50 Year Old run 4:19 mile at Music City Distance Carnival

zzzz wrote:

You think Daniel Komen, El Guerrouj, Morceli, etc. are going to give the 50+ records a go eventually? They don't give a fvck. Morceli is 50 next year. If he actually cared, he'd probably be capable of around 4:00-4:05. None of past all-time greats tried 50+ records, and a lot of them retired healthy.

Most of them are now 200 plus pounds and with big pot bellies.

The truth comes out wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shaheed has been a masters age prodigy - and still is - whether running 4.25 or the 4.27 I saw listed for his 50's wr. Yet you think there is nothing remarkable in a runner without Shaheed's pedigree taking a huge chunk off his age 50's record. It would have been like El G carving 6 or so secs off the open wr.

So you're attacking Barton because he's a "white guy."

If he was black you wouldn't be saying anything about it except how great he was due to his "pedigree."

There's dumb. And then there's this.

Shaheed has a long history of achievement in masters sport. That is his "pedigree".

Here are detailed pics of the race (not mine):

https://www.lane1photos.com/Portfolio/Event/Music-City-Distance-Carnival-2019/Masters-Mile/

Plus ... wrote:

zzzz wrote:

You think Daniel Komen, El Guerrouj, Morceli, etc. are going to give the 50+ records a go eventually? They don't give a fvck. Morceli is 50 next year. If he actually cared, he'd probably be capable of around 4:00-4:05. None of past all-time greats tried 50+ records, and a lot of them retired healthy.

Most of them are now 200 plus pounds and with big pot bellies.

That's an argument for suggesting anyone of modest talent could set an age group record, since the best are no longer competing. But that only makes 4.19 at 53 harder to believe. He's not even the best. The less naturally-talented apparently don't age - or very much.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I began by indicating why some might be sceptical about some of these age group records - I wasn't the first here to indicate that scepticism. But I can understand it. And I won't be the last. Doping is rife throughout sports and masters sport is not immune, particularly with the enormous increase in TRT. But many of you can't bear to think that is the state of your sport today, so you will defend every outlier performance as genuine. Fine. But I'm not persuaded. I maintain my scepticism. I don't think there is a legit world record today and I think masters times are going the same way. In the end, it is all a matter of opinion; I've given my reasons for what I think but I can't prove anything. And neither can any of you. You will continue to believe what you wish.

Yes, it is a matter of opinion which you are entitled to have and express. But as you're doing that do you consider that your opinion is as likely or unlikely to be wrong as those of people disagreeing with yours are and that you may well be slandering someone who accomplished something pretty spectacular by working hard and honestly? And if so, what do you do with that thought?

Armstronglivs wrote:

asdfasdfasdfdsafsa wrote:

The margins are very big though in uncompetive events that nobody cares about. Grete Waitz dropping 5 mins off the world record in 1979 is one thing. Kipchoge dropping 5 mins off the record today would be another. Age group running is a lot closer to woman in the 70s than men in the 10s.

The mile is not exactly a new event, even in masters running. I don't recall Mary Decker carving 6 seconds off the world record for the mile in one race. And the 70's aren't exactly the best era to compare with in women's running, with the rampant nature of E Bloc doping at the time. On the other hand, maybe it is.

How about 50s/60s track when the HS mile record dropped about 15s over 6 years. An event that had been run for ever and in a competive age group. Masters running just isn't that deep or competitive.

If you could 500k/year running a 4:20 mile at age 50, I am willing to be you would see a bunch of these times. You don't so you end up with the same situation we had back in the amateur days where a lot of good guys don't even try.

Amazing how one little troll can tie up any rational discussion for days and days.

I'm the exact same profile as you, coincidentally. I don't really notice "muscled up" masters distance competitor's, either. Muscle or even a lack of it is not proof either way of TRT, abused or legit. I have noticed plenty who hold serve if not improve on marks from their 30s. And I've noticed traits strongly correlated to known personality type, things people don't do or say if it's not in them in the first place.

Armstronglivs IS actually a doper and old guy. His little pea brain cannot fathom how a 4:19 and CLEAN seniors athlete could hand him his ass in the mile while he is doping it up to the gills.

All that money spent on T-therapy. It sucks to be you, AL.

The WMA M50+ record for 1500 is 3:58.26 which is equal to a 4:17.7 mile. The mile is not an international master's distance. Great job by Brad but David Heath deserves a higher ranking.

