Nijel Amos 1:41.89!

Cram goes on...

'If the track was short then how come the 400m boys weren't all clocking best times? The meet promoter, Sandro Giovanelli, an IAAF council member, will tell you it has been measured more times than any other track in the world.'

I don't know why Cram thinks Coe looked 'shocked'. He was going for the WR, probably never more determined to get it, and he was obviously in fine form. Sounds a little like Cram being a bit salty, but if so it backfires because if he's saying Coe was well past his best in 1986 it's basically an admission that he would have stood no chance against him in 1981, as Coe gave him plenty enough trouble in 86.

Coe and Ovett both demonstrated why Rieti was a fast track for them. In both cases (Ovett in 83 and Coe in 86) it was their last chance for a WR attempt in an injury disrupted season in which they were peaking just a little too late. In both cases they were motivated like never before. Ovett had just ran his worst race ever in the 83 World Championships and then seen his WR get beaten by Sydney Maree 6 days before. Coe was annoyed that he'd lost to Cram in the European 1500m final, and likely knew that this might well be his very last chance to get back a WR.

extreme bias wrote:

JRinaldi wrote:

It’s the mindset that athletes bring (and lack of wind) that makes the major difference. Athletes go there to run fast, they believe they are going to run fast and they do run fast. It’s as simple as that.

That's probably the best explanation for the phenomenon.

if by best you mean most boring, sure. What about the architecture creating an artificial vortex for a constant tailwind? That's the only way for an athlete going 15mph to perceive "lack of wind."

I don't follow the 800m distance that often(mostly because I'm crap at it), but I think the first 100 second barrier could be broken by Nigel Amos. Imagine running 8 metres per second for 100 seconds. It is mind boggling. I expect him to get gold in the Olympics. Rudisha is finished now and will probably go onto pasteurs new.

in any case, the no-wind theory is completely debunked by the fact that 400m times, which should benefit most from it, have always been ordinary.

Coevett wrote:

Cram goes on...

'If the track was short then how come the 400m boys weren't all clocking best times? The meet promoter, Sandro Giovanelli, an IAAF council member, will tell you it has been measured more times than any other track in the world.'

Exactly, the short track explanation is the most unlikely.

But what is the explanation for the super fast times from Rieti (and also Monaco)?

probably not short, but... wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Cram goes on...

Exactly, the short track explanation is the most unlikely.

But what is the explanation for the super fast times from Rieti (and also Monaco)?

Italy was the hot bed for doping back in the 80s. Don't know about Monaco. Part of me thinks it's psychological.

Coevett wrote:

I don't know why Cram thinks Coe looked 'shocked'.

The answer might be pretty easy: Maybe Cram thought Coe looked 'shocked' because ... Coe looked 'shocked' ?!?

It seems Coevett and the other equally fanatic British Coe + Ovett fanboys are pretending to be dead... they obviously don't like to be confronted with the fact that Coe's + Ovett's fastest 1500s have benefitted heavily by the condition of the venue.

If they can't find some good argument which refutes this the best they can do is to keep absolutely calm.

No way one of them ever will admit that Ovett's 3:30.77 was worth something like 3:32 and Coe's 3:29.77 around 3:31.

not just pathological wrote:

It seems Coevett and the other equally fanatic British Coe + Ovett fanboys are pretending to be dead... they obviously don't like to be confronted with the fact that Coe's + Ovett's fastest 1500s have benefitted heavily by the condition of the venue.

If they can't find some good argument which refutes this the best they can do is to keep absolutely calm.

No way one of them ever will admit that Ovett's 3:30.77 was worth something like 3:32 and Coe's 3:29.77 around 3:31.

Lol. No, you need to find evidence or proof that the Rieti track was of heavy benefit to either athlete. The ran the times. Fact. If you don't want to accept the times, then the burden of proof is on you, not the other way round. Simple.

There is a stark difference between the results in Monaco and Rieti in the middle distances. The former track has supplied the majority of top 10 performances (slightly less in the 800m) over 1500m in the last 8 years or so. It isn't just the winners, but those in 5th, 6th, etc, that run their fastest times there. This wasn't the case in Rieti back in the day. When Coe and Ovett ran their pbs there, there was Abascal, Deleze, Scott, Maree, etc also in the field. All were 3:29-3:31 athletes. So why were they so far back in their races in Rieti if it gave them a 2 secs advantage?

