POLL: Does anyone think Makhloufi is clean?

You are incorrect. Manzano's last 75 were great but if you watched the race he did not cover the move at 300 like everyone else tried to. Ramzloufi coasted quite a bit of the last 100 while everyone else was dying off which allowed Manzano's last push to pull him past them. Nothing abnormal about his kick whatsoever - he has shown that many times before. Makloufi has only shown that during these games. Same goes for Centro. It's very possible that Manzano doesn't even medal had Makloufi not been reinstated.

faster than lightning wrote:

If Makhloufi is dirty for running too fast at the end then Manzano is also dirty. Centrowitz is semi-dirty, finishing fast, but not as fast as the first.

Accusers on letsrun are total fools. They believe rveryone is dirty except the person you are hoping will win.

There was no way anyone could do the 800/1500 double because of the schedule, which was a dissapointment to me. Maybe Coe fixed it to prevent anyone from doing the double? That's the only conspiracy theory I have about the 800 and 1500 in London.

Coe didn't make that decision did he?

what come on wrote:

He very well may be dirty, but what happens when the results come back clean?

Result never come back clean.

They can only read negative for "detected" illegal substances.

Marion Jones never recorded a positive test.

And of course she wasn't clean.

Rd 1 - Ramzi closed way faster off a slightly faster pace. S/F - Makhloufi closed less an a second faster off a much slower place.Final - Ramzi closed faster off a faster pace. I used the times to counter the people who were saying when was the last time someone dropped a 12.x down the back straight or that denied that the others underperformed. I think the numbers do counter those points wellIf someone says "look at him, he can't be a clean 3:30 guy" that's harder to argue against but what do you see in him that says that he can't be clean? I can't see anything that says he's definitely not doping but waht do you see that says he definitely is?As for wasting energy - first round wasn't that hard a kick and you don't want to take risks. Semi-final was off a slow pace so it wouldn't have been that hard.He wasted a bit of energy (not a huge amount, especially if he'd been training specifically for rounds) but int he process gained a big psychological advantage.He has a great turn of pace which allows him to steal a few yards. If he doesn't use it, he risks getting caught out. If he uses it he gets away.

moron

unless you had a seat in the homestretch less than 10 rows away, your viewing of it wouda been shit compared to a tv viewing

anyhows, i've already seen the athens 1500 from a good seat & it still didn't give any clue to the effort put in by both guys compared to tv viewing

you haven't a clue how much effort mahloofi put in the last 100

he just cruised in the last 100 on on tv viewing, having destroyed the field

he couda gone 51-flat that last lap if needed & still hadn't run hard the full 400

moron

this is nothing to do with the kenyans

it was obvious from prelims he was in incredible shape

even if asbel had been in uninjured/expected mid-high-3'27 shape, he'd have still got hammered by close to 5m in that last lap

it wouda been no contest

moron

he jogged the 1300m either side

with only 200m of hard effort he put 3'34 on the board

your peabrain can't seem to handle anything more complex than listing splits from a vid & see the big picture

if you had seen every 3'26/3'27 race in history, you wouda known that this guy was as impressive as any of those - including his 3'26.9 in rieti, where if he hadn't been isolated for so long, he couda gone high-3'24/3'25-flat - his peak day

ventolin^3 wrote:

if you had seen every 3'26/3'27 race in history, you wouda known that this guy was as impressive as any of those - including his 3'26.9 in rieti, where if he hadn't been isolated for so long, he couda gone high-3'24/3'25-flat - his peak day

Totally, totally agree! This has not been said enough in the conversation. Makhloufi is running like a 3:24 1500m man. Everyone can agree it is not unreasonable to go from 3:32 last year to 3:30 this year, or even 1:46 to 1:43 for 800m, though that is starting to be sketchy. But if you believe it is reasonable for a guy who was recently running 3:30.x to suddenly be indicating 3:24/3:25 ability, then you have a huge credibility problem in any conversation with a reasonable person.

common wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

if you had seen every 3'26/3'27 race in history, you wouda known that this guy was as impressive as any of those - including his 3'26.9 in rieti, where if he hadn't been isolated for so long, he couda gone high-3'24/3'25-flat - his peak day

Totally, totally agree! This has not been said enough in the conversation. Makhloufi is running like a 3:24 1500m man. Everyone can agree it is not unreasonable to go from 3:32 last year to 3:30 this year, or even 1:46 to 1:43 for 800m, though that is starting to be sketchy. But if you believe it is reasonable for a guy who was recently running 3:30.x to suddenly be indicating 3:24/3:25 ability, then you have a huge credibility problem in any conversation with a reasonable person.

