Timothy Cheruiyot runs 3:29 FTW in Paris!!

No, in short what I'm saying is that we don't know how tainted times over 5,000m & 10,000m from 1988 & 1989 were by epo, minimal or significant.

Renato Canova wrote:

I don't want to discuss about doping....

opposite of my thoughts and my knowledge of the REAL situation,

Ha funny, though you have repeatedly said that right now training at altitude in Kenyan are runners capable of breaking the world record yet those good times, they have dried up.

Did you know about Jeptoo or Sumgong, or Jebet or Kiprop? If you know the REAL situation, which Kenyan is next to fail. The truth is we all know it is a matter of when not if.

Blaming the Commonwealth games is a nonsense, Kenya sent a week team for 5,000m and 10,000m with none of their elites turning up.

+1

Very valid point.

rekrunner wrote:

I've often said, that a global, powerful, and undetectable drug was a poor explanation for decades long world domination from small regions.

If it were as easy as taking EPO, and not getting caught, their success could be easily replicated, but as I have shown, it has not been.

We have to look at other things like inherent talent and high motivation and organized training and high altitude and low bodyweight.

I don't find the "rocket fuel" hypothesis credible.

This is adopey post. FFS, SPAIN set virtually all of their records from the 800 to the marathon post-90s! In the 5000 alone, SEVERAL runners beat the fastest pre-90s time of 13:12.49 by José Manuel Abascal in 1987 (assuming it was clean). Blood bag Bezabeh beat by it by 15 secs running 12:57! Rocket fuel-positive Alberto García beat it by 10 seconds running 13:02! You don't think all those doping ringswent to waste, now do you?

You just don't have a clue rekrunner - pack it in before you keep embarrassing yourself! ?

What's up with this? wrote:

Blood bag Bezabeh beat by it by 15 secs running 12:57!

The guy needs to legally protect that name ?

Despite being corrected at least 10 times, and me never repeating "your jest" once, here you are again. It's another example of you putting arguments in my mouth that I never said. Although I never fully understood your "jest", it looks like the confusion comes from you thinking "level" means equal drug taking, when I always talked about unequal performance. You think Africans taking EPO "levelled" the field, while others (not me) argue that EPO "unlevelled" the playing field, and created the performance gap. But lest you remain confused, this argument here is not MINE, but one of the responses to me that I said "puzzles" me, partly because of the immediate consequence tacitly conceding African superiority in depth of natural talent. I would think, of all people, that that aspect bothers you too.

Coevett wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Not Kenya or Ethiopia. Was their ever a comparable jump from the Europeans and the Americans before 1990, thanks to blood transfusions and steroids?

This is apparently the reason why EPO didn't help them progress in the same quantities and quality as the North and East Africans -- they were already maxing out on blood transfusions and steroids, pre-EPO, so replacing that with EPO could not change their game.

Now you're repeating (again) an argument I made in jest months ago, to which you explicitly denied making yourself. That EPO was a 'leveller'.

I'm just trying to better understand your argument that is puzzling me. So in terms of realizing potential, you are somehow equating the 1960's non-Africans to the 1980's Africans, and the 1980's non-African to the 2000's African. Non-Africans running 13:22 is relatively equivalent to East Africans running 13:00? And it's normal that both groups would have advanced by ~20s in 20 years, reaching a new respective equivalent: 13:00 and 12:40. The 1980's non-African nearly maxed out on their potential in 1980, despite the power, availability, and undetectability of EPO. This seems like the immediate consequence is that the Africans possess an inherent superiority. Is that correct? Is that what you are arguing? Oh I forgot -- you argue that steroids is important for endurance, and the big difference in the EPO-era was steroid testing for non-Africans. Do you suggest that if only non-Africans had the same opportunity to take "unlimited" quantities of EPO and steroids, that they could have duplicated the same quality of African performances?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Not Kenya or Ethiopia. Was their ever a comparable jump from the Europeans and the Americans before 1990, thanks to blood transfusions and steroids?

As listed before:

Decade by decade for non-African born male 5000 m runners, averaged over top-5 times (feel free to check the stats):

1960s: 13:22.5 -> some steroids, very few blood "dopers"

1970s: 13:13.4 -> -9s; unlimited blood transfusions + primitive steroids

1980s: 13:04.9 -> -8s; height of cold war doping era, unlimited blood transfusions, steroids virtually undetectable

1990s: 12:59.2 -> -6s; unlimited EPO, begin serious steroid testing

2000s: 12:56.3 -> -3s; begin EPO testing, partial ABP

2010s: 12:57.7 -> +2s; full ABP incl. steroid module - but still 2 years to go

So, if you compare pre-1970 with post-1970 but pre-1990, you'll note a 17.6 second improvement, which amounts to a bit over 2%.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm just trying to better understand your argument that is puzzling me.