If you had even a moderate knowledge of the scene back in the 80's, then you'd know that most expert analysts expected them to go well under 3:30 from about 1979. But back in those days there was no one willing or able to stay with them through 1200m in 2:48, let alone prepared to pace them to those times. IN his peak years Ovett ran many 3:31/32s and 3:48 miles while easing up at the end and waving to the crowd. Anyone who can do that is capable of sub 3:30.

Coe ran the last 100m in his 3:47.3 mile WR (equivalent to a 3:30.4 1500m) in 13.1. If you knew about finishing splits in those sort of times, then you'd know that shows a lot of unused energy. In 81 he front ran a 3:31.9 1500m (more than 25m ahead of the field, including Gonzales, Scott, Boit, for most of the race) after going through 400m in 52.4 (WR pace for 1000m let alone 1500m) and 800m in 1:49.1. Both these sets of data illustrate someone who was easily capable of 3:29. The fact that both Coe and Ovett ran their pbs in years when they were slightly past their bests and with times still outside what statisticians of the likes of Mel Watman and Peter Matthews believed they were capable of, merely reinforces the likelihood that they were capable of much more than the times in Rieti represented.

The pacing Ovett and Coe had in their respective races in Rieti was about as good as it got for them in their careers, but was nothing in terms of economy of effort enjoyed by Grice last week in Monaco.

Ovett - 54.4, 57.5, 57.2, 41.6 (55.5) = 3:30.7

Coe - 54.0, 58.0, 56.1, 41.6 (55.2) = 3:29.7

Grice - 56.5, 56.2, 56.5, 41.4 (55.3) = 3:30.6

Ovett was in front at 1000m, running the last 500m alone. It was also v. windy.

Coe was in front at 1000m, then had someone pass him just before the bell, slow down and cause Coe to run wide on the bend to get to front again. He finished more than 3.5 secs ahead of Maree.

Grice was paced and had someone ahead of him from gun to tape. The conditions were perfect.

The split times above alone tell much more than their final times about their respective forms during thos races. The best way of running to your potential is with even splits in a 1500m. Grice's were about as even as it is possible to get in the real world. Coe's first 3 laps had a differential range of 4 secs! Dreadful pacing.

The Monaco track was resurfaced just prior to the 2010 meet there: -

This is an interesting exert: -

"The work will focus on the resurfacing of the areas concerned: the first few centimetres of the upper layer of the track will be scraped off, then replaced by rubber resin, cast in one jointless block. This is made possible due to the physico-chemical compatibility between the new and old resin. The track will be faster and therefore conducive to new records, including at the next Herculis athletics meeting - Diamond League on Thursday 22nd July 2010."

The Monaco meet was ranked No.2 in 2009 (probably behind Zurich), but was already an established meet, with Baala running 3:30.96 in 2009.

But the fast times en masse didn't start until.... 2010!

That year the 5 fastest men all set those times in Monaco. I did a bit of research and I've put their time in Monaco followed by their non Monaco season's best time:

1. Kiprop ~ 3:29.27 (3:30.61) difference - 1.34

2. Laalou ~ 3:29.53 (3:32.75) " - 3.22

3. Choge ~ 3:30.22 (3:31.81) ' - 1.59

4. Wheating ~ 3:30.90 (3:37.52! - although he ran a Mile in 3:51.74 which = 3:34.57, so I'll take that) - 3.67

5. Gregson ~ 3:31.06 (3:35.42) difference - 4.36.

That's an average difference of 2.84 secs faster at Monaco for those athletes. The fastest non Monaco performance in 2010 was Kiplagat's 3:30.61 in Berlin.

2011 was a bit of a down year, but the meet still produced 4 times in the top 10 for the year.

2. (second fastest that year) Kiplagat ~ 3:30.47 (3:31.39) difference - 0.92

6. Chepseba ~ 3:31.74 (3:30.94) difference + 0.80

7. Kaki ~ 3:31.76 (didn't run any other listed 1500 that year)

8. Willis ~ 3:31.79 (3:33.22) difference - 1.43

15. Cheboi ~ 3:32.45 (3:33.82) " - 1.37

That's an average of 0.73 secs faster at Monaco for the 4 with other listed times for 1500 that year. The fastest non Monaco performance in 2011 was Kiprop's 3:30.46 in Rieti.

