I second that.
I second that.
And a third. Mindless twits, begone.
I am guessing he is not a master. Most of them have the maturity to converse without making themselves look like idiots.
Good question, but hard to answer. It's less a time/performance thing, and more a progression over time thing. If you have been running at a high level for 20+ years, and are now 40+, and you are not slowing down significantly, and are still able to train with the same intensity without getting injured, it's a bit odd, as far as I am concerned.
The difference between what I see as a legit Master and one who may be suspect is this:
Take the guy who ran 28:30 as a youngester, and now is running 31:00, with a few injuries here and there, and has had to train with less intensity but smarter- he seems legit. While 31:00 is a terrific Master's time, he has the genes of a 28:30 guy, and this is a good relative progression downward.
On the other hand, the guy who ran 28:30 as a youngster, suffered many injuries trying to train at the same intensity, retired, came back, suffered more injuries...and then suddenly began training injury-free for two years, and is now running 29:30 - that's suspect.
See where I'm going?
niarb wrote:
picadilly pete wrote:I would think that a 7 minute decline over 26 miles in 10 years time would be extremely minimal. But I am just guessing..
incorrectly. for someone who actually works at it, a 7 minute decline from 32 to 42 in the marathon is large, not small.
I'd agree with that. I'd think that you could pretty much hold the line from 32 until about 37 in the marathon. From 38 to 42, you are going to see some decline. If you have room to train more, you might not actually lose any time. If you are pretty much maxed out training-wise, then I'd think you'd lose less than a percent a year. I read somewhere that the decline in performance, all other things being equal, is about .7% a year. If that is true, then a 2:15 32-year old guy could expect to have a quality shot at sub-2:20 when he is 42 if he trains at the same level of effort.
Performance as a master also depends on when you started running. I feel like I've been running for a long time, but I only started when I was 32 and I'm now just shy of 44. It takes 10 years - or at least it took me 10 years - to get strong enough to log the 80 or 100 mile weeks you need to run to really prepare adequately for a marathon. My marathon PR is 2:33, when I was 35 or 36, off of about 50 miles a week. Last year I ran a statistically pretty much the same 2:34. I did it by training a lot harder and being much less prone to injury at 42 than I was at 35. I must be cheating, according to some contributors to this thread. On the other hand, you'd expect someone with 10 years of experience to run both faster and smarter than someone with 3 years of experience, regardless of age.
Calling guys out as cheats without knowing anything about them is a dangerous and cynical game. Every master I've ever met runs for fitness and health and for the fun of competing. No one really takes it that seriously. Everyones always heading off to their kids swimming lessons or a family bike ride or the like after a race. I can't imagine that it is much different in any other place from here in Vancouver. If you think some geezer who beats you in a local charity run is cheating, you are almost certainly wrong, I'd guess.
And then there is the very obvious....
There's a huge difference between someone who started running at 32 and is now 44, and someone who has run competitively since they were 20 and is now 44...my point above is that the wear and tear on the 2nd runner's body is much more, and they are therfore, more injury prone. His/her body is much 'older' in running years than yours is, even if you are the same age.
It's physically impossible to continue to train at the same level as before, with all of those miles on your body. Many masters need to resort to illegal means to keep their bodies from breaking down so they can train at the same level.
And in my experience, some of the masters runners are fiercely competitive - whether or not their kids have swimming lessons or bike rides afterward. Don't kid yourself.
I will counter with this link:
http://hgh.vespro.com/pressrel.html
1) IMHO, Clinical western medicine/science always seems to some how say don't do this or that and has a tedency to scare people into doing nothing proactive for their health. Some people, young and old, will only listen to their standard western doctor. I don't and am happy with my personal choice.
2) One could argue a vitamin/mineral supplement such as Centrum is a PED. IMHO, the line is crossed when you are taking a synthetic substance straight bypassing the body's production. However, having the body do it (via induction) using its own checks and balances is fine. I prefer to treat my body better than my car (which I take care of, too). It is much more fun to have feel good and injury free than to do otherwise.
