coach deez nuts wrote:
He has PRs of 1:45.14, 3:33.23, 7:40.78 and 13:16.53. Is it really such a stretch to think times like 1:41, 3:26, 7:20, 12:37 can't be achieved while clean? David Torrence is no once in a lifetime talent or incredibly gifted athlete, just a really hardworking guy who has talent for running.
Yes, I think it is a stretch. And I don't know how you can say that David Torrence is not a once in a lifetime talent, given that so many of today's top athletes are dopers.
Torrence's type of talent is very rare. Even living in a world of dopers. According to
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_1500ok.htm, he's run one of the top 1000 1500m performances of all-time, which is incredible. More specifically, the list has multiple performances from a single person (El Guerrouj is the winner with 67 races faster than DT's PR!!), so I filtered those out and found that there are only 152 people who have run faster than DT. That's incredible. If I get rid of multiple performances, and then group the list by country, I have the following number of individuals from each country:
KEN 54
MAR 12
USA 12
ESP 11
FRA 9
GBR 8
ALG 7
ETH 6
AUS 4
BRN 3
FRG 2
NED 2
NZL 2
GER 2
QAT 2
SUD 1
BDI 1
UKR 1
SUI 1
TAN 1
NOR 1
CAN 1
POR 1
KSA 1
RUS 1
TUR 1
SOM 1
RSA 1
ITA 1
TUN 1
DEN 1
DJI 1
Now how cynical do you want to be? If you cross off all of the Kenyan, Moroccan, Algerian, Ethiopian, Middle-Eastern, and Spanish (sorry but cycling gives you a bad name) athletes, you're left with only ~50 athletes who have ever run faster than DT, and half of those guys were probably doping too. For instance, considering American athletes (the number is performance ranking all-time):
84 Sydney Maree
139 Matthew Centrowitz
153 Alan Webb
206 Andrew Wheating
221 Leonel Manzano
229 Jim Spivey
329 Steve Holman
388 Steve Scott
434 David Krummenacker
548 Lopez Lomong
848 Evan Jager
905 Jim Ryun
975 David Torrence
It's easy for me to imagine that half of those names (in particular the more modern ones) doped in some way at some time.
So it's possible in my mind that only a couple of dozen clean athletes have ever run faster than DT. I'm not saying "could", I'm saying "have" -- it's possible that some of the top guys could have run faster than him without doping but didn't.
Anyhow, back to the data. I don't know when doping really became a problem, but as of 1980 only four guys ever ran faster than DT's PR: Ryun, Jipcho, Bayi, Walker. Picking out some names from the sorted list, Noureddine Morceli, was the 29th guy to run faster than DT's PR, and a lot of people think there's a good chance he was doping. Said Aouita was the 11th, Seb Coe was the 13th person to run faster than DT's PR. If one or two of those guys (Morceli, Aouita, Coe) were doping, how many who came after them weren't?
I think this does point to DT being a few-in-a-lifetime type of talent if he's clean. His PR might be even higher if he had had better funding and training opportunities without all the dopers around.
Back to the original question, another point I want to make is that the differences between times at the top are very small. Adding doping in as a variable increases the spread of times at the top; the distribution is currently much broader than what it ought to be without doping. Different doping regiments and physiological responses to those regiments will vary from person to person. So we have no idea how much difference there really ought to be between the top athletes of the modern era. In other words, if you remove doping from the equation the top times will get slower, but I think they'll also get closer together. So 8 seconds per mile is even more than it seems based on modern performances.
Can doping lead to an improvement of 8 seconds per mile? I don't know. Would Torrence break world records if he were on the same drugs as El G? But I also think that 8 seconds per mile is a HUGE amount at that level.
If Torrence is in the top 99.999% of talent, now you're asking if the difference in time between 99.999% and 99.99999% is 8 seconds per mile. There's no way to know the answer to that question, but there's no reason why it would have to be so large.
So yes, I think the difference between any of Torrence's PRs and any of the world records is very large.