Which argument? I just answered your question regarding a performance jump for non Africans. Apparently correctly, for even you didn't argue against those numbers.

As for comparing Africans with non-Africans, that's simple. Just check out all time athletics. 12:37 vs. 12:54, for example. Both in the EPO era. The first not clean, imo, the second by a convicted drug cheat, who even used steroids in the 90s. So much for your theory that steroids don't help distance runners.

"This seems like the immediate consequence is that the Africans possess an inherent superiority", indeed. The numbers speak for themselves. A combination of culture, genes, and environment. I never had a problem with that. Are you confusing me with Coevett?

The rest, well, you are putting words in my mouth again.

casual obsever wrote:

As for comparing Africans with non-Africans, that's simple. Just check out all time athletics. 12:37 vs. 12:54, for example. Both in the EPO era. The first not clean, imo, the second by a convicted drug cheat, who even used steroids in the 90s. So much for your theory that steroids don't help distance runners.

Baumann's case really is not that clear as the letsrunners want to see it.

Baumann wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

As for comparing Africans with non-Africans, that's simple. Just check out all time athletics. 12:37 vs. 12:54, for example. Both in the EPO era. The first not clean, imo, the second by a convicted drug cheat, who even used steroids in the 90s. So much for your theory that steroids don't help distance runners.

Baumann's case really is not that clear as the letsrunners want to see it.

Okay...then why don't you explain why "it is not that clear?" Fire away...I'm all ears.

Are you sure? wrote:

Okay...then why don't you explain why "it is not that clear?" Fire away...I'm all ears.

For a long period detectives were almost living in Baumann's house. Regularly in the morning Baumann and also his wife were testet "positive". Finaly they realised this was coming from the toothpaste. They both underwent lie detector tests. And much more. But for sure you will laugh about this.

Are you sure? wrote:

Baumann wrote:

Baumann's case really is not that clear as the letsrunners want to see it.

Okay...then why don't you explain why "it is not that clear?" Fire away...I'm all ears.

Yes I suspect this Baumann guy is talking thtough the whole in his as....

Baumann wrote:

Are you sure? wrote:

Okay...then why don't you explain why "it is not that clear?" Fire away...I'm all ears.

For a long period detectives were almost living in Baumann's house. Regularly in the morning Baumann and also his wife were testet "positive". Finaly they realised this was coming from the toothpaste. They both underwent lie detector tests. And much more. But for sure you will laugh about this.

That's cheesy dude. I've never seen any reports where detectives were almost living in his house or that his wife tested positive. The official report says Baumann was unable to list a suspect - maybe he, himself, injected the steroid into his toothpaste.

Btw, he's listed #1 on the "Best Doping Excuses of All Time" ?

Sledge_hammer wrote:

potato brain wrote:

A certain individual made a complete fool of himself in the Kiprop thread. Nothing better than 3:33 - 3:35 for Kenyans the next few years? F*ck that guy and the rock he's living under.

He's still right. He meant "Nothing better than 3:33-3:35 CLEAN"

If a Kenyan runs better than 3:33, then he must not be clean (no evidence required).

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I'm just trying to better understand your argument that is puzzling me.

Which argument? I just answered your question regarding a performance jump for non Africans. Apparently correctly, for even you didn't argue against those numbers.

As for comparing Africans with non-Africans, that's simple. Just check out all time athletics. 12:37 vs. 12:54, for example. Both in the EPO era. The first not clean, imo, the second by a convicted drug cheat, who even used steroids in the 90s. So much for your theory that steroids don't help distance runners.

"This seems like the immediate consequence is that the Africans possess an inherent superiority", indeed. The numbers speak for themselves. A combination of culture, genes, and environment. I never had a problem with that. Are you confusing me with Coevett?

The rest, well, you are putting words in my mouth again.

Utter loons going back and forth on multiple threads and neither even having a clue what the other loon is talking about.

I'm starting to think you and Rekrunner are both on the same payroll and this is all deliberate. Whenever a serious and much needed discussion on the African doping problem starts, you two immediately start derailing it with your EPO performance garbage. Then more reasonable commentators like Subway Surfers get sucked in too.

The only thing you two seem to agree on is that everybody is dirty and East Africans are genetically superior at running. One roided up German running slower than the African Epiopians proves both of your assumptions correct, obviously.

Catch 22 wrote:

Sledge_hammer wrote:

He's still right. He meant "Nothing better than 3:33-3:35 CLEAN"

If a Kenyan runs better than 3:33, then he must not be clean (no evidence required).