2012 had 6 athletes in the top 10 coming from Monaco's race: -

1. Kiprop ~ 3:28.88 (3:29.78) difference - 0.90

3. Chepseba ~ 3:29.77 ( 3:29.90) " - 0.13

5. Willis ~ 3:30.35 (3:34.70) " - 4.35

6. Makhloufi ~ 3:30.80 (3:32.58) " - 1.78

7. Birgen ~ 3:31.00 (3:31.17) " - 0.17

9. Kiplagat Seuri! ~ 3:31.61 (3:33.27) " - 1.66.

That's an average of 1.50 secs faster at Monaco for the 6 with other listed times for 1500 that year. The fastest non Monaco performance in 2012 was Kiplagat's 3:29.63 in Doha.

2013:-

1. Kiprop ~ 3:27.72 (3:31.13) difference - 3.41

2. Farah ~ 3:28.81 (no other listed 1500 for 2013)

3. Ndiku ~ 3:29.50 (3:33.41) difference - 3.91

5. Birgen ~ 3:30.77 (3:31.90) " - 1.13

6. Tanui-Ozbilen ~ 3:31.30 (3:35.09) " - 3.79

7. Cheboi ~ 3:31.53 (3:32.85) " - 1.32

That's an average of 2.71 secs faster at Monaco for the 5 with other listed times for 1500 that year. The fastest non Monaco performance in 2013 was Kiplagat's 3:30.13 in Rieti.

2014:-

1. Kiplagat ~ 3:27.64 (3:29.70) difference - 2.06

2. Kiprop ~ 3:28.45 (3:29.18) " - 0.73

3. Kwemoi ~ 3:28.81 (3:31.48) " - 2.67

4. Souleiman ~ 3:29.58 (3:30.16) " - 0.58

5. Iguider ~ 3:29.83 (3:32.09) " - 2.26

=6. Wote ~ 3:29.91 (3:30.86) " - 0.95

=6. Willis ~ 3:29.91 (3:34.72) " - 4.81

10. Manzano ~ 3:30.98 (3:34.40) " - 3.42

11. Centrowitz ~ 3:31.09 (3:32.70) " - 1.61

That's an average of 2.12 secs faster at Monaco for the 9 with other listed times for 1500 that year. The fastest non Monaco performance in 2014 was Kiprop's 3:29.18 in Doha.

Monaco clearly has great credentials for fast time and is clearly the fastest/best track in the world for middle distances. This analysis doesn't prove it is in any way illegal, and is certainly not short, but it does raise the question as to why top athletes run on average of 2.03 secs faster (based on the data of the 29 athletes above over those 5 recent seasons) on the Monaco track than on any other, over the course of the season?

I would suggest looking at the above data that the number of 'fast times' increased by 2012 and thereafter, as athletes realised that it was an incredibly fast track.

Another fact that shows overwhelmingly that Monaco produces far more fast times over 1500m than Rieti is this one: -

Between 2006 (when I believe the EPO test was improved) and 2019, there were 25 sub 3:30 performances on the Monaco track. There were only 12 sub 3:30 performances during the same period on all the other tracks of the world combined! Only 1 of those sub 3:30's were run in Rieti.

Rieti has a total of 8 sub 3:30's ever run on it's track; 7 before 2006 and just 1 after. All were achieved by just 4 athletes: - El G (2), Morceli (3), Coe (1) and Lagat (1 before 2006 and 1 in 2006). What's more, 3 of those 4 all ran faster times on other tracks beside Rieti. Proving that the Italian track didn't give them a 2 secs advantage! So why would it give Coe an advantage that was not there when some of the other greats ran there?

Komen !

Banana Bread wrote:

I don't follow the 800m distance that often(mostly because I'm crap at it), but I think the first 100 second barrier could be broken by Nigel Amos. Imagine running 8 metres per second for 100 seconds. It is mind boggling. I expect him to get gold in the Olympics. Rudisha is finished now and will probably go onto pasteurs new.

That's because, unlike Rudisha, Nigel will have aged none since 2012. Actually, he will still be the same age. 18.

not that difficult wrote:

Coevett wrote:

I don't know why Cram thinks Coe looked 'shocked'.

The answer might be pretty easy: Maybe Cram thought Coe looked 'shocked' because ... Coe looked 'shocked' ?!?

You really are dumb aren't you?

Maybe he looked 'shocked' because he'd given it his all and still finished outside the WR? Or maybe he looked 'shocked' because he'd missed it by such a narrow margin?

