Halberg's best distances were the 2 mile/5k. Because he wasn't as fast as contemporaries like Elliott and Snell, the mile wasn't his best distance. In that regard he was similar to Ingebrigtsen, in that endurance was his greatest strength - and so it was for Clarke, although he had less speed than Halberg and no finishing kick, unlike Halberg. In fact Halberg probably had a better kick relative to his competition than Ingebrigtsen does.
Halberg's training was: 100 mpw of continous runs at easy to moderate speed for 3+ months. Then 2 months of "Hill bounding" 5 days per week, long run and easy run on other 2 days. Then short track speed sessions, easy runs and racing for 2-4 months.
Compared to today's top runners training the Lydiard program was much easier (except for the 100 mpw block).
Comparing 1960s runners to today's is to much like comparing apples to oranges.....
Training the Lydiard way was not inflexible. It would vary according to the needs of the athlete. Snell said it wasn't easy meeting their targets. (That included running a solo 800m time trial in Tokyo that was less than a second outside his own Olympic record). Herb Elliott also said his training was often to the point of exhaustion, or he saw no point to it.
We saw a thread about Grant Fisher's training which emphasised less mileage with less intensity. So training today and in the Lydiard/Cerutty era isn't "apples and oranges".
One further point. Doping enables heavier workloads in training and quicker recovery. That is one of its advantages and why some athletes can apparently train harder today.
• I don't think the best clean athletes can beat the best doped athletes. Neither do athletes think that. That's why they dope.
It's entirely possible to beat doped athletes as a clean athlete, and it happens all the time. You assume that all the best, if they are clean, are at the same level.
We know that Jakob has been way ahead of e.g. Kerr since he was young. If Jakob continues to train and improve, why shouldn't he be able to be better as an adult as well? There are limits to how much one can improve by doping nowadays compared to the 90s.
Is there a grammy award for best lying playacting in history???
"I have consistently agreed that doping is prevalent and widespread and goes deep and right to the top....." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No wonder Armstrong correctly pointed out you are a practised liar!!!!!!!!
That's not what we all saw you write in so many threads over the course of 1 year Mr PD!!!!
You clearly suppressed at every opportunity saying or otherwise "there is no objective evidence to show that doping is prevalent/widespread and no objective evidence to show that doping does indeed provide performance enhancement if at all!!!!!!!!!"
Grammy awards are for music, not acting.
Again, if you think I lied about something before in another thread, you are surely mistaken. I do not believe the things you say you saw I said before. But maybe you have a specific quote you need me to explain how you misinterpreted.
I would say, and have said, that annual WADA "Testing Figures" and WADA "ADRV" Reports alone provide objective evidence that doping is prevalent and widespread, as well as the AIU website, USADA website, ADAK website, Sunday Times report of the leaked IAAF blood data, etc.
I'm not sure what you think you saw, but often prevalence is described in non-quantitative, emotional terms, like "rampant" or "widespread" or "throughout", which can mean 100 things to 100 people. None of these emotional terms bring anyone any closer to knowing if elite distance running prevalence is closer to 10% or 80%. Indeed, over time in various posts, your own darling has told me that official estimates range from 10% to 80%. I may challenge specific figures, but more generally I never deny the existence of doping among athletes, at the top, in the middle, or at the bottom, from countries and events around the world.
My claims 'may' be wrong???????? So if I have a knack for arbitrating these 50-50 issues then my claims can convert from 'may' to 'definitely right'!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's where human art and skill of reason and persuasion comes in play Mr PD!!!!!
If all world record holders believe they couldn't break the WR in their respective events because they relied on objective data from 'scientists' showing how they are epigenetically and physically disadvantaged compared to their competitors then no record would be broken!!!!!!! Athletes thus need to impose their subjective will on the 'objective data' and turn it into their favor.
I'm kinda doing almost the same exact thing here in different aspect of existence as an RF-based anti-doping expert, you feeling me Mr PD????????
I'm using the metaphysical LAW OF ATTRACTION to impose my subjective will on space and time and hoping the surrounding space-time yields the truth to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a higher law than objective data alright!!!!
Whoever said you have this knack?
World Record holders don't need to believe in objective data from scientists, but in themselves, their coach, and their training. The objective data will be their times, providing positive feedback.
You do so like to lie. You aren't told that. We may not know which individual athletes are doping, because the practice is covert, but that does not mean we don't have information about doping in terms of what is being used, by whom and its likely effects. There is nothing secret about the fact that doping is throughout sports and has been so for several decades. It is like any other black market or form of corruption, we may not always know the individuals involved in order to nonetheless understand it can be widespread. That is the consensus of antidoping but which you choose to blind yourself to.