Yes, potato head lived up to his name and got it wrong. I said that any Kenyan performance faster than 3:33 should be seen as suspect in the light of the Kiprop bust. I also predicted that Kenyan times would continue to decline, and halfway through the season I've seen nothing to change my mind except some excuses about an early season major championship resulting in SLOWER times, LOL!

Coevett wrote:

Catch 22 wrote:

If a Kenyan runs better than 3:33, then he must not be clean (no evidence required).

Yes, potato head lived up to his name and got it wrong. I said that any Kenyan performance faster than 3:33 should be seen as suspect in the light of the Kiprop bust. I also predicted that Kenyan times would continue to decline, and halfway through the season I've seen nothing to change my mind except some excuses about an early season major championship resulting in SLOWER times, LOL!

Are you saying all Kenyans running faster that "3:33" are suspect? (There's dozens that have run under that time - see the all-time list). What about athletes from other nations running sub-3:33...achievable clean or suspect?

Curious: What is your opinion on the fastest achievable 1500m time clean? Coe/Cram ran 3:29.77 & 3:29.67, respectively (though I recall you stating Coe could have probably hit 3:28 at Monoco?). So, if it's 3:29.67 or thereabouts, IMO, I don't see why some Kenyans couldn't run the same time clean. I don't think there's anything inherently different or limiting in their physiology from runners of European descent that would prevent Kenyans from running sub-3:30 clean.

aduck2022 wrote:

Added dimension to british middle distance discussion ,

would be at same time the irish middle distance peak .

Marcus O'Sullivan, Eamonn Coghlan, and Frank O'Mara and ray flynn of the 4 * mile record of 1985 .

1.

done exactly the same as the brits , with certain hct raising steroids but no added blood doping of the brits .

with irish american connections made when at uni over there .

LOL. Why are you now randomly picking on the Irish?

As I've said before, in your dark world everyone doped.

There is no evidence at all that any of the top Irish milers of the 80's doped, as with those from other European nations.

And if you could offer a slither of evidence that any of them did; which you never have (just your own unfounded speculation); then how are you so confident that the Brits all blood doped, but their cousins across the Irish Sea didn't!? Where the hell is the reasoning for that? Is it because the Brits were slightly better?.... lol

I didn't say that no Kenyan could run sub 3:33 clean, I said that any Kenyan performance faster than that (well any elite Kenyan performance really) should now be seen as suspect. I think I might have raised the question as to whether Kenyans could even run faster than 3:32 clean in the emotive thread I started immediately after the Kiprop bust.

I know it's hard for most of you to understand here, but a small minority of people on this forum do actually love the sport, and really are hurt and angered when the Kenyan GOAT at 1500 is exposed as a drug cheat (and more than that, the comical testing standards in Kenya exposed).

I'm not going through all my arguments again, but it does seem odd to me that Kenya cannot produce a real world class performer in any other sport, despite running (and aerobic fitness in general) being the basis of so many different sports. That they dominate it to the extent they do, and almost overnight as well.

Before 1989, no Kenyan had broken 3:33. Between 1990 and 1995, only 3 Kenyans did, all running 3:32. So as recently as 1995, the Kenyan record was still nearly 3 seconds slower than the European record, and 1 second slower than the New Zealand record.

Then the floodgates opened.

Between 1995 and 2000 15 Kenyans ran under 3:33, twelve of them ran under 3:32, and four ran under 3:30. The Kenyan record had improved by 5 seconds in just 5 years, and was now 2 seconds faster than the European record.

I wonder what was happening in the pharmaceutical world in the early 90s? Oh yeah, I remember.

It seems quite possible to me, given especially what we now know about the doping situation in Kenya, that every single Kenyan performance under 3:32 (or whatever) was doped. That's not to say that no Kenyan could run under 3:32 clean, but that it's more than possible that all the elite Kenyans are/were doped and so we don't know.

As to your question, I think Coe, Cram, Ovett were all clean, or at least I think it highly unlikely all three were doping. As all 3 could have ran 3:28 in the right circumstances even back then, let alone today, I think the clean limit is probably around 3:27. I don't think there is a limit tbh, or at least it moves back very slowly as little improvements in collective training knowledge, shoes, tracks, nutrition continue.

It's quite possible that Jakob could eventually run a really crazy time, and do it clean. All the ingredients are there, such as being a unique talent possibly only seen in the half a dozen or so individuals in the last 50 years (such as Coe, Ryun, Ovett, Cram, Herb Elliott, Snell), and with the benefit of having the brothers to mentor him etc. Of course, luck plays a part in any ahtlete's progression, but he appears to have all the talent and the right environment.