2004 12:37.35 Hengelo 31 MAY
2003 12:52.26 Oslo 27 JUN
2002 13:26.58 Milano 05 JUN
2001 13:13.33 Sevilla 08 JUN
2000 13:20.57 Rieti 03 SEP
2004 12:37.35 Hengelo 31 MAY
2003 12:52.26 Oslo 27 JUN
2002 13:26.58 Milano 05 JUN
2001 13:13.33 Sevilla 08 JUN
2000 13:20.57 Rieti 03 SEP
Thanks Tony i've been saying for ages
at that age big improvements are expected. Later in a career not so.
He was 18 when he ran 13:20
True
but the improvement is very shady
You misspelled Farah, little tony the kitty
Didn't we all reduce our times that much between those ages?
tony the tiger wrote:
2004 12:37.35 Hengelo 31 MAY
2003 12:52.26 Oslo 27 JUN
2002 13:26.58 Milano 05 JUN
2001 13:13.33 Sevilla 08 JUN
2000 13:20.57 Rieti 03 SEP
In 2002 Ken dominated the XC season but was injured in the 2002 summer season. So it gives an illusion of massive gains in the 2003 season. But any time someone runs under 12:50 for 5k it should be a red flag for everyone.
Is it past the statute of limitations to retest his 2003 samples?
Wtfunny wrote:
He was 18 when he ran 13:20
holy shit I can't tell if people actually believe this shit. Hope this is sarcasm.
They can't afford to retest.
We all know WADA is a joke, but they can't afford to look like a joke - not to the public. To those in the know, they're a farce, but they at least hold the facade of a legitimate anti-doping entity. If they truthfully retest the relevant samples (and you know the guys I'm talking about) their sham is spoiled. They just can't have that :/
Thoughtful piece of Analysis wrote:
But any time someone runs under 13:00 for 5k it should be a red flag for everyone.
Fixed.
kikKomen Soi sauce wrote:
Thoughtful piece of Analysis wrote:But any time someone runs under 13:00 for 5k it should be a red flag for everyone.
Fixed.
Thank you. ABOUT time someone pointed the finger at MOORCROFT!
kikKomen Soi sauce wrote:
Thoughtful piece of Analysis wrote:But any time someone runs under 13:00 for 5k it should be a red flag for everyone.
Fixed.
I used the "sub 12:50" because it is obvious they are on the sauce, whereas I am generally quite sceptical of those who run sub-13:00 but the term was not used because it is a grey area. I believe that naturally talented athletes could possibly run under 13:00, like I'm not sure all the Kenyans running in the 12:50s are on the sauce, just like Craig Mottram I don't think he was a cheat or Solinsky but I don't know about the latter. I have friends that live and train in Melbourne and are adamant he is clean.
Hermens's athletes are absolutely dubious, and make no mistake, Hermens was right on the track in the world record dispensing advice and no doubt earlier dispensing peds to him. But it is also true that Bekele was already a monster in xc and was young. It is now 16 years after he ran 13:20. Isn't it reasonable to think that he was within a couple years of 18 at the time?
jjjjj wrote:
Hermens's athletes are absolutely dubious, and make no mistake, Hermens was right on the track in the world record dispensing advice and no doubt earlier dispensing peds to him. But it is also true that Bekele was already a monster in xc and was young. It is now 16 years after he ran 13:20. Isn't it reasonable to think that he was within a couple years of 18 at the time?
Not going to argue these points, Hermens is a dubious character. But I would say that the typical defence that "so-and-so must be clean because they were good at the age of 17 etc" is a sham, every year for the past 15-20 years I hear at least one news report about the disturbing level of PED and supplement usage (like creatine) by high schoolers: in the US for football, Canada for hockey, UK and Fr. for soccer, Australia for rugby league and aussie rules, New Zealand and S. Africa for rugby. Or stories of high schoolers that are simply taking them just to look bigger to "impress chicks" and their mates. Bolt has probably been taking Actovegin from a young age.
Any way Bekele maybe a couple years older then what he claims.
Thoughtful piece of Analysis wrote:
tony the tiger wrote:2004 12:37.35 Hengelo 31 MAY
2003 12:52.26 Oslo 27 JUN
2002 13:26.58 Milano 05 JUN
2001 13:13.33 Sevilla 08 JUN
2000 13:20.57 Rieti 03 SEP
In 2002 Ken dominated the XC season but was injured in the 2002 summer season. So it gives an illusion of massive gains in the 2003 season. But any time someone runs really fast and isn´t American there should be a red flag for everyone.
Is it past the statute of limitations to retest his 2003 samples?
fixed
Thoughtful piece of Analysis wrote:
tony the tiger wrote:2004 12:37.35 Hengelo 31 MAY
2003 12:52.26 Oslo 27 JUN
2002 13:26.58 Milano 05 JUN
2001 13:13.33 Sevilla 08 JUN
2000 13:20.57 Rieti 03 SEP
In 2002 Ken dominated the XC season but was injured in the 2002 summer season. So it gives an illusion of massive gains in the 2003 season. But any time someone runs under 12:50 for 5k it should be a red flag for everyone.
Is it past the statute of limitations to retest his 2003 samples?
Yes…but your idea is a great idea.
All 2003 samples from all races…including Ms. Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 should be tested again and again... at least 100 times per year for the next 100 years…maybe longer.
tony the tiger wrote:
2004 12:37.35 Hengelo 31 MAY
2003 12:52.26 Oslo 27 JUN
2002 13:26.58 Milano 05 JUN
2001 13:13.33 Sevilla 08 JUN
2000 13:20.57 Rieti 03 SEP
Why not do the same to your boy Mo? 2008-2012?
That progression is a disgrace and completely drug fuelled. You lot bang on about Buttchard, a young athlete making reasonable progress, but when it comes to this demi god and these extreme levels it's ok. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
rjm33 wrote:
Thoughtful piece of Analysis wrote:In 2002 Ken dominated the XC season but was injured in the 2002 summer season. So it gives an illusion of massive gains in the 2003 season. But any time someone runs under 12:50 for 5k it should be a red flag for everyone.
Is it past the statute of limitations to retest his 2003 samples?
Yes…but your idea is a great idea.
All 2003 samples from all races…including Ms. Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 should be tested again and again... at least 100 times per year for the next 100 years…maybe longer.
I am so disappointed that the heat on Radcliffe appears to be off now. Why can't people see that the excuse to not release data as it would aid cheaters is so weak and goes against previous statements. She holds a record that will never be beaten so this is important.