Why should I think Boris Berian is clean?

Metric Miler wrote:1:41, you say? I would have thought 1:38 at least, what about the drafting...?

utterly clueless

do you have a damn clue about drafting advantage for 800 ???

This guy is legit wrote:Yes he won the 800m Indoor World title, but guys can run as fast as he has

no

very, very few coud run a solo 1'45.9 indoors off a suicidal 23.9

no

he is likely 46+ speed

the question is whether is it is 46-low, mid or high

he ran 1'43-low as a raw kid years ago & only slightly improved it as he doesn't run it aggressively from gun but to kick for the win

he ran 1'43.3 in paris-'14 crushing nijel & easing up at the finish

he ran ~ 6m extra in that race wide on bends making it more like 1'42-mid if route-1 & 1'42-low if he'd run hard to line & all this off a jog at start which threw away tenths+++

that was more like his 800 ability in '14 & that wasn't a great 1500 year for him

that was during middle of training without any proper rest on a not very good track

it nowhere represents his 1-off race, fully rested 400 ability at peak last year

yes he does

his 1'42.97 was run with an outrageous ~ 8.5m extra on bends worth ~ 1'41-high if route-1 & he got very little drafting as running so wide

Souly's intrinsic 800 shape last year in a perfect, route-1 race, tightly drafted to bell was ~ 1'41.5

to do that without intrinsic ~ 46+ shape is virtually impossible

test2 wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

~ 1.43.00 * ( 155 / 160 )^(1/3 ) = 1'41.92 !!!

Where does the cube root come from?

it's from physics of drag

at constant power output, the deciding factor is cube of velocity

working back from there, the changes in mass has a cubic root effect on speed = new time

is this a supposed to be a joke ???

he never ran one at his peak

in athens final, he ran a virtually solo, meaning undrafted, last 800 of 1'46+

that means for a drafted, 2s +ve lap split 800, he ran equivalent of ~ 1'44+ for last 800 with 700m of running in his legs !!!

try more like 1'42-flat/low shape in athens & that may not be generous

eh ??

"solid"

that is nonsense

he was 2-time WC & nearly 3 time

in his '87 win at his peak, after rounds he crushed the field in 1'43-flat

he ran ~ 6m extra on bends, making that a route-1 ~ 1'42-low & he got little drafting as so wide !!!

if that had been a 1-off, fully rested 800 with smooth pacing, it wouda been at worst a 1'42-flat

so what ?

it never interested him

Wow, so Berian, Kiprop, Souleiman and Guerrouj could all run 1:41? Makes you wonder why 1:41 is, in the real human world, so rare!

And that cube root formula you wrote, what does the mass of a body have to do with it's drag coefficient? Surely the major (physics) effect of a runner losing weight will be in the power/energy required to overcome gravity as you spend a lot of time and energy going up when you run.

And none of this mentions the physiological effect of being a skinnier, weaker athlete.

hes fast,muscular,and american,which makes me automatically suspicious.the americans are the real world champions of drug taking in sport,even worse than the russians.

Clerk wrote:

must be aliens wrote:

I beat my college 5k PR by over 30 seconds as a 25 year old post collegiate. Was I doping? Same margin of improvement.

If you went from 13:35 to 13:05 in your first race back after 3 years, I would be suspicious.

It wasn't his first race back.

It wasn't his first race back.

It wasn't his first race back.

Think a little.

Have you ever been to Kenya? Read about running there? Anything.

Before you call Rudisha a 48.2 HS guy, look at the training of O'Connell's boys. (Let's not even get into track quality.) Minimal specialization as teens. Everyone trains a general-duty runner, doing XC and minimal work that could even be described as sprint training.

Your hypocrisy shines through again.

The accusers say they need more specific information on what brought these improvements, and that they won't believe that the progression is clean unless they see three years of workout logs.

And yet, their accusation is equally vague: "Duhhhh...drugz?" If you can't so much as postulate a substance or even class of substances, your theory has no more basis than those saying "Duhhhh...he trained better."

Your mom grows some wrote:

grow some wrote:

None of the accusers have addressed the question of which drugs he would be on.

Are anabolics going to address some limiting factor in 800 performance for a 165-pound 45.xx man? No. Think a little bit. Probably harmful if anything.

EPO? Don't be stupid.

So, what drug then? Vaguely throwing out the names of various peptides with no knowledge of their function is not an answer.

Right, anabolics would just turn a mid d runner into Mr Olympia, how could we be so stupid! I mean look at how huge 5'11 135 Rupp has gotten off AlSal's androgel!

