Genzebe Dibaba just ran 3:54.11 for 1500 in Spain!

alanson wrote:

Plus she seems to run with joy. Even in that horribly paced 5k she looked like she was having fun.

For sure. I love Genzebe. Always a smile on her face.

5 (Different) women from China ran sub 3:55 in 1997!!!!! Hmmmm.........

HMArunner wrote:

5 (Different) women from China ran sub 3:55 in 1997!!!!! Hmmmm.........

That by itself isn't suspicious. They were all on the same team so it's reasonable that they all ran similarly. Like how Oregon or Colorado always dominate the distance events or cross country. Or how everyone in the NOP is on the edge of record-breaking ability. Or York and Great Oak highschools.

Coach found something that works so the whole team runs well. It's not unheard of.

HMArunner wrote:

5 (Different) women from China ran sub 3:55 in 1997!!!!! Hmmmm.........

What would be 5 (Same) women?

uhtghj wrote:

That by itself isn't suspicious. .

Sure, but....

It's VERY suspicious when:

a) they never did anything like that before in their history

b) have not done anything close to that since

c) their men have achieved absolutely zilch in middle-D/distance running

d) their women's swim team also had an eyebrow raising period of super performances, immediately followed by busts which indicated widespread doping

There a lot of pieces to the "this looks like doping" puzzle, and the Chinese women had it all (not to mention, history of state-sponsored doping programs in Communist dictatorships) .

Dibaba fits nowhere into such a picture as above:

1) ETH (along with KEN) has long history of dominance in women's AND men's distance running

2) 2 incredible sisters

3) no history of state-sponsored doping in ETH

Lastly, plain and simple, the women's 1500/mile "best times" (discounting the Chinese and most of the eastern europeans) have been soft for years. Radcliffe's marathon time is light years ahead of the mid 3:55-3:57 times we've seen in the 1500. It's really no shock whatsoever that an E. African would come along and eventually run some really solid times in the 1500/mile. The best women should be able to run at least in the low 3:50's. They shouldn't be 30 seconds behind the men.

aduck2022 wrote:

do i smell it , could be , dont know

yes i think so . grade A doper .

not even a doubt.

obvious like many others

where that speed is coming from

IGF-1 lr3 .

like many a male 800m runner

,same training group think

as for her endurance same old story.

Come back when you have learnt to write something in English.

Who's her agent/manager/doctor?

Besides China, doping and how incredible good Genzebe is (I'm hundred % certain that she is a clean athlete btw).

Do we have the splits?? Anybody?!

Her coach is Jama Aden

He coached Hamza Driouch who is currently banned for 2 years for doping and is the guy Farah was photographed with

http://jumping-the-gun.com/?p=4119

52.43 wrote:

Besides China, doping and how incredible good Genzebe is (I'm hundred % certain that she is a clean athlete btw).

Do we have the splits?? Anybody?!

Bet you said that about Lance and Marion too.

Doping coach, doping agent, always a doctor nearby.

The IAAF are simply not interested in stopping it.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

c) their men have achieved absolutely zilch in middle-D/distance running

d) their women's swim team also had an eyebrow raising period of super performances, immediately followed by busts which indicated widespread doping

what do either of these have to do with it?

In the US, our women are better than our men. Does that mean we're all doping?

So does the widespread doping in MLB/NFL mean that an equal amount of doping is happening in track? They are different sports run by different people composed of different athletes.

uhtghj wrote:

HMArunner wrote:

5 (Different) women from China ran sub 3:55 in 1997!!!!! Hmmmm.........

That by itself isn't suspicious. They were all on the same team so it's reasonable that they all ran similarly. Like how Oregon or Colorado always dominate the distance events or cross country. Or how everyone in the NOP is on the edge of record-breaking ability. Or York and Great Oak highschools.

Coach found something that works so the whole team runs well. It's not unheard of.

A few years later his new team were all busted for doping

ukathleticscoach wrote:

A few years later his new team were all busted for doping

New team isn't the old team.

'learnt' is only a sloppy british-english variation of 'learned'

it's hardly considered a word in terms of proper writing.

although it's accepted in England, it makes your criticism of the previous poster's comment more diluted. if you would have written 'learned' i would have been cool with your post.

Come back when you have learnt to write something in English.[/quote]

gdm wrote:

which line did they start from?

Haha, good one!

no

within few tenths of shorter distances means it is a nonsense calculator

it's not good enough for standard required

here is acid test :

what does your calculator give for

3k off

3'30.00 & 12'40.00 ???

because it doesn't work

irrelevant

it doesn't work so no interest in basis

because it doesn't work so no need to ask

me you neither, but you keep coming up with stats that are wrong

this shows you are utterly clueless

the oxford guys just reminded me of the physics of drag, which states that at equilibrium pace, the speed is cubic x distance, for the total energy & to work out even-pace from there

go look up wiki article on drag

then i pointed out this physics offers nothing for unenforced slow laps, so that speed cubed for even pace splits is usually a huge under-estimate for even-paced times

you can only make some estimate for time lost in unenforced slow laps, such as championship races

from universal physics of drag

it was very useful but only for going out fast then having to slow down as matter of necessity, not vice-versa

utter nonsense

i mentioned them because they gave worked examples from a respected website which no one else has done

their physics is superb for going out out in 2'30 to the bell & then crumble to 60s for a 3'30, but no good for going out in a 60s & then kicking in a 2'32 for also 3'30

clueless

they don't need to

it is the principle you take away

clueless

you don't worry about the energy units

the "energy" is speed^3 * distance

convert it to whatever units you want

a good test is for your splits-calculator is mo when he ran 50.8 finish in a 14-flat coupla years ago :

call it 50-flat in 14'00 :

what does that imply for his even-pace 5k ???

then try juxtaposition of splits :

what if he started out with 50-flat & then ran 13'10 for next 4600m

what is your even-pace for his 5k now ???