Ok, that's where we disagree. I don't think that looked like a run of 3:24 or even 3:28 standard. We'll see what he does in the rest of the season or next year.

common wrote:Totally, totally agree! This has not been said enough in the conversation. Makhloufi is running like a 3:24 1500m man. Everyone can agree it is not unreasonable to go from 3:32 last year to 3:30 this year, or even 1:46 to 1:43 for 800m, though that is starting to be sketchy. But if you believe it is reasonable for a guy who was recently running 3:30.x to suddenly be indicating 3:24/3:25 ability, then you have a huge credibility problem in any conversation with a reasonable person.

i'd slightly disagree & go with low/mid-3'26 as more like current limit in perfect race

only guys who couda gone 3'24/3'25 were

- ryun in '67 - low-3'24

- hicham in rieti in '02 - but that was more likely low-3'25

- noah in rieti '99 in his 1k - he couda gone mid/high-3'25 if that had been a 1500 instead

Either way, 3:24, 3:26, or even 3:28. If Makhloufi had gone 3:28 in the final here, would it strain belief any less? 3:32 to 3:30 to 3:28 in the space of a few weeks? Because of a new coach? You guys don't buy that.

I'm saying 3:24/3:25 based on his ability to continue dropping those crazy 200m surges through the rounds with no apparent adverse effects. He's trying to hide his capacity somewhat to avoid being obvious, like Ramzi was. I really wish a healthy Kiprop would have shown up to push Makhloufi to an honest effort. Then we would have seen incontrovertible evidence of how juiced Makhloufi is. He'd have hit the 1200 in 2:48, dropped a sub 38 to finish and beaten Kiprop by 2.5 seconds. 3:26 and change after rounds. Doped as fvck.

common wrote:

Then we would have seen incontrovertible evidence of how juiced Makhloufi is. He'd have hit the 1200 in 2:48, dropped a sub 38 to finish and beaten Kiprop by 2.5 seconds. 3:26 and change after rounds. Doped as fvck.

The idea that anyone could waste as much effort as Makhloufi did in the first two rounds, and pay no price for that whatsoever--that's what does it for me. Even Usian Bolt holds back in the early rounds. Everyone knows you have to do it. Except for idiots and juicers.

Madness wrote:

common wrote:

Totally, totally agree! This has not been said enough in the conversation. Makhloufi is running like a 3:24 1500m man. Everyone can agree it is not unreasonable to go from 3:32 last year to 3:30 this year, or even 1:46 to 1:43 for 800m, though that is starting to be sketchy. But if you believe it is reasonable for a guy who was recently running 3:30.x to suddenly be indicating 3:24/3:25 ability, then you have a huge credibility problem in any conversation with a reasonable person.

Ok, that's where we disagree. I don't think that looked like a run of 3:24 or even 3:28 standard. We'll see what he does in the rest of the season or next year.

I agree with you. Your stats in the final and rounds show a 3:29/3:30 performer. Ventolin and others going on about 3:24 don't know what they're talking about.

Makhloufi was not coasting in the last 100m. He was slowing down all the time after that 100m stretch on the back straight. His last 3 x 100m went 12.4, 12.9, 14.0. The guy made his kick with 300 to go and after 100m couldn't maintain it. That is to be expected.

Different athletes put in their "bursts" at different points.

Bile ran a 12.5 100m curve from 1100m to 1200m in the 87 Worlds in a 3:36 race. His last lap was much faster than Makhloufi's, 51.5 to 52.8.

Bile's last 4 x 100m went ~ 12.5, 13.2, 12.7, 13.1. He didn't slow as much as Makhloufi, yet he never broke 3:30 and certainly was no 3:24 runner.

Ovett ran a penultimate 100m in the 77 World Cup in 12.0 in a 3:34 race. He then slowed slightly to 13.1 in the homestraight. He could easily have put that kick in at the 300m mark (100m earlier), and ran a 13.1 curve and then hold on to run a last 100m in 14 flat. He wasn't a 3:24 runner either.

As for wasting energy in the rounds, they had a day's rest between heat & semi and then again between semi and final. 3 races in 5 days shouldn't be that taxing for these guys. When Coe won the 1500 in 84, the 3 rounds were on consecutive days, with his semi in 3:35 (7 seconds faster than Makhloufi's) and the final in 3:32 (2 secs faster) the next day. So the idea that Makhloufi should be worn out having exerted himself is nonsense. Yes he wasn't savvy and could have taken it easier in the rounds, but he didn't do anything that was that outstanding.

