El G, Lagat, and our sports "Tour de France" era

BASH!!!

Many accounts from cheaters show that athletes are perfectly capable of self-administering EPO. With no out of competition drug testing in the developing African nations (at least kenya), it is pretty easy for most to conceptualize EPO and PEDs being used rampantly, especially with the influence of western coaches and athletes w/ $100k prize money to invest in their blood.

US runners are fast again, they're being tested all the time and we haven't had any recent big name busts. I wouldn't be surprised if some were cheating but i have no clue how they would be able to do it, outside of the popular "thyroid problems", made famous by LRC.

oheo wrote:

Many accounts from cheaters show that athletes are perfectly capable of self-administering EPO. With no out of competition drug testing in the developing African nations (at least kenya), it is pretty easy for most to conceptualize EPO and PEDs being used rampantly, especially with the influence of western coaches and athletes w/ $100k prize money to invest in their blood.

US runners are fast again, they're being tested all the time and we haven't had any recent big name busts. I wouldn't be surprised if some were cheating but i have no clue how they would be able to do it, outside of the popular "thyroid problems", made famous by LRC.

The ol "ALL THE BLACK PEOPLE WERE CHEATING WHILE ALL THE HONEST WHITE FOLKS WERE NOT, THEREFORE AFRICANS ARE NOT ACTUALLY BETTER RUNNERS, JUST BETTER CHEATERS" hypothesis. How original and comforting! WHITE USA POWER!!! (the black sprinters cheat too of course)

I don't really believe in any particular drug era where it assumes today's athletes are any more clean.

A big difference with distance runners now is the athletes attitude more towards racing the competition rather than the clock.

You don't really see them designating rabbits and going after them.

The meet directors provide rabbits but the runners mostly just look around at the other runners.

Now you do see Rudisha bringing his own rabbit, going after him and setting records.

You do see the sprinters running very fast. How about 9.80 for 4th in the Olympics?

You don't see Mo Farrah setting up fast races. His focus has been on championships.

Kiprop seems to not be overly agressive in going after the clock.

Makhloufi didn't do any clock chasing after winning his Gold.

You really can't look at PR's and assume that is their ultimate ability.

So it isn't as obvious if they are on drugs.

Those records didn't come from a drug era.

Just an era where the tops guys were really going for records.

Today's athletes are likely to be welled drug up just as their predecessors.

I think there is certainly an element of truth in what you say, but I agree with the OP that the era he mentioned was almost certainly the most drug effected era. Why? Because for most of it there was no test for EPO, thus no chance of being caught. Although it is possible to pass the test now, it is becoming more sophisticated all the time and there is at least the possibility that an athlete can get caught. There just wasn't that deterent at play in the late 90's/early 00's.

Another point is this. Why do you think there are so few real attempts at WRs or fast times in the last 8 years or so?

Probably it is less to do with the idea that there is currently an ethos of competition mano et mano, and more to do with the fact that the current crop of elites know they haven't got a chance in hell of even approaching the times set more than a decade ago. Why would the current best say they are going for the record at lets say 3000m, and then look a relative failure when they fall 6 or 7 seconds short!?

The athletes themselves know that the records they are up against are just a joke.

If Farah had a concerted effort at the 5000m next summer and ran 12:45 in peak form, what would people on here do? They'd say he was nothing compared to Bekele, Komen, Geb, etc. Why put yourself up to those kind of comparisons?

The OP is also right when using the TdF as a comparison. The closest sport physiologically to distance running is cycling. The idea that the latter was rife with cyclists getting away with it, due to there being no test, while all the athletes were within the moral compass of daring to cheat, even with the guarantee that you can't get caught, is highly unlikely. There was a lot of money for the elites then, and it was enough for some to break away from a lifestyle of poverty.