Fat Old Man wrote:
Calling guys out as cheats without knowing anything about them is a dangerous and cynical game.
I agree. I can think of a few masters whom I suspected of doping, but at least a couple of them (well-known runners from Finland and Poland) had been busted and suspended for doping when they were younger, and several others had long international careers with very substantial competitive records before they turned 40, which at least allowed for a certain amount of educated extrapolation to go into the hazardous business of speculating about their doping practices.
Most older competitive runners don't have those backgrounds. I would guess that, if one were to look behind many of the "sudden" improvements in running performances of masters competitors, one would discover a number of other big changes in such areas as work schedules, family responsibilities, sleep habits, and life priorities.
I honestly have no clue about how widespead doping is in the masters ranks (or, for that matter, in the open ranks). It wouldn't shock me if it's pretty widespread, but I would guess that it's more prevalent among guys who are closer to the middle of the pack than it is among the faster runners. I just don't see a lot of performances among the better runners in their 40s that really catch my attention.
ropeadope wrote:
The difference between what I see as a legit Master and one who may be suspect is this:
Take the guy who ran 28:30 as a youngester, and now is running 31:00, with a few injuries here and there, and has had to train with less intensity but smarter- he seems legit. While 31:00 is a terrific Master's time, he has the genes of a 28:30 guy, and this is a good relative progression downward.
On the other hand, the guy who ran 28:30 as a youngster, suffered many injuries trying to train at the same intensity, retired, came back, suffered more injuries...and then suddenly began training injury-free for two years, and is now running 29:30 - that's suspect.
Well, 29:30 is pretty darn quick for a master, but if you change that to 30:15, it doesn't look particularly suspect to me. That history would suggest considerable talent, some training mistakes during the peak years, and some changes in life priorities back and forth over the years, probably with some more sensible training in the later years.
picadilly pete wrote:
And a third. Mindless twits, begone.
ok, you can stop replying to yourself now
"ropeandope" expresses the exact same knee-jerk sentiment that leads the 15-year-olds here to immediately accuse all kenyans and ethiopians of being on drugs.
it is a cynicism borne out of a failure to perform. the mindset is, "if I cant do it, nobody can. they must be on drugs".
go crawl back into your hole, troll.
ok, you can stop replying to yourself now
"ropeandope" expresses the exact same knee-jerk sentiment that leads the 15-year-olds here to immediately accuse all kenyans and ethiopians of being on drugs.
it is a cynicism borne out of a failure to perform. the mindset is, "if I cant do it, nobody can. they must be on drugs".
go crawl back into your hole, troll.[/quote]
Go back to your own thread, slacker. And give mom some rent money while you're at it.
On these "masters" threads, we're supposed to be able to disagree without invective.
I'm guessing that "ropeadope" is overestimating the extent to which doping among masters -- in particular, Colorado masters -- occurs. But I'm willing to listen to his views on the matter.
The one thing that I disagree with is the quote about .7% decline in performance per year. That's with all things staying equal, but the wear and tear on joints and cartilage (forgive me, spelling police) are going to pile up a lot quicker than the decline of aerobic ability. And I speak from experience on this one. So that is another factor to throw into the mix. Injuries happen much more easily with age and they are slower to heal as well. How does that affect the decline of the marathon time? Can the aging body in its early to mid 40's hold up to the amount of pounding needed to train for a 2:45 marathon, even if the aerobic endurance is still present?