The point is, there was little reason for Coe to looked 'shocked' because he had ran as fast as 3:29.7. He was actually determinedly trying to run faster than that, given that it was a WR attempt, and spurred on by his father who had told him before the race (something like) - 'go out and produce the definitive 1500m race of your life'. Both knew that was likely the last time Coe was going to be in such good form, and both wanted to put right the fact that Coe had never ran a 1500m time that did justice to his ability (due, as Deano points out above, to being horrendously paced so many times).

not just pathological wrote:

It seems Coevett and the other equally fanatic British Coe + Ovett fanboys are pretending to be dead... they obviously don't like to be confronted with the fact that Coe's + Ovett's fastest 1500s have benefitted heavily by the condition of the venue.

If they can't find some good argument which refutes this the best they can do is to keep absolutely calm.

No way one of them ever will admit that Ovett's 3:30.77 was worth something like 3:32 and Coe's 3:29.77 around 3:31.

Nah, the times are worth 3:30.77 and 3:29.77. What bothers them most is the current rampant use of drugs by E. Africans and other third world athletes. PED use that is aided by crooked officials and political wonks with hateful agendas. But folks like yourself will never understand this until you experience some vibrancy from a refugee who changes your life or takes your life through violent action.

You guys are really extraordinary. Fighting for every nano second from Coe and Ovett as if your life depends on it.

There are dozens of examples that Rieti has produced super fast times against all reason.

Steve Cram was more open about it:

"When Ovett ran that record in September 1983 there was talk of a "short track" or that the race had started from the wrong line. I raced there on a few occasions and in 1986 had a baffling afternoon. First of all I ran a stupidly quick 800m at the end of a tiring season and after a couple of late nights. Half an hour later I watched as Seb Coe smashed his personal best and almost the world record over 1500m. We were all open-mouthed because this was five years beyond his record-breaking year in 1981 and even he looked shocked"

fighting for nothing wrote:

There are dozens of examples that Rieti has produced super fast times against all reason.

Ok. List a dozen then!

dont worry about the coevetts and cramcoes and stevesebs.....the real thing to look at is what i have said for years 2-3 seconds AVERAGE for anyone who runs at monaco. its the IAAF headquarters, and big wig coe is the jeffe. el Gs world record was never ever ever going to be TOUCHED, so they came up with a great idea, a rigged 1500m at monaco.

people can come up with all the hoopla and bullsh*t they want "its the atmosphere", "its mid season" "its zero wind" blah blah blah....no its somehow SHORT and fast times are ran their. everyone knows its short but they can get their ryan hall boston style PR there. hall was no 2:04 guy, and nick willis is no 3:29 guy its that F*CKING simple guys.

The Rieti track is essentially wind-aided as it has a backstraight tailwind during summer and headwinds are blocked by buildings and trees down the front straight. This makes it faster, but only in windy conditions.

Deanouk wrote:

fighting for nothing wrote:

There are dozens of examples that Rieti has produced super fast times against all reason.

Ok. List a dozen then!

You can't do it for yourself?

It's not that difficult.

For a start: 7:20.67 Daniel Komen in 1996.

Deanouk wrote:

fighting for nothing wrote:

There are dozens of examples that Rieti has produced super fast times against all reason.

Ok. List a dozen then!

Just the first places from two races:

800m

1. Steve Cram 1:43.19 - 2nd best time ever

2. William Wuyke 1:43.54 - lifetime PB, 2nd best time also from Rieti

3. Peter Elliott 1:44.06 - 4th best time ever

4. José Luis Barbosa 1:44.10 - 10th best time ever, best time from Rieti

Steve Cram was more serious about Rieti (based on his own experiences) than you Deanouk, when you can't accept the most obvious facts:

"I raced there on a few occasions and in 1986 had a baffling afternoon. First of all I ran a stupidly quick 800m at the end of a tiring season and after a couple of late nights."

1500m

1. Sebastian Coe 3:29.77 - lifetime PB, next best 3:31.95

2. Sydney Maree 3:33.34 - 10th best time ever

3. Stefano Mei 3:34.57 - lifetime PB, next best 3:36.00

4. Omer Khalifa 3:35.32 - 6th best time ever

5. Steve Scott 3:35.57- 17th best time ever

The times from Rieti from the 1980s and the 1990s are equally inexplicable than the times from Monaco in the last decade.

If we say that the times from Monaco were favoured in some way, than we must say the same about the times from Rieti.

Should we add names like Ngeny, Komen, Morceli...?