Sebastian Coe vs Said Aouita - 1500/mile race - Who would win?

casual obsever wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Why the 60's or early 70s when athletes certainly had more opportunity to take steroids than athletes in the 80s had to blood dope (or take steroids)?

1) Because nothing beats blood "doping" (wasn't doping until the mid-80s), see for example doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0156157:

From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31].

Or

http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/index.html#/

Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute

(With the experts consulted being Ashenden and Parisotto)

2) Because blood "doping" became "widespread" after 68, see doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.007195:

HISTORY

The first alleged use of blood boosting in sport was in the 1960s, when a French four times winner of the Tour de France (1961–1964) was named as one of the first cyclists to use the technique. Widespread use among endurance athletes (especially running, cycling, and cross country skiing) started after the 1968 Olympic Games...

Coevett wrote:

I'd be interested to know which 60s/70s records you think were clean.

No idea, but back then, it was at least imaginable that a clean super talent would beat all the doped super talents, when doping was providing much less of a boost.

In the 80s, with up to 3% boost from blood transfusions, plus whatever from roids, no way. Subtract 3% from any such WR, and you see why.

E.g., btt, Aouita's 3:29.46 would turn into a low 3:23, and Coe's 1:41.73 into 1:38:40ish. And that in the 80s, imagine what times that would be on today's tracks with today's spikes.

Or look at that from the other way. Any dirty runner with a clean 3:32 or 1:44 potential could have beaten the WR in the 80s, but it took until 1997, until anyone broke 1:41.73. No one whatsoever has come close to a 3:23 or 1:38, despite all the drug cheats over the last decades and the super talented Kenyans and Brits and Moroccans and the progress in training and nutrition and shoes and tracks.

Coevett wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

1) Because nothing beats blood "doping" (wasn't doping until the mid-80s), see for example doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0156157:

2) Because blood "doping" became "widespread" after 68, see doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.007195:

No idea, but back then, it was at least imaginable that a clean super talent would beat all the doped super talents, when doping was providing much less of a boost.

In the 80s, with up to 3% boost from blood transfusions, plus whatever from roids, no way. Subtract 3% from any such WR, and you see why.

E.g., btt, Aouita's 3:29.46 would turn into a low 3:23, and Coe's 1:41.73 into 1:38:40ish. And that in the 80s, imagine what times that would be on today's tracks with today's spikes.

Or look at that from the other way. Any dirty runner with a clean 3:32 or 1:44 potential could have beaten the WR in the 80s, but it took until 1997, until anyone broke 1:41.73. No one whatsoever has come close to a 3:23 or 1:38, despite all the drug cheats over the last decades and the super talented Kenyans and Brits and Moroccans and the progress in training and nutrition and shoes and tracks.

I honestly think you seem to be basing your conclusion - that everybody dopes - on the assumption that...everybody dopes.

So blood doping improves performance by 3%. Herb Elliott ran a practically solo 3:35 in 1960 on a much inferior track than even the Brits had, let alone today's Monaco. He was only 22 and surely still not in his peak (and retired soon after). 3% of 3.35 gives around a 3:28 performance blood doping. ON A 1960's TRACK!! By a 22 year old probably still not at his peak. Quite ridiculous.

Obvious that Herb Elliott was blood doping. But wait a moment. Blood doping only became widespread later in the 60's.

I honestly don't follow your logic. Because Coe ran 1:41, it would mean to suppose he ran it clean, he could have ran 1:38 blood doped, and that proves he did blood dope. I honestly don't see that logic. Yes, maybe he could have ran 1:38 blood doped. In fact I firmly believe that with EPO or blood doping, Coe, Cram, Ovett could have ran that kind of time and 3:25 1500m. I don't see what's ridiculous about that.

Peter Snell also ran what many consider the equivalent of at least a low 1:43, and surely had the potential to run 1:42 on today's Mondo tracks and with better competition to push him. That means he could have ran 1:39 or even 1:38 blood doped today. Unless you think he and Lydiard pioneered the use of blood doping in the 60s in athletics?

I mean what's your logic? 1:38 is absurd because Coe would still be the world record holder and nearly 3 seconds faster than anyone else, and we know there have been a lot of 800m blood dopers and EPO users in the years since Coe? But how we do know that somebody of Coe's talent has been blood doping or taking EPO? You assume that EVERYBODY dopes to prove that EVERYBODY dopes. You also ignore the possibility (or probability) that the introduction of EPO and doping culture in middle-distance actually prevented European talent of the level of Coe emerging (because they made the choice not to dope to compete on a level playing field).