If people want to believe he is doping, fair enough, but to specifically site the way he pulled away from a world class field as evidence he was doping and capable of 3:24 is totally inaccurate. It does not support anything other than a 3:30 runner.

orbitboy wrote:

The idea that anyone could waste as much effort as Makhloufi did in the first two rounds, and pay no price for that whatsoever--that's what does it for me. Even Usian Bolt holds back in the early rounds. Everyone knows you have to do it. Except for idiots and juicers.

This quote should be etched in stone.

Running on Empathy wrote:

This quote should be etched in stone.

Those who disagree ignore a point like that, because it makes too much sense. Instead they prey upon weaker arguments to try and score a win.

deanouk, I appreciate the historical context you are adding. If it's true, it's very compelling toward making your case. I'm not calling you a liar, so don't take this the wrong way, but how do we verify the information you're providing here? I can't find videos of these races online. Another issue I am having is that the splits you gave for Makhloufi don't line up with what was provided by BBC and verified with my own eyes and stopwatch on video. You provided 12.4, 12.9, 14.0, but his actual splits on video are 12.51, 12.69, 14.22.

Again, I don't want to get bogged down in tenths of a second here or there. It's the totality of the situation that ultimately makes Makhloufi look sketchy, not a couple of 100m splits. Thanks for the info.

deanouk wrote:

So the idea that Makhloufi should be worn out having exerted himself is nonsense. Yes he wasn't savvy and could have taken it easier in the rounds, but he didn't do anything that was that outstanding.

Tell that to the other runners. The one runner you can come up with who has ever gotten away with something like that is Coe. What does that tell you?

Makhloufi ran his first round heat like a total rube. A jackass. Coe is not that.

He's dirrty... Xtina says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-g5RySRJE&feature=plcp

I'm not sitting here trying to convince anyone that Makhloufi is 100% guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. I'm trying to convince people that there's definitely something there worth looking at. I believe that suspicion is definitely warranted in this case. He may well be clean... but so far, from what I've seen, I doubt it. If I had to guess, I'd say "dirty." If this was a court of law, I'd make sure he was found not guilty based on what little we know. Not innocent; just not guilty.

common wrote:

deanouk, I appreciate the historical context you are adding. If it's true, it's very compelling toward making your case. I'm not calling you a liar, so don't take this the wrong way, but how do we verify the information you're providing here? I can't find videos of these races online. Another issue I am having is that the splits you gave for Makhloufi don't line up with what was provided by BBC and verified with my own eyes and stopwatch on video. You provided 12.4, 12.9, 14.0, but his actual splits on video are 12.51, 12.69, 14.22.

Again, I don't want to get bogged down in tenths of a second here or there. It's the totality of the situation that ultimately makes Makhloufi look sketchy, not a couple of 100m splits. Thanks for the info.

I haven't seen the splits you quoted,(a link to them if they have been released as "official" splits would be appreciated) but I find it difficult to believe that you can use a stopwatch on a moving video tape and get the same splits to the nearest 0.01 sec!! The splits I have given are based on those (and I think I've already explained this on this thread, or perhaps another on the same topic) times shown on the on screen clock as Makhloufi's torso crossed the lines. These are to the nearest tenth (0.1) and unless the Olympic organisers have released official splits, I cannot see how anyone can give to the nearest hundredth (0.01). Of course there can be a rough discrepancy of 0.1, but the on screen clock proved to be very accurate when the split times for 400, 800, 1200 were given.

So, Makhloufi's torso was above the finish line at the bell in 2:41.3, giving a last lap of 52.8 (rounding 3:34.08 to 3:34.1). He was in line (possibly a few inches behind) with the leader at the 1200m (official time given as 2:54.72). And the clock showed 2:54.7 as they hit that mark.

He then hit the 200m from home line (1300m) in 3:07.1 and the 100m from home in 3:20.0.

So we have 2:41.3, 2:54.7, 3:07.1, 3:20.0

Which gives last 400 of 52.8, last 300 of 39.3, last 200m of 26.9 & last 100m of 14.0. Or last lap 100m splits of 13.5, 12.4, 12.9 & 14.0

IMportantly, the on screen clock is showing 3:34.0 as he crosses the line, so it is accurate to within 0.1.

I'm confident that the splits I gave are accurate to within 0.1.