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

I'm sorry I even started this thread now that this douche has hijacked it and turned it into drug accusations with no proof other than his own jaded views.

Obviously Armstronglivs is a troll with nothing better to do so all the logic in the world isn't going to change his mind. Even if this guy took a blood test and posted it he'd point to the fact that "Lance never failed a drug test either."

There is no winning with people like that.

TnRunnah wrote:

I'm sorry I even started this thread now that this douche has hijacked it and turned it into drug accusations with no proof other than his own jaded views.

Obviously Armstronglivs is a troll with nothing better to do so all the logic in the world isn't going to change his mind. Even if this guy took a blood test and posted it he'd point to the fact that "Lance never failed a drug test either."

There is no winning with people like that.

Don't be sorry you started the thread. A performance like Barton's deserves recognition sadly with recognition now comes skepticism. But there may be people who wouldn't have known about his time without seeing this thread.

I wish I could care even a little about age group records. I don't even think too highly of World or USA records, and guys like Kevin Castille just make me shake my head at the entire premise. Plenty of older athletes are getting testo and hGH from anti-aging docs (whether legit or greedy quacks) with legitimate prescriptions and gaining performance advantage over their natural, not enhanced peers. There's a lot of bleedover from competitive age group triathlon and cycling (trickle-down effect from the pros), this isn't just a bolt of lightning out of the clear, blue sky. Couple that with the fact that the top end of age group running tends toward insecure, unfulfilled types and of course they'll rationalize any edge they can get away with. It's not going away, it'll only get worse as there's no effective means or will to police it with integrity. So even if this guy is legit and there's a laundry list of reasons to believe he retains this level of ability, it's not going to ultimately be convincing based on the context in which it happened. I have nothing against him and wouldn't tar him individually, simply my perspective.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Still no one comes up with any explanation as to why milers who were far better than Barton in their respective primes - and I mean 10-15 secs better - have none of them recorded a time near his at 53. There were plenty of them. But I guess they all aged.

How many train as hard as they can?

you really are a moran wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Still no one comes up with any explanation as to why milers who were far better than Barton in their respective primes - and I mean 10-15 secs better - have none of them recorded a time near his at 53. There were plenty of them. But I guess they all aged.

How many train as hard as they can?

Stop feeding the troll. He's already hijacked this thread. It's time to move on.

The funny thing is that Nolan Shaheed endorses some sort of grey area anti-aging formula.

Armstronglivs wrote:

zzzz wrote:

4:26.75 - 4:19.59 = 7.16 seonds

You second adding is characteristic of someone who cheats (poorly) at debating.

Gee, thanks for that. 0.84 secs. It makes all the difference to the argument. And arithmetic is the only argument you have.

Ask you care about the argument. If you did. You would debate open mindedly. You literally don't take anybody's argument into consideration. Seriously? You don't think a 4:05 mile at 4500' of altitude is indicative of anything faster? Not even if you consider that it was his main event and he didn't fulfill his potential at that time? If you don't think that he had the potential to be a 3:55 miler, then you're plainly wrong and refusing to see any other side of the argument. Have you noticed that almost everyone here is an the same side except you? Do you think you know something that the rest of us don't? No, you're just blind and looking for reasons to accuse someone of drug use. People age differently, Barton ages better than probably 95%+ of people. Barton had the potential to be a 3:55 guy. That part is not debatable. Everyone knows he did, you just refuse to accept it. Barton didnt decide to fulfill his potential until late into his career. Meaning that he wasn't burnt out like most national class athletes tend to be by the end of their career. Just because nobody else has done it before doesn't mean it's not possible.

Armstronglives is 65 and yet he trolls like a teenager. Drugs.

As a master who has been actively racing for almost 30 years now I would disagree with your analysis. From my observation and experience, "the top end of age group running" mainly tends toward well-balanced, secure personalities who are genuinely talented and simply have a passion for the running and racing lifestyle. The "insecure, unfulfilled types" tend to be the second tier local guys who crave the recognition that goes to their more talented competitors. These are they guys using PEDs to get them on local race podiums to stoke their egos.

As a 45 year old masters runner, I've seen plenty of guys in my age group get more muscular over the last 10 years. Some of these guys are also running faster times in their late 40's than they were in their late 30's without signifigantly altering their training. You don't suddenly gain muscle, and improve your long distance race times in your late 40's or early 50's without some outside help.

