What percentage chance did Pre realistically have of winning Olympic Gold, had he lived and competed?

zxcvzxcv wrote:

By his death, Prefontaine had run 7 seconds faster than Viren in the mile but only 5 seconds slower in the 10000m.

Viren's blood doping was what allowed him to take poor mile speed and still run 13:16/27:38 and be able to close completely fresh at the Olympics, though virtually no other place. It's not clear to me with Pre's far superior mile speed and proximity to Viren's 5 and 10 pr's that Viren would have handled him in 1976. Even in 1972, Viren pulled away from Pre for good only after physically pushing Pre back on the last turn when Pre was about to pass him.

Pre was 7 seconds faster than Viren for the mile? Right. Viren's PR was 4:01, but he tied it during the last mile of the 72 5000. If Viren had run an all-out mile when he was fit, he would have been as fast as Pre.

I've watched that the tape of that race many times and I don't see Viren pushing Pre.

Blood doping wasn't illegal until 84 or 85. So even if lasse viren blood doped, it was completely legal and was not cheating(nothing stopping the other competitors from doing it). Lass viren FTW!!! Get over it butt hurt kiwis and Americans.

It wasn't illegal wrote:

longjack wrote:

agreed with all except viren was probably good for a 336 1500 at least peak and pre was as well....

the vastly superior miler speed of pre is not correct.

really in montreal, viren was good for 336 1500m or close and quax the same, dixon maybe good for 335.

then you got the reindeer juice is the equalizer.

probably quax, is the legitimate gold, with viren silver.

dixon, sorry, you blew it.

Blood doping wasn't illegal until 84 or 85. So even if lasse viren blood doped, it was completely legal and was not cheating(nothing stopping the other competitors from doing it). Lass viren FTW!!! Get over it butt hurt kiwis and Americans.

So why was it made illegal unless it was seen as unfair? Your standards of sportsmanship are showing.

Armstronglivs,

How can Pre be considered an overrated underachiever when he was in the hunt for Munich gold on the last lap @ the age of 21 and held every AR from 2k to 10k when he died @ age 24?

Knut III wrote:

It’s hard to be the best in the world when two Norwegians named Knut might beat you.

Hahaha!

For Some Reason wrote:

Not much chance at all.

How come no one ever talks about Bob Schul, who actually DID win a gold medal?

THIS.......Bob is a national running hero. THere is no doubt that 1964 was the greatest year any runner in this country ever had. He dominated the world.

Bob worked, he coached himself. Bob was just as much an agitator to the AAU as was Pre.

I guess living legends arent as good as dead ones

Quit being a Knut hugger.

Brookfield wrote:

Armstronglivs,

How can Pre be considered an overrated underachiever when he was in the hunt for Munich gold on the last lap @ the age of 21 and held every AR from 2k to 10k when he died @ age 24?

So what that he held a range of American records? That made him the best at a national level - but not a world beater. His best at an international level was 4th in an Olympic final. How many other athletes who failed to place in a major championship, who held no world records, who weren't by any measure the best of their era, been the subject of so much inflated assessment - and much of it based on 'what ifs' - as Prefontaine? Hype over substance.

Throughout the 1970's, Americans weren't the best in the world over the distance events - the Finns, the New Zealanders, the Africans and then the Brits were. As the best American, Prefontaine was best only in the 'B' division of distance runners in the '70's. Put up against the best of the rest of the world in that era he leaves no significant mark. So he was "in the hunt for the gold" at Munich; well, he got beaten by 3 better runners on the day; the world doesn't remember 4th placegetters. Despite what many here think, it is likely that 4th was as high up the mountain as he was going to get. Prefontaine is idolised today by American college runners, because that was the level - and the only level - where he excelled.

longjack wrote:

agreed with all except viren was probably good for a 336 1500 at least peak and pre was as well....

the vastly superior miler speed of pre is not correct.

really in montreal, viren was good for 336 1500m or close and quax the same, dixon maybe good for 335.

then you got the reindeer juice is the equalizer.

probably quax, is the legitimate gold, with viren silver.

dixon, sorry, you blew it.

Interesting that you don't include the actual bronze medalist in your Montreal analysis.

Dixon had already cracked 3:34 at the time when 3:34 really meant something.

Pre would have been as far back as 8th.

His shot was in the 10,000m

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't illegal wrote:

Blood doping wasn't illegal until 84 or 85. So even if lasse viren blood doped, it was completely legal and was not cheating(nothing stopping the other competitors from doing it). Lass viren FTW!!! Get over it butt hurt kiwis and Americans.

So why was it made illegal unless it was seen as unfair? Your standards of sportsmanship are showing.

How is blood doping a unfair advantage when anyone could do it? Is growing up at altitude a unfair advantage? What is a unfair advantage?

what is a unfair advantage wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So why was it made illegal unless it was seen as unfair? Your standards of sportsmanship are showing.

How is blood doping a unfair advantage when anyone could do it? Is growing up at altitude a unfair advantage? What is a unfair advantage?

