Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

c.p.w.g.w

BDI wrote: »

Lads it’s rife in sport. Right across the board. There are two football manager who have teams that don’t get tired. One of them has all the money he wants but the other guy has to take players that were unwanted at top clubs and over the hill. He improves these players with his great coaching and they turn into the best players in the world. Some of them he gets on free transfers because the old clubs released them.
The guy with all the money doesn’t seem to like testers to know where he will be but his teams play with an intensity no other teams can match.
Every team he manages gets this intensity through his great coaching.

Nobody mentions it in football or asks questions.

I have a lot of respect for athletics and cycling in the sense everybody watching knows what’s going on.

Other sports have improvements from lads adopting cealiac diets or realizing they had asthma all these years.

It has ruined the thoughts of any of my children getting the call to do their chosen sport professionally,there’s chances the coach or agent will want to dope them or abuse them in some way or another. They’d be safer getting an apprenticeship and probably better off in the long run.

It's rife in football and tennis and any mention of it is met with stonewall dinile

MY BAD

His training in for xc back in 1977... https://www.highperformancewest.com/training-talk/2019/10/2/alberto-salazars-training-log-univ-of-oregon-1977-cross-country-season

walshb

Ceepo wrote: »

Women have ran in mixed races and haven't came near 2.15...and while I could be wrong I think some of these had pacers... you think that buy getting "more organised " that they will run 2 minutes quicker.....
While nothing is impossible I dont see it happening any time soon

And if women do run 2.16 and 2.15 in the near future, could you accept that it’s possibly clean?

Because the attitude seems to be a complete dismissal of it just because it’s a great time..

Ceepo

walshb wrote: »

And if women do run 2.16 and 2.15 in the near future, could you accept that it’s possibly clean?

Because the attitude seems to be a complete dismissal of it just because it’s a great time..

It would all depend on who does it...

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

And if women do run 2.16 and 2.15 in the near future, could you accept that it’s possibly clean?

Because the attitude seems to be a complete dismissal of it just because it’s a great time..

See i don't get why your skeptical of Flo jo and not Paula?

Both have run times that are way out there.

Need more than more than one person to get close to them.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

See i don't get why your skeptical of Flo jo and not Paula?

Both have run times that are way out there.

Need more than more than one person to get close to them.

On a scale of 1-10 I would be 9/10 skeptical on Flo. I think most people would be the same...

Not near that high for Paula

If you think I should be equal for both, so be it...I think that's you being a little silly

But if you really want to say that they are equal, or should be seen as equal as regards their possible PEDS usage, away you go....I don't see it like this.

Bringing it to simplistic terms for you. Gun to head and told one of the two used PEDs, pick the one who used and you live....in a fooking heartbeat I'd pick Flojo.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Both have run times that are way out there.
.

Do yo think Paula's time is just not at all possible? It's long and hard and consistent running. Nothing super fast there. Just endurance and endurance and sheer will and desire. You don't think the female human body/mind is capable of this?

Paula always had brilliant endurance......

Ceepo

Some interviews from Simpson and then Engels on the subject.

Engels saying he didn't know anything until January of this year (really? he joined Nike in '17) but then says "when he joined he asked him and Pete assured he nothing to do with anything". i find it hard to believe that he didn't know anything about it. Anyone with a passing interest in the sport knew there was a cloud over Salazar. I also realize that he is a NOP athlete and has to be seen to defend Salazar.

Simpson interviews come across as open and honest. "The fruit of Alberto's labour is around here, and you know a tree by the fruit it bears, and there connected"

I think if you're associated with the now banned coach, rightfully or wrongfully then you can probably expect people to have some level of suspicion.

youtube.com/watch?v=6H6nqKL1xzY
youtube.com/watch?v=GB-AXOQpqH8&t=336s
youtube.com/watch?v=5AVy_iAFniA

walshb

If women started running low 10.5s at 100 and running 2.16s and 2.15s at marathon, and you had to say one was more likely not right, which one are you picking as not right?

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

See i don't get why your skeptical of Flo jo and not Paula?

Both have run times that are way out there.

Need more than more than one person to get close to them.

Radcliffe has only the third fastest time now for runs done under matching conditions. There is 5 different women with sub 2:18 times.

The 2:15 time is a bit out there, but it was run under different conditions and as such is classed as a different type of record.

The 2:17 time of Radcliffe was equally out there when it first happened, likewise Kipchoges 2:01 was about the same distance ahead of the previous record last year...but now two people have run that time. The times are really not that unusual compared to others and the difference between Kipchoge running behind a car, or not, matches up with the times for Radcliffe running with a male pacer, or not.

Ceepo

walshb wrote: »

Do yo think Paula's time is just not at all possible? It's long and hard and consistent running. Nothing super fast there. Just endurance and endurance and sheer will and desire. You don't think the female human body/mind is capable of this?

Paula always had brilliant endurance......

Do you think athletes like Adere, Chepchumba, Laroupe, Nderera, Sumgong Cheruiyot, Kiplagat etc didn't have brilliant endurance

Dr. Bre

Don’t forget Rugby - Steroid Africa some call them. It’s rife across all sports but athletics cycling are easy targets. Too much money in rugby football to go after them

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

The times are really not that unusual compared to others and the difference between Kipchoge running behind a car, or not, matches up with the times for Radcliffe running with a male pacer, or not.

Kipchoge running behine a car and with paces is completely different story.