As far as "muscular masters", I'm sure that if I were fast, I would be judged as a doper, weighing in at 157 lbs and often less that 8% bodyfat. Fortunately I guess, I am very slow. I used to be 88-89% WMA in my 40s to age 50 but currently in my 60's I would have to work hard for over 80%. Not all ripped seniors are on TRT, I certainly am not, although my diet gives me an anabolic advantage.

zzzz wrote:

Figured that might be the case. You're missing out on the awesome Alaska summer. Your homie Norris is tearing up the mountain races.

Yes I miss the summers. Was just up there last month for commencement. Say hi to David and any of the crew from FAST if you see them on the circuit. CM too.

So scepticism is slander. In that case nearly every thread on this blog is slanderous. If you don't want your performances questioned, don't compete in a dirty sport.

It's YOU! wrote:

Armstronglivs IS actually a doper and old guy. His little pea brain cannot fathom how a 4:19 and CLEAN seniors athlete could hand him his ass in the mile while he is doping it up to the gills.

All that money spent on T-therapy. It sucks to be you, AL.

The intellectual defence for doping.

Skepticism that leads to accusations can be slanderous. So it doesn't bother you that you might be accusing someone falsely it would seem. Would that be true if you were not anonymous?

HRE wrote:

Skepticism that leads to accusations can be slanderous. So it doesn't bother you that you might be accusing someone falsely it would seem. Would that be true if you were not anonymous?

I might also be right. Does that also occur to you? But to take your view, no performance can be questioned because it might be construed as slander. I have only continued to debate the issue because others have chosen to respond. I haven't been convinced by their arguments. It isn't a rule anywhere I know of that we are required to change our opinions simply because others disagree with us. My views are also anonymous here because they are largely irrelevant - like everyone else's. This is a public opinion board - that is all. Finally, to suggest a performance is doped in running is little different than suspecting Tour de France performances might be doped. It is hardly libellous if every second competitor is doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I might also be right. Does that also occur to you? But to take your view, no performance can be questioned because it might be construed as slander. I have only continued to debate the issue because others have chosen to respond. I haven't been convinced by their arguments. It isn't a rule anywhere I know of that we are required to change our opinions simply because others disagree with us. My views are also anonymous here because they are largely irrelevant - like everyone else's. This is a public opinion board - that is all. Finally, to suggest a performance is doped in running is little different than suspecting Tour de France performances might be doped. It is hardly libellous if every second competitor is doping.

You have not been arguing in good faith here from the outset. You can refuse to accept speculation that Barton could have been a faster miler had he focused on the event (though that speculation is entirely reasonable). But you cannot reject the fact that 4:05 converts to very close to 4:00 when adjusting for altitude, which is NOT just a speculative tool like "13:30 for 5K is 28:20 for 10K." And although I know you stand by your central thesis that 4:19 is impossible for a clean 53-year-old, the means by which you are assembling your argument would be laughed out of any law-school seminar.

It's clear that you aware that Barton was in fact a 4:00 miler at worst, and that because your refrain of others "10 to 15 seconds faster" not running 4:20 suddenly becomes "others 5 to 10 seconds faster" suddenly loses a good deal of its oomph. Correspondingly, noting that Barton has slowed by 19 seconds instead of 14 lessens the impact of your "evidence."

You remind me of a cop who isn't afraid to be sloppy procedurally or maybe even plant some evidence because he "knows" that his perp is guilty anyway.

Your arguments are false. Yes, you are speculating about what the athlete was capable of and I don't buy your arguments. Not am I required to. They are speculation, not fact. Others here have expressed a view that he likely wouldn't have been a 4 or sub-4 miler in his youth. I believe you have to be even substantially better than that to be capable of running sub-4.20 at 53. Since you clearly can't understand an opinion that isn't your own it is beyond you that someone might genuinely hold to a different view.

It comes down to ethics and fairness. Most of us think it's not ethical to accuse without substantiating that accusation with some good evidence. You are making an accusation without a shred of evidence, even while trying to say you aren't. What you are saying is, so what if there's a chance he's clean? There's a chance that he's dirty!

Well, in the US at least, a cornerstone of justice is the principle that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to send an innocent man to jail. Actually, found the quote here by English legal scholar William Blackstone (1765):

"It is better that Ten Guilty Persons Escape than One Innocent Suffer."

If you don't understand why that principle makes sense, then I can't help you. Our whole justice system is based on that. I'm sure you'll say that this isn't a trial or something like that, and you'd be right. But, you aren't being fair or ethical.

BTW, since you think my arguments would be "laughed out of any law school seminar", I might add that we are not in a court of law here, and if we were I wouldn't be out of place. I am qualified in law and was admitted to the Bar many years ago. You?