I get the sense that Wetmore & co. must feel okay with Emma and her entourage being out of their house now.
I get the sense that Wetmore & co. must feel okay with Emma and her entourage being out of their house now.
POO wrote:
Forget comparing her time to anyone else, look at the performance alone and I don't find it hard to believe.
The women's barriers are almost non-existent, so someone with good efficiency (which Chepkoech has) should be able to convert to the 'chase with a 20-25 second conversion from the flat. She's therefore run around 8.20-24 plus done a bit of skipping - not that hard to believe.
Running 9.0x is the equivalent of running 8.40 ish on the flat. 21 different women ran under 8.40 in the 3k this year in a rarely run event. We need to stop comparing her time to the 'World Class' performance of 9.0x, and realise that this is only the current benchmark because the standard in the event is so poor...
8:10 men's steeple is at worst equal to 9 flat for women.
Especially with those low barriers that should be raised 3".
Women's steeple record has been soft for quite a while. An 8:20 3000 runner could run 20-25 seconds slower in the women's steeple with decent efficiency.
Difference between men's and women's flat 3000 is the same as a 8:42.47 = 7:53.63.
In 2 to 3 years you will see 5-7 women running High 8:40's to low 8:50's and this is really where the times and performances belong. I can finally tune in and watch a truly competitive women's steeple in 2021. Coburn needs to get over it and drop 10-12 seconds.
Dear All,
I don't mind that you all dope. But can you at least make it look like you are trying hard when you crush a world record. It would just make it more enjoyable.
Thanks,
Stupid Fan
You really ought to try the stuff wrote:
Deer Emma,
While it's generally considered classless to call out a colleague with no evidence, I agree with you 100%. Here's why: a bunch of rambling citing no evidence
Well done, I think you've cracked it!
softrecord wrote:
8:10 men's steeple is at worst equal to 9 flat for women.
Especially with those low barriers that should be raised 3".
Sure, and raise the men's hurdles 6", so they can be barriers too.
Shove it up your ass, my man. At this point, Kenyans are not merely under suspicion; rather, the number of high-level doping positives is such that Kenyan champions and WR holders are to be treated as dirty by default. If you don't like it, tell your compatriots to lay of the freakin cheating.
While I applaud all of the lovely chatter about OF COURSE someone ran 8:44 because the women's steeple record was so SOFT because the BARRIERS are so damn LOW, I gotta ask one thing:
Why did all this chatter about how the 8:58 record was so weak only start after someone DID crush the record?
I don't recall a significant number of posts here when the record was 8:58 suggesting that the record was soft by 15 seconds or whatever. Funny how that only started once an otherworldly record was set. This would fall under the heading of "post hoc" reasoning, if only I spoke Latin.
Also, comparing this mark to the WRs in the men's 3K and steeple and the women's open 3K really only helps the case of the "dirty record" crowd, since only idiots think any of those records are clean. In fact, saying the 3K record is now where it should be is an implicit affirmation of the 8:44 being a doped mark.
Kenyans (but of course not only Kenyans) are dirty AF. This woman didn't looked tired. She was almost surely doped for the 8:28 too. Anyone who cannot grasp the virtual certainty of this mark being a doped mark is either ignorant about athletics in general or blinded by a form of idealism that should have gone extinct well before Lance Armstrong and certainly has no place in the sports world now.
If everyone is potentially dirty than there is no need to single out Chepkoech. I guess the point of those pointing out to her flat times is that 8:28 is world class but not out of this world. Are all women (many Europeans and Americans) who have run around or below 8:30 supposed to be "dirty"? Probably not.
The next step is than that 8:44 seems out of this world but it is not necessarily so for someone with an 8:28 flat PB and maybe potentially 8:24 who shows far better form over the barriers than e.g. Chebet and most other African women. And the American and European women with good technique are typically around 20 sec. slower than Chepkoech over the flat 3000m, so the difference is not entirely implausible.
If one only compares flat vs. steeple Frerichs is at least as suspicious because none of her flat times comes even close to the level of 9:00 steeple. This might simply be because she never ran anything but steeple in peak form, but is nevertheless remarkable.
Coached Fitness Blogger wrote:
Shove it up your ass, my man. At this point, Kenyans are not merely under suspicion; rather, the number of high-level doping positives is such that Kenyan champions and WR holders are to be treated as dirty by default. If you don't like it, tell your compatriots to lay of the freakin cheating.
Shove it up your fat moms arse you raving queen.
Well said, Native Son, and very respectful. You make some excellent points. However, I would say that Chepkoech has made a very dramatic drop in the steeple at an age well past Frerichs and after a lot more years as a pro. Chepkoech's 3k time of 8:28 is considerably better than Coburn's or Frerich's. However, that was run recently and Jenny Simpson, who had already run 3:59.90 at the time while still in college and subsequently ran 8:29 and could only run 9:12 in the steeple. The enormous drop from her long base of performances in the steeple from excellent quality medal contender to far beyond what anyone else had ever run, including a recently caught doper (the 8:52) at 27 is what makes this suspicious. 14:39 is very good, a second behind Rowbury, but still 5 seconds slower than Frerich's training partner just did (and that I do find questionable).
Exactly. How does 8.28 automatically = doped? Laura Muir has run 8.26, and she's small, fat and white. When she was 19 she was running 4.39 (1500) & 10.25 (3k) - therefore has basically no natural talent - and yet someone living and training at altitude her entire life can't run within 2 seconds of that and not be suspicious?
