Baumann had exceptional raw speed!
Baumann had exceptional raw speed!
On another thread I just referenced Moorcroft re Ritz' run. I warned these folks who predict 12:50 for Ritz that this 12:56 could well be his magnum opus.
Can anyone else think of a comparable pattern of performance to Moorcrofts at that time? Especially (and this is really rare) since he was very-good-but-not-super-elite for years before.
No! wrote:
Baumann had exceptional raw speed!
I thought about that, but his fast times have been largely discredited and asterisked... though perhaps that could apply to others?
Not passing any judgement on Moorcroft because I have no idea, but what I do know for FACT is blood doping was very popular in the early eighties.
runn wrote:
These are the factors a lot of let'srunners forget. They seem to think that Moorcroft or Viren or Pre would run the same times they ran.
It's amazing how far we've come.
I always tell the story of me in 8th grade- my father basicakky forcing me to eat steak and eggs the morning of a race. I ran horribly. My coach asked me waht I ate, when I told him hesaid, "Well, that's not what bothered you." Within a couple years we knew that was wrong.
We trained hard every day- hard easy was a new, unproven concept.
Shoes were cheap nylon with a sole that wore out and we put Shoe Goo on them instead of buying a new pair.
Things were different back then.
It took you years to figure out not to eat steak and eggs before you run?
and
Moorcroft ran 13.36.82 on Jan 23 1982 and 13.31.22 seven days later while training in New Zealand. Not too earth shattering, but further evidence that he was running well all year.
Dr. Crackity Jones wrote:
Not passing any judgement on Moorcroft because I have no idea, but what I do know for FACT is blood doping was very popular in the early eighties.
It's a sad state of affairs when we have to greet any non-African born 5000 meters = 13:00 with a degree of skepticism:
1.) Baumann positive test for drugs blamed on spiked toothpaste.
2.) Moorcroft- doping
3.) Mottram- disappears from the radar concurrent with ramped up testing protocol for CERA EPO, et al (I'm just quoting others, not making this assertion myself)
4.) And now Ritz- synthetic, exogenous EPO stimulation through artificial living conditions?
I'd like to think that Moorcroft was fast as heck, but just not quite in Coe and Ovett's league, and, as a result, moved up in distance, delivering a blistering 13:00 (I've always thought it necessary for a sub-12:55 guy to be capable of a sub-3:50 mile as a general rule).
I'd like to think that every so often, a guy who shows talent early like Webb with his 3:53 in high school, or a Hall who grows up at altitude and is capable of 48-49 minute 10-mile "tempos" at elevation as a prep, or a Datahn Ritzenhein, who ran 13:44 as a prep and 13:27 as a college frosh, is capable of "breaking the mold" without suspicion.
A guy like Craig Virgin winning world cross or a guy like high-altitude trained Pat Porter making the race before fading to fourth in world cross, finishing just behind three guys who were all damn near 27:20 10k runners +/-, some of them Olympic medalists. Heck, maybe their performances were all suspect. Maybe you'd have to go back to the great Ron Clarke, who ran a 27:40ish 10k solo in windy conditions back in like 1969 to make a case.
Letsrun's world famous servers cut off some of my post:
It's a sad state of affairs when we have to greet any non-African born 5000 meters = 13:00 with a degree of skepticism:
1.) Baumann positive test for drugs blamed on spiked toothpaste.
2.) Moorcroft- doping
3.) Mottram- disappears from the radar concurrent with ramped up testing protocol for CERA EPO, et al (I'm just quoting others, not making this assertion myself)
4.) And now Ritz- synthetic, exogenous EPO stimulation through artificial living conditions?
I'd like to think that Moorcroft was fast as heck, but just not quite in Coe and Ovett's league, and, as a result, moved up in distance, delivering a blistering 13:00 (I've always thought it necessary for a sub-12:55 guy to be capable of a sub-3:50 mile as a general rule).
I'd like to think that every so often, a guy who shows talent early like Webb with his 3:53 in high school, or a Hall who grows up at altitude and is capable of 48-49 minute 10-mile "tempos" at elevation as a prep, or a Datahn Ritzenhein, who ran 13:44 as a prep and 13:27 as a college frosh, is capable of "breaking the mold" without suspicion.
A guy like Craig Virgin winning world cross or a guy like high-altitude trained Pat Porter making the race before fading to fourth in world cross, finishing just behind three guys who were all damn near 27:20 10k runners +/-, some of them Olympic medalists. Heck, maybe their performances were all suspect. Maybe you'd have to go back to the great Ron Clarke, who ran a 27:40ish 10k solo in windy conditions back in like 1969 to make a case.[/quote]
It did it again. Let's give it another shot:
It's a sad state of affairs when we have to greet any non-African born 5000 meters = 13:00 with a degree of skepticism:
1.) Baumann positive test for drugs blamed on spiked toothpaste.
2.) Moorcroft- doping
3.) Mottram- disappears from the radar concurrent with ramped up testing protocol for CERA EPO, et al (I'm just quoting others, not making this assertion myself)
4.) And now Ritz- synthetic, exogenous EPO stimulation through artificial living conditions?
I'd like to think that Moorcroft was fast as heck, but just not quite in Coe and Ovett's league, and, as a result, moved up in distance, delivering a blistering 13:00 (I've always thought it necessary for a sub-12:55 guy to be capable of a sub-3:50 mile as a general rule).