You've criticized me for 'racism' in the past, or at least for giving the impression that I'm racist for focusing on East Africa. The fact that there is no evidence that there is and has been a major doping culture in middle-distance running in the West, aside from perhaps countries like Spain and Italy. Meanwhile, at the risk of appearing racist again, there have been two global Kenyan middle-distance medalists popped in the last 12 months, 3 of the top 21 Kenyan 800m runners from 2017 popped, 3 of the 5 Kenyan male finalists in the middle-distance events in London popped. That strongly indicates that doping is endemic in Kenyan middle-distance running, and unfortunately, that most elite Kenyan runners over the years have been dopers. The fact that Coe and Cram probably ran as fast in the 80's as Kiprop, taking into account the difference in the tracks, doesn't prove they must have been doping as well. It just means that Kiprop, and maybe the best that Kenya has to offer, are naturally about 5 or 6 seconds slower than the best Europeans. Just as the best Nigerian 1500m runners are 10 or 15 seconds slower than the best Europeans.

What age do you think Cram was when he started blood doping? And how did he do it exactly? His parents couldn't even afford to buy him a decent pair of spikes, yet look at the times he was running as a schoolboy. And if Ovett was roiding and blood transfusing before each race, why did he not have any inclination to chase WRs until Andy Norman and the promoters pressurized him to? He really only enjoyed beating the men on the track. I doubt if he would have gotten much satisfaction from that if he knew he was winning just through doping.

Coevett wrote:

Beethoven wrote:

Is there any evidence that runners in the 1960's such as Herb Elliott, Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Michel Jazy, Kip Keino or Jim Ryun using steroids or amphetamines?

Almost impossible to prove now.

No evidence aside from that they could have been. At least aside from Kip Keino. Charlie Francis (coach of Ben Johnson) claimed that the IAAF drug tested lots of the athletes at Mexico (just to determine the extent of doping - steroids were not illegal at that time) and found that the entire Kenyan team was roided. Keino was supposedly seriously ill in hospital before jumping out of his bed, running all to the way to the stadium to make the final at the last moment, and running 3:34 at altitude largely solo. Last year he was pretty much convicted of syphoning off millions of dollars intended for young Kenyan athletes into his bank accounts, but got off with it after political pressure from Kenyan MPs.

Further, there is counter-evidence that they did not dope with dangerous drugs, as amphetamines and roids certainly were in the 1960's. Namely, that they are all still here in their eighties, mostly in very good health it seems. Snell suffered a cardiac problem a few years ago and has had a pacemaker fitted, but that's hardly unusual for 80 year old man. Up until that point, he was still an active sportsman competing at world level in several different sports as a master.

you're incoherent wrote:

Coevett wrote:

I honestly think you seem to be basing your conclusion - that everybody dopes - on the assumption that...everybody dopes.

So blood doping improves performance by 3%. Herb Elliott ran a practically solo 3:35 in 1960 on a much inferior track than even the Brits had, let alone today's Monaco. He was only 22 and surely still not in his peak (and retired soon after). 3% of 3.35 gives around a 3:28 performance blood doping. ON A 1960's TRACK!! By a 22 year old probably still not at his peak. Quite ridiculous.

Obvious that Herb Elliott was blood doping. But wait a moment. Blood doping only became widespread later in the 60's.

I honestly don't follow your logic. Because Coe ran 1:41, it would mean to suppose he ran it clean, he could have ran 1:38 blood doped, and that proves he did blood dope. I honestly don't see that logic. Yes, maybe he could have ran 1:38 blood doped. In fact I firmly believe that with EPO or blood doping, Coe, Cram, Ovett could have ran that kind of time and 3:25 1500m. I don't see what's ridiculous about that.

Peter Snell also ran what many consider the equivalent of at least a low 1:43, and surely had the potential to run 1:42 on today's Mondo tracks and with better competition to push him. That means he could have ran 1:39 or even 1:38 blood doped today. Unless you think he and Lydiard pioneered the use of blood doping in the 60s in athletics?

I mean what's your logic? 1:38 is absurd because Coe would still be the world record holder and nearly 3 seconds faster than anyone else, and we know there have been a lot of 800m blood dopers and EPO users in the years since Coe? But how we do know that somebody of Coe's talent has been blood doping or taking EPO? You assume that EVERYBODY dopes to prove that EVERYBODY dopes. You also ignore the possibility (or probability) that the introduction of EPO and doping culture in middle-distance actually prevented European talent of the level of Coe emerging (because they made the choice not to dope to compete on a level playing field).

You've criticized me for 'racism' in the past, or at least for giving the impression that I'm racist for focusing on East Africa. The fact that there is no evidence that there is and has been a major doping culture in middle-distance running in the West, aside from perhaps countries like Spain and Italy. Meanwhile, at the risk of appearing racist again, there have been two global Kenyan middle-distance medalists popped in the last 12 months, 3 of the top 21 Kenyan 800m runners from 2017 popped, 3 of the 5 Kenyan male finalists in the middle-distance events in London popped. That strongly indicates that doping is endemic in Kenyan middle-distance running, and unfortunately, that most elite Kenyan runners over the years have been dopers. The fact that Coe and Cram probably ran as fast in the 80's as Kiprop, taking into account the difference in the tracks, doesn't prove they must have been doping as well. It just means that Kiprop, and maybe the best that Kenya has to offer, are naturally about 5 or 6 seconds slower than the best Europeans. Just as the best Nigerian 1500m runners are 10 or 15 seconds slower than the best Europeans.