It's not a coincidence that many of the top masters long distance runners are built more like 400 meter runners than marathon runners.

Nolan was 4:06.07 1500m and 4:25.04 mile in 2001 at age 51

I think it is better to look at age 40 times and look at the decline. In 1989 at age 40 I can only find a 1:56.47 800m I would say this is good for 3:59 1500. +7 seconds form 40-51.

In 1995 he ran a 4:01. 67 a few days after turning 46. At 55 he was 4:20.76

Barton was 4:05.71 - age 46 3K 9 flat. 4 seconds faster 4:01 at age 50

4:19 mile with 61.5 last lap age 53. Shows 4:01 1500 easily.

Doesn't seem to be slowing at all, if not getting faster!!! math doesn't add up.

notafatty wrote:

As a 45 year old masters runner, I've seen plenty of guys in my age group get more muscular over the last 10 years. Some of these guys are also running faster times in their late 40's than they were in their late 30's without signifigantly altering their training. You don't suddenly gain muscle, and improve your long distance race times in your late 40's or early 50's without some outside help.

It's not a coincidence that many of the top masters long distance runners are built more like 400 meter runners than marathon runners.

You want to name some examples of the bulked up "top masters long distance runners" you are talking about because my observation of my top competitors at the last several Club XC championships definitely don't square with what you are saying.

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.

Inthenameof wrote:

Nolan was 4:06.07 1500m and 4:25.04 mile in 2001 at age 51

I think it is better to look at age 40 times and look at the decline. In 1989 at age 40 I can only find a 1:56.47 800m I would say this is good for 3:59 1500. +7 seconds form 40-51.

In 1995 he ran a 4:01. 67 a few days after turning 46. At 55 he was 4:20.76

Barton was - age 48 3K 8:26.15 .

4:19 mile with 61.5 last lap age 53. Shows 4:01 1500 easily.

Doesn't seem to be slowing at all, if not getting faster!!! math doesn't add up.

Inthenameof wrote:

Nolan was 4:06.07 1500m and 4:25.04 mile in 2001 at age 51

I think it is better to look at age 40 times and look at the decline. In 1989 at age 40 I can only find a 1:56.47 800m I would say this is good for 3:59 1500. +7 seconds form 40-51.

In 1995 he ran a 4:01. 67 a few days after turning 46. At 55 he was 4:20.76

Barton was 4:05.71 - age 46 3K 9 flat. 4 seconds faster 4:01 at age 50

4:19 mile with 61.5 last lap age 53. Shows 4:01 1500 easily.

Doesn't seem to be slowing at all, if not getting faster!!! math doesn't add up.

The best times for the masters 1500/mile age 45-49

and 50-54 show a slowing of around 10 seconds. It is interesting, then that the current 50-54 record holder is actually faster than he was at 46.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shaheed's 50-54 wr mile is listed as 4.27.9. That is in fact well over 8 secs slower than Barton's record time. What would you make of that kind of carving up of a record mile time if it occurred at an elite open level - bearing in mind that no elite miler (sub3.55) has run 4.20 at age 50? The differences between the best are usually only margins.

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.

I sincerely hope Barton is clean, and I don’t at all think it is wrong to challenge his result. As someone who was a 4:05 miler myself, I do question those who think he had 3:55 potential. That is a world of difference, even accounting for altitude. I knew and trained with several 8:35-8:45 steeplers who were more suited to 5000/10000m running than the mile due to lack of speed, they were 4:05-4:10 for the mile. I also have a hard time believing that anyone who suspected they could go under 4:00 wouldn’t have taken a few shots at it, especially back then when it was a bigger deal.

Would be great if people could debate on here without resorting to personal insults just because they have a different opinion.

you really are a moran wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Still no one comes up with any explanation as to why milers who were far better than Barton in their respective primes - and I mean 10-15 secs better - have none of them recorded a time near his at 53. There were plenty of them. But I guess they all aged.

How many train as hard as they can?

And you know they don't?

asdfasdfasdfdsafsa wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shaheed's 50-54 wr mile is listed as 4.27.9. That is in fact well over 8 secs slower than Barton's record time. What would you make of that kind of carving up of a record mile time if it occurred at an elite open level - bearing in mind that no elite miler (sub3.55) has run 4.20 at age 50? The differences between the best are usually only margins.

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.