equality for all wrote:
...or people who are less than 5ft tall?
It's hard to take your posts seriously if you think being less than 5 ft tall is a handicap in running.
equality for all wrote:
...or people who are less than 5ft tall?
It's hard to take your posts seriously if you think being less than 5 ft tall is a handicap in running.
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
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!
stats.gangsta_the_real_1 wrote:Ventolin, what are you talking about? My calculator is not nonsense.
This is what I posted:
Using 14:06 with your sub-3:50 (I used 3:49) gives,
400 0:54.49
800 1:55.36
1000 2:27.19
1500 3:49.0
1-mile 4:07.17
3000 8:06.40
2-mile 8:44.86
5000 14:06.0
10000 29:49.08
half-mara 66:38.42
marathon 2:20:18.89
and this is what you posted (AFTER I posted what I posted):
so, 14'05 with
55 ->
1'56.92
3'50.98
5'15.14
8'07.89
54 ->
1'55.46
3'49.19
5'13.33
8'06.37
The numbers are the same or within some tenths of a second of each other. Because of that practical non-difference between our results, if my calculator is nonsense (it's not), then isn't yours nonsense also?
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 ???
ventolin^3 wrote:
his "flattening-out" of splits has no basis, it is drivel
i actually pointed out physics of this from oxford physics guys
it needs lot more than this kid's for that topic
Exactly how do you know it has no basis and that it is drivel?
because it doesn't work
You have no idea how it works or what it is based on
irrelevant
it doesn't work so no interest in basis
I don't think you've ever even asked
because it doesn't work so no need to ask
Where is this negativity coming from? I mean you no harm
me you neither, but you keep coming up with stats that are wrong
I've seen your "physics of this from oxford physics guys". On a quick look, it looks completely wrong and made up which is why it doesn't always give legitimate results
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 what I saw (I could be wrong though, because it was indeed a very quick look), it looks like the oxford guys indeed did have a formula
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
However, it looks like you switched variables around until you got the results you wanted which means it no longer has anything to do with the "oxford physics guys", so you should probably stop name-dropping them
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
The units don't even match up (at least not in any obvious way)
clueless
they don't need to
it is the principle you take away
In your version of the "oxford physics guys" formula, you are saying that "joules" are equal to "m^4/s^3". Is that really equal to a joule?
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 ???