Then, clearly considering she's broken the WR this year, add to that she's obviously in better shape than last year (say 8.20-8.22 shape), the conversion to 3kSC of 24 seconds is not hard to believe at all.
HER TIMES AREN'T SUSPICIOUS. WHAT'S SUSPICIOUS IS HOW THE REST OF THESE WOMEN HAVE BEEN PASSING AS WORLD CLASS BY RUNNING 9.10 SO SO MANY YEARS NOW - IT'S SH!T!!
Jo72 wrote:
If everyone is potentially dirty than there is no need to single out Chepkoech. I guess the point of those pointing out to her flat times is that 8:28 is world class but not out of this world. Are all women (many Europeans and Americans) who have run around or below 8:30 supposed to be "dirty"? Probably not.
Not everyone is dirty. But let's not forget the magnitude of this problem. Some posters here act as if dopers are the rare exception. However, there were most likely over 44% drug cheats at those IAAC World Championships according to the recent Tübingen/Harvard study.
We don't know how that differs by event, country, or gender, but for example a certain W 1500 was one of the dirtiest races ever, so I wouldn't expect the W 3000 to be extraordinarily clean.
To date, only 116 women ever have run faster than 8:30. Since cheating helps, you will find the most extreme cheaters at the top. Impossible to quantify, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that a clear majority of these 116 are drug cheats.
Casual Observer, astute observation.
Livstrong7 wrote:
Casual Observer, astute observation.
Please answer my question.
casual obsever wrote:
To date, only 116 women ever have run faster than 8:30. Since cheating helps, you will find the most extreme cheaters at the top. Impossible to quantify, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that a clear majority of these 116 are drug cheats.
I'll take that bet, for as much as you want, until you have nothing left.
tl;dr What Coburn said (i.e., lazy/stupid thinking).
Mathematics are fun wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
To date, only 116 women ever have run faster than 8:30. Since cheating helps, you will find the most extreme cheaters at the top. Impossible to quantify, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that a clear majority of these 116 are drug cheats.
I'll take that bet, for as much as you want, until you have nothing left.
Well, unfortunately we'll never find out the truth.
Also, sorry, it wasn't "116 women", it was 116 performances by women. Quite a few of those ladies run a number of times under 8:30, e.g. Junxia, Obiri, Radcliffe, Ayana, Yegorova, Zadorozhnaya, Dibaba, Hassan, ...
So - how would you work out the math?
I agree that COURTNEY FRERICHS performances are really suspicious.
Even Emma when she won the gold medal and beat all the Kenyans by a huge margin looked suspicious. Which makes me believe that the entire group she used to train with is suspicious.
Shelby Houlihan trains under Jerry Schumacher as well. She also has had big time suspicious performances. This is a quote from a Shelby interview when she broke the American record.
"On the topic of the 5K, [coach] Jerry [Schumacher] knew he wanted me to run at Heusden and have Shalane pace me. At the beginning of the year, he told Shalane, “You’re going to help Shelby break 15.” Then as the season got going, he said, “Okay, let’s try to pace her for 14:50.” Then it was 14:40…and then it was, “Let’s just go after the American record.”
"
Chepkoech's No1 Fan wrote:
Exactly. How does 8.28 automatically = doped? Laura Muir has run 8.26, and she's small, fat and white. When she was 19 she was running 4.39 (1500) & 10.25 (3k) - therefore has basically no natural talent - and yet someone living and training at altitude her entire life can't run within 2 seconds of that and not be suspicious?
Then, clearly considering she's broken the WR this year, add to that she's obviously in better shape than last year (say 8.20-8.22 shape), the conversion to 3kSC of 24 seconds is not hard to believe at all.
HER TIMES AREN'T SUSPICIOUS. WHAT'S SUSPICIOUS IS HOW THE REST OF THESE WOMEN HAVE BEEN PASSING AS WORLD CLASS BY RUNNING 9.10 SO SO MANY YEARS NOW - IT'S SH!T!!
You are an idiot. Plain and simple.
This is your argument:
"Well, she ran 8:28 but SURELY she COULD run 8:20 and that's 'only" 24 seconds off an 8:44, so it's definitely plausible!"
In the real world, we wait for people to run certain times before saying it's a sure thing. Yes, it's fine to say that a 3:30.0 1500m guy who's never broken 3:50 for the mile is in 3:50 shape. But not this crap. 8 seconds is a YUGE difference at that level for women.
Equally stupid are the people who think calling Kipkoech dirty is equivalent to saying everyone else is clean. It's not. This reminds me of the people who defend Trump by pointing out how shitty Clinton is or would have been, as if this relates in any way to the issue of whether a given individual is or is not operating in a certain way.
How many of you defenders would be willing to bet your life that this dirty-ass African is clean? How about even $100? Dumb question since there's no way to prove anything one way or the other at this point, but I have a feeling I know what your instinctive answers are certain to be.
Shadonna Shingle wrote:
Also, comparing this mark to the WRs in the men's 3K and steeple and the women's open 3K really only helps the case of the "dirty record" crowd, since only idiots think any of those records are clean. In fact, saying the 3K record is now where it should be is an implicit affirmation of the 8:44 being a doped mark.
Kenyans (but of course not only Kenyans) are dirty AF. This woman didn't looked tired. She was almost surely doped for the 8:28 too. Anyone who cannot grasp the virtual certainty of this mark being a doped mark is either ignorant about athletics in general or blinded by a form of idealism that should have gone extinct well before Lance Armstrong and certainly has no place in the sports world now.
+1