Another stupid post. Listen closely and learn something.

Galen Rupp is a weakling with historically zero speed, whose lack of kick was a major weakness. He had everything to gain by using anabolics.

Boris Berian is big for an 800 guy, with 46.xx speed IN HIGH SCHOOL. He has nothing to gain by using anabolics.

The thing is, so few people have Berian's talen and drive. Sure, a few guys tried to run a fast 5k the summer after college, or spent the next year still doing some workouts with college runners like a creep...then quit feeling like they hit their ceiling and gee mom and dad really want me to move out. They all know they didn't give it their all, that they quit would they could have kept going, and will never know what could have been with some courage. Some people are just the type to see someone else doing it and get angry. Many are here on Letsrun. (We often see the same vitriol thrown at other people who really give it a try as post-collegians.)

But never mind. I'm sure you lack the insight to see your motivations. Just get over the jealous stammering and actually suggest the drugs that you think have contributed to Berian's improvement.

ventolin^3 wrote:

test2 wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

~ 1.43.00 * ( 155 / 160 )^(1/3 ) = 1'41.92 !!!

Where does the cube root come from?

it's from physics of drag

at constant power output, the deciding factor is cube of velocity

working back from there, the changes in mass has a cubic root effect on speed = new time

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DragPower.html

It's not obvious to me that aerodynamic drag is the leading use of power for someone running an 800m but let's say it is. Do you mind showing the algebra for how the mass of the person ends up in the cube-root? I guess I'm missing one of the equations you are using. I'm assuming you are saying power, P = const, mass changes from m1 to m2... don't know where to go from there.

Not sure if you read my post, I'm gonna assume you haven't (because you posted gibberish) and put it into simple terms for you.

Great performance == great athlete.

Great performance =! doping.

Increased quality and quantity of training is proven to lead to increased performance.

Drug taking does not necessarily increase performance.

I've said that shouting " drugs" when someone wins something is not a considered argument. So it looks to me as if you are agreeing with me?

He just makes up formulas when he needs them by substituting various factors in there until he gets results he likes.

See this example, where he admits he is just choosing the formula without any real justification (except he likes the results),

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/uneven-pace-running.300964/

He will deny that this is him, but everybody knows that Ventolin posted over on Track and Field news for many years as Eldrick (until they kicked him off for continuous abusive language and behavior).

Mr. Obvious wrote:

He just makes up formulas when he needs them by substituting various factors in there until he gets results he likes.

See this example, where he admits he is just choosing the formula without any real justification (except he likes the results),

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/uneven-pace-running.300964/

He will deny that this is him, but everybody knows that Ventolin posted over on Track and Field news for many years as Eldrick (until they kicked him off for continuous abusive language and behavior).

Yeah, that cube-root looks bogus in that equation but I thought I'd ask in case I got an answer that surprised me. I've seen evidence that what he's doing works okay without any exponent for overweight people (1% lighter makes you 1% faster) but obviously that has to break down as the runner approaches their best racing weight: Boris losing 5lbs would predict something like a 1:30 800m which clearly is nonsense but with an exponent of 1/3, the predicted improvement is only about 1/3 of that (that's from the Taylor series, the exponent moves down) so you get a world class time. Certainly looks like a case of choosing the formula to fit the facts.

Wow, you are awfully angry considering the guy clearly agreed with you. (Although I don't know why he called you a hypocrite.)

Obviously applying a cube to anything involving mass here is wrong. Whatever the relationship, it is linear.

Now stop posting about it, or start a new thread on the topic.

imperial miler wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

Not sure if you read my post, I'm gonna assume you haven't (because you posted gibberish) and put it into simple terms for you.

Great performance == great athlete.

Great performance =! doping.

Increased quality and quantity of training is proven to lead to increased performance.

Drug taking does not necessarily increase performance.

I've said that shouting " drugs" when someone wins something is not a considered argument. So it looks to me as if you are agreeing with me?

Wow, you are awfully angry considering the guy clearly agreed with you. (Although I don't know why he called you a hypocrite.)

Exactly, he is calling me a hypocrite. He didn't read my post just hurled abuse.

your physics teacher wrote:

Obviously applying a cube to anything involving mass here is wrong. Whatever the relationship, it is linear.

I doubt this is strictly true but whatever

your physics teacher wrote:

Now stop posting about it, or start a new thread on the topic.

yeah, I'm about done but seriously of all the crap that ends up on here, posts about a cube-root get to you?