For me, the overriding piece of evidence that there was widespread doping going on in that EPO era, is not so much the WR times themselves, it was the frequency with which the elite few were running them or times close to them. There were WR attempts and near misses on what seemed like a weekly basis for several seasons. Even the previous greats had moments of relative mediocrity in their running. They could reach a peak for a few weeks. But the likes of EL G, Komen, Geb, Bekele, etc seemed to be in this zone for several months, with almost superhuman rates of recovery between races.

Of course you will get the odd outlier or freak of nature, but to have one in every event from 800 to the 10000 at the same time is more than just a coincidence.

So, in general, what you're all saying is it's not physically possible for the sport to progress as much as it has and that no human is capable of running 26:18, 12:37, 3:43, 2:03, 1:40.9, etc.? I'm not arguing, I'm just asking.

deanouk wrote:

If Farah had a concerted effort at the 5000m next summer and ran 12:45 in peak form, what would people on here do? They'd say he was nothing compared to Bekele, Komen, Geb, etc. Why put yourself up to those kind of comparisons?

So then why did Farah go out and attempt the double at the Olympics if he wanted to avoid being compared to them?

tse wrote:

Here is what I think: Lagat is proving in his old age that he is an incredible talent.

Will do. I think Lagat's longevity is incriminating. It is almost unprecedented to still be running like he is at his age after being in the sport for so long. Look at all the professional athletes in this country who are continuing to play in to their late 30s and even 40s. People like Bret Favre, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Ray Lewis etc. I think many of them are getting a little help recovering as they get on in years.

I completely agree with Toro. Besides last year, the last decade has seen athletes only focus on championship racing and running against each other instead of the clock. The mindset was just different in the 90s. Besides Bekele and Rudisha the distance records are barely even touched. No one ever tries.

In Paris we saw what happens when they actually push the pace, 6 people go under 12:50 in the 5k. Rudisha has also forced everyone to step up their game. Because of him it's no longer good enough to just go sub 1:44 to win races.

I hope Rudisha, Kiprop, and Rupp (yes Rupp) set a trend of running against the clock once again and force everyone to adopt the 90s mindest of running.

No one suggested that. I don't know how you, "in general", you extrapolated that.

From a comparative, subjective persepective there is evidence. That's what I was suggesting, as well as what I took from what others wrote.

oiupoiu wrote:

So, in general, what you're all saying is it's not physically possible for the sport to progress as much as it has and that no human is capable of running 26:18, 12:37, 3:43, 2:03, 1:40.9, etc.? I'm not arguing, I'm just asking.

no, that is not is what is being stated. the human "limit" can and will continue to increase, however it nearly always does so with one spectacular quantum leap of sorts by one person, and only on a few occasions by that one person where they really transcend themself. then, a new "limit" has been set in the minds of the upcoming generation and they tend to have that as the benchmark of what is possible, until someone else makes a quantum leap.

so, that era is telling because there is a massive depth of people running world record times, and doing so repetitively. a bit like where the marathon is at right now...hmmm.

Is it so much to ask for people to read everything written before responding.

ouipoui - If Lagat is doping - so are many others. So a 38 year old doper is crushing other dopers. Still proves what I was saying about him being talented. I still said he was a doper. The talent part was just a caveat.

ksksk - What you wrote was so unbelievably dumb I don't know how to respond. Dean was saying the doping era made times so unachievable the focus has switched to performance in championships. You argued against his argument, but argued the same thing!! Not that he thinks this way but if Farah wants to be an all-time great an Olympic double is much easier than 12:37, 26:1x.

I think it's important to ask why there is a trend towards championship racing and, while toro isn't wrong, I think Dean nailed it. Athletes aren't any different than you or I, they are monetarily driven (see: Major Marathons). There are incentives for records just like championship medals. If those records are so fast you have no shot at them, you would certainly place more emphasis on championships.

Agree that Rudisha provides a good argument against the assumption that everyone from the 90's was doping, as do current marathon performances, both of which are much better now than then. If doping made all the difference in the 1500 through 10000, why didn't marathoners and 800m runners have the same success?