Once again, this unsubstantiated allegation that I am lying. Just two days ago, your fellow darling just told me "how do you expect objective data to stream in like I imagine live video pornography for an art so secretive and covet(sic) as doping?????????" 4 days ago, when I asked you about "likely effects", "Total" Fitness defended you: "Of course he can’t provide that evidence. Doping by its very nature is an underground, clandestine activity." And how many times have you told me something like "That is quite apart from the fact that there can be no definitive measure of a clandestine practice"?
If I am wrong, how about you sharing some of the "information about the role doping plays in elite distance running" and "information about doping in terms of what is being used, by whom and its likely effects" right here right now?
Please dwell on the information that clearly establishes that the effects of doping played an active role on some of the incredible performances we have seen in the last few years.
Or is the role simply a passive role of mere existence such that the most we can "understand" is "that doping is throughout sports" and "it can be widespread", with no way to evaluate the "likely effects"?
• I don't think the best clean athletes can beat the best doped athletes. Neither do athletes think that. That's why they dope.
It's entirely possible to beat doped athletes as a clean athlete, and it happens all the time. You assume that all the best, if they are clean, are at the same level.
We know that Jakob has been way ahead of e.g. Kerr since he was young. If Jakob continues to train and improve, why shouldn't he be able to be better as an adult as well? There are limits to how much one can improve by doping nowadays compared to the 90s.
So who are the clean athletes beating doped athletes? Which ones do you know are doping? How do you know the clean athletes are in fact "clean"?
Clean athletes are only likely to beat doped athletes if they are at completely another level from the doped athletes. They are unlikely to meet, since most races at any higher level pull together athletes of a similar competitive level. My point is that if two athletes are of a similar level without doping then if one of them were to dope they would have a clear advantage. If would be like you racing a doped version of yourself. You would lose.
You do so like to lie. You aren't told that. We may not know which individual athletes are doping, because the practice is covert, but that does not mean we don't have information about doping in terms of what is being used, by whom and its likely effects. There is nothing secret about the fact that doping is throughout sports and has been so for several decades. It is like any other black market or form of corruption, we may not always know the individuals involved in order to nonetheless understand it can be widespread. That is the consensus of antidoping but which you choose to blind yourself to.
Once again, this unsubstantiated allegation that I am lying. Just two days ago, your fellow darling just told me "how do you expect objective data to stream in like I imagine live video pornography for an art so secretive and covet(sic) as doping?????????" 4 days ago, when I asked you about "likely effects", "Total" Fitness defended you: "Of course he can’t provide that evidence. Doping by its very nature is an underground, clandestine activity." And how many times have you told me something like "That is quite apart from the fact that there can be no definitive measure of a clandestine practice"?
If I am wrong, how about you sharing some of the "information about the role doping plays in elite distance running" and "information about doping in terms of what is being used, by whom and its likely effects" right here right now?
Please dwell on the information that clearly establishes that the effects of doping played an active role on some of the incredible performances we have seen in the last few years.
Or is the role simply a passive role of mere existence such that the most we can "understand" is "that doping is throughout sports" and "it can be widespread", with no way to evaluate the "likely effects"?
That there may be no definitive measure of a practice doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that we know little about it or that it doesn't even really exist. It is like a mountain that we encounter that we haven't been able to exactly measure. Only you would suggest it isn't a mountain that lies in your path because there's no "data' that tells you how big it is. That is like the practice of doping but your method is to never see it.
So who are the clean athletes beating doped athletes? Which ones do you know are doping? How do you know the clean athletes are in fact "clean"?
Clean athletes are only likely to beat doped athletes if they are at completely another level from the doped athletes. They are unlikely to meet, since most races at any higher level pull together athletes of a similar competitive level. My point is that if two athletes are of a similar level without doping then if one of them were to dope they would have a clear advantage. If would be like you racing a doped version of yourself. You would lose.
Your point is popular speculation.
Would you lose to a doped version of yourself? Maybe in sprints, short distance, and field events, especially if you are a woman.
That there may be no definitive measure of a practice doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that we know little about it or that it doesn't even really exist. It is like a mountain that we encounter that we haven't been able to exactly measure. Only you would suggest it isn't a mountain that lies in your path because there's no "data' that tells you how big it is. That is like the practice of doping but your method is to never see it.
Correction, it was you who suggested there can be no definitive measure -- one of your answers to my request for more information.
Recall my point was that "there is little information". You only prove me right again. Whenever I ask for more information, I hit a detour, or a dead-end, as you are unable to provide any such information. Just weird analogies with mountains.
That there may be no definitive measure of a practice doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that we know little about it or that it doesn't even really exist. It is like a mountain that we encounter that we haven't been able to exactly measure. Only you would suggest it isn't a mountain that lies in your path because there's no "data' that tells you how big it is. That is like the practice of doping but your method is to never see it.
