What does she think of Jebet's former WR (8:52.78)?
What does she think of Jebet's former WR (8:52.78)?
humidity matters wrote:
With 4 of the top 15 all-time women's results in that race, maybe conditions were conducive?
I think it's 4 of the top 15 all-time PRs, not results.
Bahrainians don't dope? wrote:
What does she think of Jebet's former WR (8:52.78)?
And Gulnara Samitova (Gulkina)? Given that IAAF/IOC/CAS in their abject Russian-hatred have deleted so many Beijing 2008 results retrospectively, how does this one survive, if it is not authentic?
takes it to know it wrote:
When directly asked if she thought Chepkoech’s record was legitimate, Coburn said, “I shouldn’t comment because there is no proof to prove otherwise, but I think it’s important to look at trends and history of performances and where there’s big outliers we might need to pause.”
I shouldn't comment either, but I think it's important to ask her about other famous records (like F Griffith-Joyner, or P Radcliffe), and if we need to pause about such big outliers.
Anyone with a brain knows F-Jo was on the juice.
Coming from me, this thread us ridiculous. We've got people denying Chepkoech is suspicious when she is 50m quicker than Jebet, why? Because she runs other souped up times. These same people denying Chepkoech is dirty are saying Frerichs is dirty, although she is well slower than her. Then those who are saying Chepkoech is dirty are ignoring the massive gains by Frerichs and Houlihan recently as well as Coburn and Simpson in the past. This is track and field, the sport has been dirty for decades. Why would we be surprised if any of them were doping? With Houlihan, it wasn't her AR or her Diamond League 1500m victories that were the biggest red flags, it was the Brussels Final where she was content to sit way off the pace because she was so confident she could easily run down all the Kenyans, Ethiopians, Hassan, Simpson and Muir. And she almost did, is she even tested by USADA?
Frerichs can never dope as much as Chekoech. Its a free for all wild west east Africa.
Look, I'm not saying Chepkoech doped, but lets look at some stats and talk some logic here....
History
2 years ago, she runs 9:10, then last year, she runs 8:58 in addition to PR's of 4:03 for 1500m, 14:39 for 5k, and 8:28 3k, very good marks. Now a lot of you are saying she so fast in flat races, so she should be able to run a fast 3k steeple. She ran ALL of these times last year, was in several DL's and only ran 8:58. Why wasn't she near 8:44 then?
Age/Experience
Now she goes on to run 8:44 this year, that's a huge drop. Now you could say, well maybe she's new to the event, maybe she's young? No! She is 27 and she has been running the steeple since at least 2011 per IAAF.
Comparison
Lets compare her to Coburn. Chepkoech has gone 4:02i, Emma has gone 4:05. Chepkoech 8:28, Emma 8:41i, Chepkoech 14:39, Emma N/A. The 1500 isn't vastly faster + Coburn is more of a 5k runner. You're telling me a strength based 5k runner who can go 9:02 in the steeple can't put together a 14:45-14:50 5k? She wouldn't be that much slower in the 5k with good training. Chepkoech is 3k flat + 16 sec = steeple time. Emma's differential is 21 and she has consistently had the best steeple form in the world. And again, Chepkoech ran 8:28 LAST year, but only managed a 8:58.
Doping in women's steeple
The WR was set at 8:58 for a while by a Russian athlete (likely doping). Tons of people approach those times in 2014-2015 then Ruth Jebet CRUSHES that with an 8:52. Ruth Jebet tests positive for EPO, then someone comes along the next year from a country with doping culture and crushes the previous world record by 14 SECONDS (again from a russian athlete). The next best runner (besides Jebet) is Chespol at 8:58. When has the 2nd best person is history even been that marginally slower than the next best? Paula Radcliff in the marathon? Flo Jo in the 100?
Another note: people say, why would she just dope for one race? Well when you have a label to your name, your appearance fee for every meet you have in the future will go up because of it. It ends up paying off. Having "WR holder" or "Olympic Medalist", "World Champ" or "Berlin Marathon Champion" vastly increases your stock. It's not like she gets a bonus for getting the world record and that's it.
Underlined subjects and all, makes it stand out.
But everything you posted is just conjecture, and therefore is meaningless.
Hey, nice typing ... wrote:
Underlined subjects and all, makes it stand out.
But everything you posted is just conjecture, and therefore is meaningless.
I think everything underlined can be similarly used to prove USA female steeplechasers (EC, CF) are likely dopers too.
Excellent post. Finally someone with a broader perspective looking at the situation.
It will be enjoyable to hear substantive responses.
redflagger wrote:
Hey, nice typing ... wrote:
Underlined subjects and all, makes it stand out.
But everything you posted is just conjecture, and therefore is meaningless.
I think everything underlined can be similarly used to prove USA female steeplechasers (EC, CF) are likely dopers too.
According to Western logic, the obviously-doped Russians (said multiple times for emphasis) being slower than the (presumably) non-doped USA women, is no cause for suspicion.
when you have a label to your name, your appearance fee for every meet you have in the future will go up because of it. It ends up paying off. Having "WR holder" or "Olympic Medalist", "World Champ" or "Berlin Marathon Champion" vastly increases your stock. It's not like she gets a bonus for getting the world record and that's it.
Curiously, Emma Coburn herself has an expensive sponsorship, thanks to her one race (where Kenyans curiously had "mishaps") to become World Champ.
The ad hominem attacks on
Coburn effectively concede she's probably right about Chepkoech, because the Kenyan's performance is hard to explain and so it is easier to simply accuse Coburn of jealousy, or of also being a doper. Nice own goal there, guys. The other contorted arguments defending Chepkoech's performance - long legs, hurdling technique, new event etc. - simply prove why no stand-out performance can now be trusted. Desperate reasons are sought to deny the fact there is an unpleasant smell in the room. It's looks like Lance all over again - and we know how that ended. Tough on those who are clean but that's what doping has done to the sport.
ncrecuvuer wrote:
Chepkoech is 3k flat + 16 sec = steeple time. Emma's differential is 21 and she has consistently had the best steeple form in the world.
So 5sec difference, big deal.
simply prove why no stand-out performance can now be trusted.
Exactly. Look at how many posters keep on bringing up her so-called "suspicious" WC performance, or Flanagan's NYC marathon victory, or even Centro's Oly 1500m win, as if the shoe companies were so desperate to have Americans win gold medals for them to fund.
The first victim of conspiracy theories is your own common-sense.
Livstrong7 wrote:
The ad hominem attacks on
Coburn effectively concede she's probably right about Chepkoech, because the Kenyan's performance is hard to explain and so it is easier to simply accuse Coburn of jealousy, or of also being a doper. Nice own goal there, guys.
The initial ad hominen attack came from Coburn, some have chosen to give it back, if Coburn, you or anyone else can't take it, then don't give it.
Ad what... wrote:
Livstrong7 wrote:
The ad hominem attacks on
Coburn effectively concede she's probably right about Chepkoech, because the Kenyan's performance is hard to explain and so it is easier to simply accuse Coburn of jealousy, or of also being a doper. Nice own goal there, guys.
The initial ad hominen attack came from Coburn, some have chosen to give it back, if Coburn, you or anyone else can't take it, then don't give it.
The own goal came from Emma.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
FYI, Emma has weighed in about why she's not skeptical of Frerichs:
https://twitter.com/emmajcoburn/status/1039589405374210051
This twit has been deleted.
I'd be 100% behind her too.
Ummmm... wrote:
I'd be 100% behind her too.
+1