The converse argument also holds: if everyone is doping now (Rusisha and marathoners), then why aren't the 1500 through 10000 runners faster?

Look at the talent of someone like Rudisha. 1:49 as a teenager at altitude in his first 800m race. An improvement of 8 seconds really doesn't seem all that surprising.

My question was not 'unbelievably dumb'. Deanouk said that Farah didn't chase time records because he didn't want to fail and then be compared to Bekele. The same line of thinking can be directly and 100% applied to Farah's Olympic double so why did he even attempt the double if he did not want to risk failing and be compared to Bekele, Geb, etc? Attempting that double automatically gets you compared to the greats whether you succeed or not.

When Ben Johnson was busted in 1988 they were saying how the testers had caught up and performances would now be clean.

We know that wasn't the case.

In 2003 BALCO was exposed. The testers had broken through. The 2003 world champs had slow times.

But then you see the fast times by Gatlin and crew in 2004. And we know he was juicing.

Now, after getting caught, he is even faster.

The 100 record is .21 faster then what Ben ran.

As far as the distance runners, you don't have to go after the world record. How about going after your PR, or the world lead? Or assembling a string of fast times so you can understand your body's limits so you can improve?

They aren't even doing that, much.

Farah has a slow 5000m PR because if he ran faster it would still be too far from the WR and isn't worth the effort?

He's worried about the Letsrun message board?

No, it was because he was selective with his races.

It would have been interesting to see him in the Paris race last year.

There were a couple of fast teenagers in that race so let's see what comes from them.

This "drug era" was Geb, Komen, El G and Lagat pushing each other. Throw in Ngeny.

Lagat and Ngeny ran fast literally chasing El G and probably wouldn't have very PR's without following him in the race.

No one has an El G to chase right now.

Geb was a distance pioneer and changed the sport forever.

Komen marched to his own beat and seemed to ignore that anyone else was even in his "races."

There is a mentality in these individuals that you don't see much in most eras.

It doesn't take any special drug to be the one that takes over and pushes it when the rabbit drops.

It takes a special mentality.

In 1999 the 10th fastest 1500m performer ran 3:31.60 (2 under 3:30).

In 2012 the 10th fastest 1500m performer ran 3:31.61 (3 under 3:30).

I don't think they are slower or cleaner today.

tse wrote:

No one suggested that. I don't know how you, "in general", you extrapolated that.

From a comparative, subjective persepective there is evidence. That's what I was suggesting, as well as what I took from what others wrote.

OK - let me be more clear: to you, what times are suspect and why?

Once again, I'm not arguing. I'm just curious as to why you think times from the 90s and 2000s are so suspect (if you even think that).

I think Toro's argument was a very good one. I'm not an expert and the current depth in the 1500 is a very good stat.

To be clear, I'm not saying doping doesn't still occur and I'm not saying someone running incredibly fast now IS doping. I was just drawing a parallel to the Balco/early 2000s TDF era. Why are they suspect? Because I haven't seen someone come anywhere close to the 1500/5k times put up in those years. Kiprop, Farah, and their peers are very good. But Lagat, Bekele, and El G in their prime were heads and shoulders better than the current generation (people can argue this however they want, the times and race footage don't lie).

I was looking for arguments against Simmons hypothesis, how if something seems fishy it usually is, and people have provided great points. Again, I'm not saying Rudisha is doping because he runs fast or that people doped and 2000 and it's out of the sport. Although, Makloufi seems dirty. No way he passes the sniff test. But I'm not a journalist so I can say that.

ksksks - just stop. I have no idea what you're saying.

tse wrote:

ksksks - just stop. I have no idea what you're saying.

Then perhaps you should work on your reading skills. I said the same thing as toro just said so I don't know why you keep insulting me and singling me out.

No, Makhloufi doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

But his 3:30.80 only made him the #7 performer last year and almost 5 seconds behind El G's WR.

So numbers can be deceptive if you strictly analyze with only them as factors.

And great athletes are outliers. Hard to consistantly compare them.