Correction, it was you who suggested there can be no definitive measure -- one of your answers to my request for more information.
Recall my point was that "there is little information". You only prove me right again. Whenever I ask for more information, I hit a detour, or a dead-end, as you are unable to provide any such information. Just weird analogies with mountains.
Can you two please stop the back-and-forth and either get a room or go elsewhere rather than getting off on each other? For fek's sake, lads.
It's here, in this thread. Go back just 2 or 3 pages. There you HAVE agreed to me. No problem that you have forgotten about it, but it's there. Just go back and see for yourself.
As I said, "no" means "yes" to you. The only thing that you think is agreement is your failure to understand what was being said.
It's to see, in this thread. You just have to go back a few pages.
"Yes" or "No" from you means nothing, since you have no interest in the truth but only to remain the "winner".
That there may be no definitive measure of a practice doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that we know little about it or that it doesn't even really exist. It is like a mountain that we encounter that we haven't been able to exactly measure. Only you would suggest it isn't a mountain that lies in your path because there's no "data' that tells you how big it is. That is like the practice of doping but your method is to never see it.
Correction, it was you who suggested there can be no definitive measure -- one of your answers to my request for more information.
Recall my point was that "there is little information". You only prove me right again. Whenever I ask for more information, I hit a detour, or a dead-end, as you are unable to provide any such information. Just weird analogies with mountains.
This is how you lie. I say there isn't a definitive measure of the extent of doping so you claim that is saying we really know nothing about doping, which is the opposite of saying we can know a lot but not necessarily with exactitude. How big is the ocean, rekrunner? You really have made a fine art of stupidity.
This post was edited 34 seconds after it was posted.
Correction, it was you who suggested there can be no definitive measure -- one of your answers to my request for more information.
Recall my point was that "there is little information". You only prove me right again. Whenever I ask for more information, I hit a detour, or a dead-end, as you are unable to provide any such information. Just weird analogies with mountains.
Can you two please stop the back-and-forth and either get a room or go elsewhere rather than getting off on each other? For fek's sake, lads.
There's no sharing anything with rekrunner - unless it's his denial and his lies.
We know people ran 3.29 in the 1500, before the EPO era. With the same shoes and on the same track, they would beat almost all of the athletes you claim are doped today. They would manage this with much less, and poorer training.
You should think about the message you are sending to younger athletes. If anyone believes you, there will be fewer people willing to train twice a day for 10-15 years to try to become the world's best.
You should think about the message you are sending to younger athletes. If anyone believes you, there will be fewer people willing to train twice a day for 10-15 years to try to become the world's best.
Exactly! This doping-obsessed man is telling young athletes they will never be champions or at the top unless they dope.
So who are the clean athletes beating doped athletes? Which ones do you know are doping? How do you know the clean athletes are in fact "clean"?
Clean athletes are only likely to beat doped athletes if they are at completely another level from the doped athletes. They are unlikely to meet, since most races at any higher level pull together athletes of a similar competitive level. My point is that if two athletes are of a similar level without doping then if one of them were to dope they would have a clear advantage. If would be like you racing a doped version of yourself. You would lose.
Who are the clean athletes that beat an admitted EPO doper like Zane Robertson? Well, as you are saying we can’t know who is clean, but does this mean, in your opinion, that every athlete with a better pb than Robertson has to be doped!? (His pbs: Marathon-2.08, half m-59.47, 10k -27.28, 5000m-13.13, 1500m-3.34). If so you must have changed your prior opinion about at least some elite athletes not taking drugs..? (As long as they aren’t top top elite)…
You take it as granted that a doping situation is that of two athletes on the same level one takes dope and thus becomes the better performer. But what if none of these two dope, but only the fifth clean best changes his mind and start doing dope and thus becomes f.x the second all time best -still beaten by a clean athlete, but absolute impossible in your eyes..? (An concrete example could be constructed -I say constructed, because I wouldn’t dream of accusing Lagat- based on the two test irregularities (Lagats A sample, Kiprops A and B) that have been here: El Guerrouj 3.26.0 clean, Jakob 3.26.73 clean, all the 3.27 guys clean. That would make two 3.26 athletes doped, who would f.x only be 3.28/3.29 clean, and 5 x 3.27 athletes clean -summed up to 7 sub 3.28 clean and 2 dirty =doping prevalence among the very top elite around 20%. So how do you know that this scenario/ prevalence is impossible? And for the sake of it: No problem for me to suggest that Lagat was clean, and change him with one of the others sub 3.28’s, or even adding one more of them to the dirty ones…. So how do you know what is right?
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.