a bunch of reasons you've conjured up to try to justify what would otherwise be doping?
I would think that by now people who are inclined toward suspicion are already suspicious and people who are not may never be no matter how fast he goes. If that second group was to become suspicious it would likely be his age rather than his speed generating the suspicion.
I agree. It’s the age thing that got me the most. It’s actually an interesting psychology case study. How much can someone defy the laws of aging and performance before people who were once believers start to become suspicious. What level of incredible can someone be before their fans become incredulous.
Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce running faster at 35 than she has ever run before. At an age where it is a held belief that sprinters are supposed to be well past their prime sprinting performance years. Perhaps exceptions are possible.
12:46 5K runner with a higher running economy and resistance to fatigue (durability) than similarly well trained runners and DOESN’T GET INJURED so he has uninterrupted training, not to mention science-backed training, plus the super shoes and that’s how you get 2:01:09
Relevant point regarding his super shoes: he wore those at the 2016 Olympics when they were not available to many of his competitors. So that means he showed that he is willing to do something that gives him an unfair advantage. If he is willing to do something that gives him a mechanical advantage, it’s plausible he’s willing to do something that gives him a pharmaceutical advantage.
"Once again, you appeal to this fictitious group of athletes who you presume possess the knowledge that would confirm your long-held beliefs"(quote).
Innumerable athletes in all sports who have doped for decades is a "fictitious group"? I don't have to "appeal" to them - their choice to dope, which has increased in sports over the years, is the strongest proof that it works for them.
You are conflating two different groups. There are indeed "innumerable athletes in all sports who have doped for decades". There may or may not also be another group of athletes, who you presume possess the knowledge that would confirm your long-held beliefs.
We are also not talking about all sports, but the single event of the men's marathon, and even more specifically, aging marathoners running their personal best, like Kipchoge.
You may be right that this is the "strongest proof". But as far as proofs go, it is not very strong, and it is also not a proof. But it does seem to be the best you've got.
For the sake of discussion, if we take your argument that all these innumerable athletes from countries around the world in all these events have been doping for all these years, then the historical performance data I have provided is the "strongest proof" that doping related improvements in the men's marathon over the past 37 years cannot be significant, at least among the world population of non-East Africans. For example, the best Morrocan-Bahraini athlete (suspicious of doping?) is not all that much faster (13s) than the best Japanese runner (from a country with low doping).