I'd like to think that every so often, a guy who shows talent early like Webb with his 3:53 in high school, or a Hall who grows up at altitude and is capable of 48-49 minute 10-mile "tempos" at elevation as a prep, or a Datahn Ritzenhein, who ran 13:44 as a prep and 13:27 as a college frosh, is capable of "breaking the mold" without suspicion.
A guy like Craig Virgin winning world cross or a guy like high-altitude trained Pat Porter making the race before fading to fourth in world cross, finishing just behind three guys who were all damn near 27:20 10k runners +/-, some of them Olympic medalists. Heck, maybe their performances were all suspect. Maybe you'd have to go back to the great Ron Clarke, who ran a 27:40ish 10k solo in windy conditions back in like 1969 to make a case.
Sagarin wrote:
Letsrun's world famous servers cut off some of my post:
It's a sad state of affairs when we have to greet any non-African born 5000 meters = 13:00 with a degree of skepticism:
1.) Baumann positive test for drugs blamed on spiked toothpaste.
2.) Moorcroft- doping
3.) Mottram- disappears from the radar concurrent with ramped up testing protocol for CERA EPO, et al (I'm just quoting others, not making this assertion myself)
4.) And now Ritz- synthetic, exogenous EPO stimulation through artificial living conditions?
I'd like to think that Moorcroft was fast as heck, but just not quite in Coe and Ovett's league, and, as a result, moved up in distance, delivering a blistering 13:00 (I've always thought it necessary for a sub-12:55 guy to be capable of a sub-3:50 mile as a general rule).
I'd like to think that every so often, a guy who shows talent early like Webb with his 3:53 in high school, or a Hall who grows up at altitude and is capable of 48-49 minute 10-mile "tempos" at elevation as a prep, or a Datahn Ritzenhein, who ran 13:44 as a prep and 13:27 as a college frosh, is capable of "breaking the mold" without suspicion.
A guy like Craig Virgin winning world cross or a guy like high-altitude trained Pat Porter making the race before fading to fourth in world cross, finishing just behind three guys who were all damn near 27:20 10k runners +/-, some of them Olympic medalists. Heck, maybe their performances were all suspect. Maybe you'd have to go back to the great Ron Clarke, who ran a 27:40ish 10k solo in windy conditions back in like 1969 to make a case.
[/quote]
Or maybe you are just talking out your ass and making baseless accusations at some great runners.
Fukk it, I'm just going to write it out long hand before the server chews it up and spits it out again. Good lord. The first sentence should read:
It's a sad state of affairs when we have to greet any non-African born 5000 meters with a degree of skepticism:
sagway wrote:
Or maybe you are just talking out your ass and making baseless accusations at some great runners.
Hey bright one, notice that I'm using others' assertions bandied about here. I never accused Moorcroft of doping, Baumann did, in fact, test positive, and many, many on here question Mottram's flash-in-the-pan act. Personally, I think Moorcroft was legit. Same with Mottram (both sub-3:50 guys). Ritz too, in so much as tents aren't illegal and people can purportedly live in Bolivia and fly down to Chile to train every day with ease.
runn wrote:
These are the factors a lot of let'srunners forget. They seem to think that Moorcroft or Viren or Pre would run the same times they ran.
It's amazing how far we've come.
I always tell the story of me in 8th grade- my father basicakky forcing me to eat steak and eggs the morning of a race. I ran horribly. My coach asked me waht I ate, when I told him hesaid, "Well, that's not what bothered you." Within a couple years we knew that was wrong.
We trained hard every day- hard easy was a new, unproven concept.
Shoes were cheap nylon with a sole that wore out and we put Shoe Goo on them instead of buying a new pair.
Things were different back then.
I doubt the elites were this clueless. it wasn't like the training dark ages as some people act like it was. those sample weeks leading up to moorcroft's 13:00 the other poster posted should demonstrate that.
Pretty sure Bob Kennedy was legit too, though he broke through during an era where a whole host of Kenyans broke through more.
runn wrote:
These are the factors a lot of let'srunners forget. They seem to think that Moorcroft or Viren or Pre would run the same times they ran.
It's amazing how far we've come.
I always tell the story of me in 8th grade- my father basicakky forcing me to eat steak and eggs the morning of a race. I ran horribly. My coach asked me waht I ate, when I told him hesaid, "Well, that's not what bothered you." Within a couple years we knew that was wrong.
We trained hard every day- hard easy was a new, unproven concept.
Shoes were cheap nylon with a sole that wore out and we put Shoe Goo on them instead of buying a new pair.
Things were different back then.
This would apply if we were talking 1950 instead of the early '80's, by which time pretty much all the training/equipment elements of today were in place. The only significant thing thats changed is that the Africans finally got their act together.
...then his record was beaten by :.01!!(Aouita). A shame
he didn't run it just .42 faster! THAT woulda been history.
always look on the _bright_ side of life...
There were many reasons to think otherwise.
Sagarin wrote:
Pretty sure Bob Kennedy was legit too, though he broke through during an era where a whole host of Kenyans broke through more.
Well, as I said previously, "Isn't it sad............skepticism?"
Dr. Crackity Jones wrote:
Not passing any judgement on Moorcroft because I have no idea, but what I do know for FACT is blood doping was very popular in the early eighties.
You know, I was all set to be doubtful, mostly because you are another anonymous internet posterm but when I saw that you put the word "fact" in all capital letters, well that really convinced me.