SoCalPete-
while i disagree with you on many issues, i can agree with you on this as well. i would like to add another master's runner who is well known in CA also struggles with injuries: Jim Sorenson. he's been battling injuries during his career and has had setbacks several times in his career (similar to Shaheed [whom i have met, and is a class act, as well as a great jazz player!]). anyways, this is just my way of giving props to the old timers out there still competing, and setting good examples for the new school.
questionmark wrote:
The one thing that I disagree with is the quote about .7% decline in performance per year. That's with all things staying equal, but the wear and tear on joints and cartilage (forgive me, spelling police) are going to pile up a lot quicker than the decline of aerobic ability. And I speak from experience on this one. So that is another factor to throw into the mix. Injuries happen much more easily with age and they are slower to heal as well. How does that affect the decline of the marathon time? Can the aging body in its early to mid 40's hold up to the amount of pounding needed to train for a 2:45 marathon, even if the aerobic endurance is still present?
Can't remember where I read that figure, but I think the article was taking account of the factors you mention - all a part of aging. For me, it's about training like an older guy. That doesn't mean not pushing it. Rather, it means taking account of the fact that you don't train like a young guy. You still need the volume, but you have to be careful not to overdo the intensity.
And I don't buy the idea that smart training will inevitably break you down. I think humans are built to run, and if you don't do it recklessly, your body will hold up for decade after decade. Its the overtraining that does you in. One is constantly reading about young guys who hammer all the time. They might be able to get away with that for a while, not realizing that their progress would be better if they trained more judiciously. As any master knows, you can't get away with that all-hammer attitude for even a single workout without expecting a nasty reckoning.
Mind you, that's got precious little to do with doping. Guys like Eddy H., the patron devil of masters' doping, probably could still hammer all the time - thanks to the drugs. I just don't see most masters taking that route. Perhaps I'm naive. What would be the point? Most guys my age have been nicked up enough by living that they just don't have that monstrous ego that blinds them to the difference between right and wrong - most, I say. Maybe if you're 22 you don't see the direct correlation between doping and starting the race a mile ahead of everyone. But at 42? I'm thinkin' most of us have worked that sort of thing out by now. You can still be fiercely competitive and also be aware that its all completely unimportant.
Avocados Number wrote:
I'm guessing that "ropeadope" is overestimating the extent to which doping among masters -- in particular, Colorado masters -- occurs. But I'm willing to listen to his views on the matter.
i'm guessing you are guessing correctly. if his "views" were borne out of anything other than envy; if they actually has something of substance to back them up and not just the fact that other people can do what he cant, then i would be willing to listen to them as well.
posting as separate people in this thread doesnt do a whole lot for his credibility either.
he is no different from the kiddies here who dont like that bekele can run circles around their favorite american runner so the ethiopians MUST be doped. boo hoo.
I don't know if this was mentioned, but some time back there was some back and forth about running marathons in one's late 40s/early 50s, and anecdotally it seemed that those who ran lots of marathons in their youth had more problems training and racing marathons when they passed the 45 mark.
niarb - WHERE is this coming from? If you look at my original post, I am merely expressing my opinion. I didn't start the thread - but clearly there are questions out there about it. I would like to know what triggered this personal vendetta against me? You know nothing about my background, whether or not I have had success as a runner, in the past or currently as a master - I am certainly not bitter against my competitors - simply stating what I believe to be some suspect masters performances. It's no different from doing the same with regard to open performances. I think if you knew my background and experience, you would eat a few of your words.
New page
Avocados Number wrote:
On a slightly different note, I would welcome more open discussion (not just on letsrun.com, but in the public forum generally) about the value of "anti-aging" uses of substances like testosterone and HgH. Although I've never used any such substances, I think that it's a legitimate area of inquiry, and I consider it unfortunate that concerns about cheating in competitive sports (a very small arena among older adults) seem to inhibit serious discussions about what could turn out to be tremendously life-enhancing practices for vast numbers of people.
I'm surprised this statement hasn't gained more traction. Whether it's HGH or something yet to be discovered, it's not hard to envision a coming era where anti-aging drugs are commonly used throughout the population to extend and improve the quality of life. Viagra for the rest of your body, if you will. What happens when athletes are the only people in the general population that aren't "doping"? Don't the rules change when the general attitude becomes "aging is a treatable condition"? I think such a day is coming and is not that far off.