An unfair advantage is one that is confers a benefit that isn't natural or within the accepted technical bounds of the sport. Generally those that seek to exploit that advantage aren't forthcoming about it - no one admitted to blood-doping - and so it can take a period of time for it to be recognised as a problem and made illegal - as blood doping was. Illegal is a pretty good measure that it is seen as unfair. It was recognition that blood-doping was a fraud on clean athletes, who weren't using it. Apparently the word 'doping' also doesn't flag anything to you. Altitude training is not a form of doping, of using non-natural processes to enhance physiological capacity; hence it is not banned - even if that were possible. Blood dopers got away with it in the 70's because it was a clandestine process, and that's because those that used it knew it would discredit their performances if it was known they had blood-doped. Hence, we were told about "reindeer milk". Against the rules or not, it was always a form of cheating; it just took awhile for the athletic world to do something about it.

Horse guy wrote:

Best chance would be to knock Foster off the podium in the 10k, which I think is doable if he hadn’t died.

~1% chance of gold in 5 or 10

10% chance of a medal in 5

45% chance of a medal in 10

Pretty cool that he ran 13:23 for 5,000 the day before he died, so we know what shape he was in.

He wasn't going to medal in the 5k, and maybe had a 5-10% chance in the 10k.

He'd basically plateaued in the 5k, and wasn't likely to beat anyone who did medal, but maybe had a shot at the 10k -- although, based on one race (his AR), hard to say.

I loved Pre at the time, and he undeniably had charisma, but he was not really competitive at the world level.

1955 wrote:

Horse guy wrote:

Best chance would be to knock Foster off the podium in the 10k, which I think is doable if he hadn’t died.

~1% chance of gold in 5 or 10

10% chance of a medal in 5

45% chance of a medal in 10

Pretty cool that he ran 13:23 for 5,000 the day before he died, so we know what shape he was in.

He wasn't going to medal in the 5k, and maybe had a 5-10% chance in the 10k.

He'd basically plateaued in the 5k, and wasn't likely to beat anyone who did medal, but maybe had a shot at the 10k -- although, based on one race (his AR), hard to say.

I loved Pre at the time, and he undeniably had charisma, but he was not really competitive at the world level.

A realist.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't illegal wrote:

Blood doping wasn't illegal until 84 or 85. So even if lasse viren blood doped, it was completely legal and was not cheating(nothing stopping the other competitors from doing it). Lass viren FTW!!! Get over it butt hurt kiwis and Americans.

So why was it made illegal unless it was seen as unfair? Your standards of sportsmanship are showing.

Even more, why deny it when everyone knows you were doing it. What does that say about your character?

Rules are changing all the time in everything. What's a legal campaign contribution this election cycle maybe illegal the next election cycle. Do we than retroactively prosecute people for doing stuff that at the time was legal but now is not?

Red herring. The issue isn't retrospective prosecution but acknowledging that a particular practise gave an advantage that no one wanted to own up to at the time. So it wasn't even seen as "fair" when it was still within the rules. Example by analogy: Maria Sharapova took an extended bathroom break at her last match at the Australian Open. It was within the rules but she was booed by the crowd and called a cheat by commentators because it was a patent attempt to disrupt her opponent in an unsporting fashion. And, yeah, she's a convicted doper.

"probably quax, is the legitimate gold, with viren silver."

Interesting.

Have you advised the IOC of your findings?

sky wrote:

longjack wrote:

agreed with all except viren was probably good for a 336 1500 at least peak and pre was as well....

the vastly superior miler speed of pre is not correct.

really in montreal, viren was good for 336 1500m or close and quax the same, dixon maybe good for 335.

then you got the reindeer juice is the equalizer.

probably quax, is the legitimate gold, with viren silver.

dixon, sorry, you blew it.

"probably quax, is the legitimate gold, with viren silver."

Interesting.

Have you advised the IOC of your findings?

You mean that non-political body dedicated to de Coubertin's ideal, without concern for the millions of dollars in its coffers generated by professional sport?

You miss the point. Medals can't be taken off athletes who did something that was legal at the time. But if Viren was blood-doped it is quite likely he wouldn't have won the medals that he gained, such is the advantage it would have given him. We know blood doping isn't fair, because it has been made illegal. In any case sportsmanship isn't about rules - that's for lawyers, not sportsmen - it's about a code. You can be within the rules and still be a p*ss-poor sport.

1955 wrote:

Horse guy wrote:

Best chance would be to knock Foster off the podium in the 10k, which I think is doable if he hadn’t died.

~1% chance of gold in 5 or 10

10% chance of a medal in 5

45% chance of a medal in 10

Pretty cool that he ran 13:23 for 5,000 the day before he died, so we know what shape he was in.

He wasn't going to medal in the 5k, and maybe had a 5-10% chance in the 10k.

He'd basically plateaued in the 5k, and wasn't likely to beat anyone who did medal, but maybe had a shot at the 10k -- although, based on one race (his AR), hard to say.

I loved Pre at the time, and he undeniably had charisma, but he was not really competitive at the world level.

At the time of his death, he was #8 AT at 3k, #11 AT at 5k and #6 AT at 10k. Not a “world beater,” necessarily, but consistently “competitive at the world level.”