What age do you think Cram was when he started blood doping? And how did he do it exactly? His parents couldn't even afford to buy him a decent pair of spikes, yet look at the times he was running as a schoolboy. And if Ovett was roiding and blood transfusing before each race, why did he not have any inclination to chase WRs until Andy Norman and the promoters pressurized him to? He really only enjoyed beating the men on the track. I doubt if he would have gotten much satisfaction from that if he knew he was winning just through doping.

This is why no one takes you seriously. When people suggest that Africans are physically/genetically superior, you call it racism, yet you turn around and claim Europeans are physically superior and then wonder why people call you a racist. On top of that, you've stated that an entire region has only been successful due to drug use and in general seem to have a very negative attitude towards Africans.

If Jakob Ingebrigtsen wasn't white, you'd be foaming at the mouth looking for any excuse to denigrate his achievements. You're an intellectually dishonest prick but lack the self-awareness to see it. Sad.

Coevett wrote:

Beethoven wrote:

Is there any evidence that runners in the 1960's such as Herb Elliott, Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Michel Jazy, Kip Keino or Jim Ryun using steroids or amphetamines?

Almost impossible to prove now.

No evidence aside from that they could have been. At least aside from Kip Keino. Charlie Francis (coach of Ben Johnson) claimed that the IAAF drug tested lots of the athletes at Mexico (just to determine the extent of doping - steroids were not illegal at that time) and found that the entire Kenyan team was roided. Keino was supposedly seriously ill in hospital before jumping out of his bed, running all to the way to the stadium to make the final at the last moment, and running 3:34 at altitude largely solo. Last year he was pretty much convicted of syphoning off millions of dollars intended for young Kenyan athletes into his bank accounts, but got off with it after political pressure from Kenyan MPs.

Further, there is counter-evidence that they did not dope with dangerous drugs, as amphetamines and roids certainly were in the 1960's. Namely, that they are all still here in their eighties, mostly in very good health it seems. Snell suffered a cardiac problem a few years ago and has had a pacemaker fitted, but that's hardly unusual for 80 year old man. Up until that point, he was still an active sportsman competing at world level in several different sports as a master.

Beethoven wrote:

Coevett wrote:

No evidence aside from that they could have been. At least aside from Kip Keino. Charlie Francis (coach of Ben Johnson) claimed that the IAAF drug tested lots of the athletes at Mexico (just to determine the extent of doping - steroids were not illegal at that time) and found that the entire Kenyan team was roided. Keino was supposedly seriously ill in hospital before jumping out of his bed, running all to the way to the stadium to make the final at the last moment, and running 3:34 at altitude largely solo. Last year he was pretty much convicted of syphoning off millions of dollars intended for young Kenyan athletes into his bank accounts, but got off with it after political pressure from Kenyan MPs.

Further, there is counter-evidence that they did not dope with dangerous drugs, as amphetamines and roids certainly were in the 1960's. Namely, that they are all still here in their eighties, mostly in very good health it seems. Snell suffered a cardiac problem a few years ago and has had a pacemaker fitted, but that's hardly unusual for 80 year old man. Up until that point, he was still an active sportsman competing at world level in several different sports as a master.

Josy Barthel, the 1952 Olympic champion in the 1500m was accused (rumoured) of using methamphetamine. Barthel died at 65 years of age.

In 2006, Barthel was accused of doping by sports journalist Erik Eggers in the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.[2] Eggers cited German physician Oskar Wegener who did research on methamphetamine and other doping substances in the 1950s. Wegener strongly denied saying Barthel had any connection with doping.[3] The use of such substances was neither prohibited nor controlled until the 1960s.[4]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UtnQisArdUQ/V_pjcTcpkcI/AAAAAAAAAyg/EHKBrXI8fa4hU7n1e1jJZMfov3rZEsfcwCLcB/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Josy%2BBarthel.jpg

Coevett wrote:

Beethoven wrote:

Josy Barthel, the 1952 Olympic champion in the 1500m was accused (rumoured) of using methamphetamine. Barthel died at 65 years of age.

In 2006, Barthel was accused of doping by sports journalist Erik Eggers in the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.[2] Eggers cited German physician Oskar Wegener who did research on methamphetamine and other doping substances in the 1950s. Wegener strongly denied saying Barthel had any connection with doping.[3] The use of such substances was neither prohibited nor controlled until the 1960s.[4]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UtnQisArdUQ/V_pjcTcpkcI/AAAAAAAAAyg/EHKBrXI8fa4hU7n1e1jJZMfov3rZEsfcwCLcB/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Josy%2BBarthel.jpg

So one of the few middle-distance runners to die early from that period was actually accused of taking peds, unlike all the others, and this 'proves' that they were all taking speed and other things?

No it rather proves or counts as circumstantial evidence that most of the top middle-distance guys weren't using amphetamines back then.

Jesus, the logic I have to argue against here.