Tim Hutchings tweets that new women's 13.1 WRecord by Florence Kiplagat "might be dodgy"

sounds like a little racism on tim's part

diggity wrote:

sounds like a little racism on tim's part

Yup. I'm sure if twitter had existed when Paula had set her record (much more suspicious from a time perspective) not a "peep" would have been heard from Old Timmy.

rojo wrote:

Have you ever realized what a 2:20 marathon equates to in the mile? McMillan says 4:08 in the mile. JK say 4:05.9.

That's because these guys don't have a clue what they're doing. Tinman's calculator equates a 2:20 marathon to a 4:17 mile. That's the equivalent *relative performance level*, not what some clueless tinkerers estimate that any one runner should be able to run.

Zola Budd's mile time was 4:17 and she appeared to be clean.

Takahashi ran 2:19.46 off 180 mile weeks at 6,000 feet and

she's probably clean.

So the equivalence exists without chemical supplement.

Dennis Reynolds 2.0 wrote:

Yup. I'm sure if twitter had existed when Paula had set her record (much more suspicious from a time perspective) not a "peep" would have been heard from Old Timmy.

I appreciate how much of a terrible thing Twitter is, but one of the good things about it that you could just tell Tim Hutchings that he's a racist straight up.

Why don't you do that?

rojo wrote:

One thing we hinted at but didn't say directly is based on the equivalent performance charts - women are way better at longer distance stuff than shorter distance stuff. I dont know if the charts are made for men or what but they don't really work great for women - the longer they the, the better their records get.

One plausible explanation for this phenomenon is if the PEDs being used by the women in question are primarily oxygen-vector PEDs. This might also explain why the men's marathon times have improved so much in recent years, while the men's mile/1500 times have been relatively stagnant since the 70s/80s (Filbert Bayi ran 3:32 for 1500 in 1974 and John Walker ran 3:49.4 for the mile in 1975, when the marathon WR was 2:09 I believe). The 1500 obviously has less of an aerobic component than longer events, so it would not be surprising to see more improvement as the distance lengthened if EPO, blood transfusions, etc were the primary mode of PED use among these runners.

I have no idea if this is the case, but then I find it hard to figure out how you LetsRun staff decide which runners you decide to endorse as probably clean, and which you think are dirty. They all seem suspicious to me. Others seem to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until a positive test emerges. But picking out the dirty and the clean seems like reading tea leaves or something. It's so prone to error, and every case has a plausible argument and counter-argument.

why exactly does this make Tim a racist? I am not following.

Tim is allowed to have an opinion. you dont like it, dont follow him. He's a tv announcers and a pretty good one. I think the idiots are looking for a fight.

Nice work, Tim. more people need to be called out if things are sketchy...

'but because there is no any analysis in what he wrote.'

Twitter by it's brief nature has no room for analysis. I really cannot see the point in twitter as on FB you can put brief or detailed updates

I don't think he was referring to the course being short.

mcmillan is crap wrote:

rojo wrote:

Have you ever realized what a 2:20 marathon equates to in the mile? McMillan says 4:08 in the mile. JK say 4:05.9.

That's because these guys don't have a clue what they're doing. Tinman's calculator equates a 2:20 marathon to a 4:17 mile. That's the equivalent *relative performance level*, not what some clueless tinkerers estimate that any one runner should be able to run.

Tinman is a guy with an insanely overblown ego. He has said that if he had coached a few world class marathoners the world record would be 2,02 by now...

we are all winners.

it is not racist.

diggity wrote:

sounds like a little racism on tim's part

So you can't criticise someone' a performance or personality if they have different colour skin without being a racist!? Absolute rubbish.

Anyone white who criticises Obama's policies is a racist?

Any black person criticising what Hitler did is a racist too?

It's got nothing to do with race. Anyone bringing it up as so have their own 'issues' .

trollism wrote:Despite the fact that she runs for a proven doping country, I don't think he was implying doping

moron

kindly inform us of an

"unproven"

doping country ???

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'but because there is no any analysis in what he wrote.'

Twitter by it's brief nature has no room for analysis. I really cannot see the point in twitter as on FB you can put brief or detailed updates

I don't think he was referring to the course being short.

Well, an accusation without any reason or substance behind it is, at the very least, douchey.

ventolin^3 wrote:

moron

kindly inform us....

Can I do it unkindly instead?

I want to use the words 'moron', 'idiot' and 'imbecile' as liberally as you like to.

Well, an accusation without any reason or substance behind it is, at the very least, douchey.[/quote]

Douchey- what a stupid expression. How many people make accusations on here!

If he suspects something but cannot prove it and was more specific he would be sued.

The time is not exceptional in my opinion but he is not the only one who suspects recent performances. Dave Bedford said there was going to be some big drugs news coming out of Kenya last year but it never really happpened. There was that blood test of 40 athletes then it all went quiet, I don't remember them even announcing the results

Mind you if the Kenyans are doping then the Al Sal boys are 100% juiced

To the Limit wrote:

Ha ha!

The Uk has a far better record in terms of lack of drug users in middle and distance running than Ethiopia, as well as having had far more stringent and vigorous testing since the early 80's.

the british are very crafty when it comes to doping

they don't get caught much

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Well, an accusation without any reason or substance behind it is, at the very least, douchey.

Douchey- what a stupid expression. How many people make accusations on here!

If he suspects something but cannot prove it and was more specific he would be sued.

The time is not exceptional in my opinion but he is not the only one who suspects recent performances. Dave Bedford said there was going to be some big drugs news coming out of Kenya last year but it never really happpened. There was that blood test of 40 athletes then it all went quiet, I don't remember them even announcing the results

Mind you if the Kenyans are doping then the Al Sal boys are 100% juiced[/quote]

Yeah, I'm not thrilled with that phrase. Somebody upthread used it and I copied it, lazily.

On what basis does he suspect something?

Your libel laws in the UK are way different than ours here so this fear of being sued for libel is largely absent in the US. Maybe if he doesn't have anything specific to back it or can't prove it (truth is a defense to libel) then he shouldn't make statements that can harm somebody's reputation.

I guess I just don't like somebody being accused for doping without any supporting evidence. OK, she ran fast. I don't consider that supporting evidence.

I personally don't consider "Kenyans" a monolithic group, so that if one or more is doping they must all be. I also have no idea of the NOP is doping or not, just that I haven't seen any evidence that they are. I get tired of that unsupported accusation being thrown around on here every day as well.

Can't get sued for expressing an opinion, particularly where the opinion is a fair one despite it being controversial.

Saying that you think an distance running record (a sport riddled with PEDs) is a bit sketchy is a perfectly valid opinion to have.

Saying he saw an athlete inject EPO into her ass (when he didn't or has no proof that he did) is libel. Saying that XXX athlete might be doped, is not.