I dont see the difference of women running in a mixed race and Radcliffe having specific paces.
This could well be a case of 2 people looking at a number on the ground from different side, one see's the number 9, the other see's the number 6.

walshb

Ceepo wrote: »

Do you think athletes like Adere, Chepchumba, Laroupe, Nderera, Sumgong Cheruiyot, Kiplagat etc didn't have brilliant endurance

Yes, all these elites at the top have it. That is why they are elite. And there are more, who on the day could get to 2.16 and lower...

Paula ran the race of her life that day. These things can happen. Everything clicked. Like I said, long and hard and consistent. She did this, and got that time. It is not at all impossible what she did...

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

If women started running low 10.5s at 100 and running 2.16s and 2.15s at marathon, and you had to say one was more likely not right, which one are you picking as not right?

The fastest legitimate 100m is 10.61. Everyone in Athletics knows that, but Flo-Jo's 10.49 is still accepted by the IAAF. If this mark was expunged Flo-Jo would still hold the WR.

Remember that Flo-Jo ran 10.49 with zero wind in the QF of the US trials. :rolleyes:

Her time winning the trials was 10.61 +1.2

The Olympics gave 10.54 +3.0

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Do yo think Paula's time is just not at all possible? It's long and hard and consistent running. Nothing super fast there. Just endurance and endurance and sheer will and desire. You don't think the female human body/mind is capable of this?

Paula always had brilliant endurance......

If its not super fast and just pure endurance and sheer will and desire, why has no one got close to it.

The amount of money alone would give the people the desire. Even with the lack of drug testing in Africa, they still can't get close to it.!!!

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

I dont see the difference of women running in a mixed race and Radcliffe having specific paces.
.

The other womens 2:17 runs have been in London and Dubai, not certain on Dubai, but think that is a womens only field and London certainly is.

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

The fastest legitimate 100m is 10.61. Everyone in Athletics knows that, but Flo-Jo's 10.49 is still accepted by the IAAF. If this mark was expunged Flo-Jo would still hold the WR.

Remember that Flo-Jo ran 10.49 with zero wind in the QF of the US trials. :rolleyes:

Her time winning the trials was 10.61 +1.2

The Olympics gave 10.54 +3.0

Yes, I recall the anemometer readings were not working properly in those trials...

Haven't had a response yet to my query on low 10.5s in the 100 metres vs 2.15s and 2.16s in female marathon running....

Maybe both are very achievable clean..

Personally I think the low 10.5s would raise more eyebrows...

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

The other womens 2:17 runs have been in London and Dubai, not certain on Dubai, but think that is a womens only field and London certainly is.

What has that got to do with women running mixed races and not getting close to 2,15 and Radcliffe being paced by men.
Women running in mixed race have pacers by proxy, even if they're not specific

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

What has that got to do with women running mixed races and not getting close to 2,15 and Radcliffe being paced by men.
Women running in mixed race have pacers by proxy, even if they're not specific

The women running in mixed races are about 2 minutes further back than the women running in women only races. That doesn't prove anything about Radcliffes time, if anything it's just that the field in the likes of Berlin is actually getting in their way or that there is some other motivation lacking in the setup of that race for the women as we know it is super fast for the men.

Why is Berlin a fast course for the men, but a slow one for the women? That suggests to me that random blokes in the middle of the pack with you don't provide any assistance compared to actual assigned pacers. Even female pacers who can only make it to just about half way in London are of more use to the elite women is what I see from those stats comparing the races such as London and Berlin.

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

The women running in mixed races are about 2 minutes further back than the women running in women only races. That doesn't prove anything about Radcliffes time, if anything it's just that the field in the likes of Berlin is actually getting in their way or that there is some other motivation lacking in the setup of that race for the women as we know it is super fast for the men.

Why is Berlin a fast course for the men, but a slow one for the women? That suggests to me that random blokes in the middle of the pack with you don't provide any assistance compared to actual assigned pacers. Even female pacers who can only make it to just about half way in London are of more use to the elite women is what I see from those stats comparing the races such as London and Berlin.

Maybe.. but I don't share your view

Realistically how many runners could get in your way at 2.15/16/17 pace

walshb

I haven't done the figures, but is the difference between sub 2.02 men and 2.15 women on par/similar with other differences between men and women for distance running (3k/5k/10k/half)......?

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

Maybe.. but I don't share your view

Realistically how many runners could get in your way at 2.15/16/17 pace

Not many, although I was shocked at how busy Berlin was trying to guide a blind guy around at 3:30 pace.

The point is though that there is clearly something else going on to cause slower times for the women in mixed races where they have their pick of people to follow but can't keep up with the female only times of 2:17.

If there is a group of blokes running along at 2:20 pace do you slot in behind them or head off on your own? If the other women in the race are also sticking at 2:20 then why let them away with getting a free ride and them then likely to chase you down at the end after you've battered yourself running a minute quicker with no shelter?

We can only guess at the full reasons for the slower times, but Berlin isn't a fast course for women and that Berlin is run in 2:19 times with a selection of men around, but London is run in 2:17 without shows that they are a hindrance not a benefit.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

I haven't done the figures, but is the difference between sub 2.02 men and 2.15 women on par/similar with other differences between men and women for distance running (3k/5k/10k/half)......?

This suggests that 2:01:39 and 2:17:54 are equivalent for a 30yo male v 30yo female.

http://www.marathonguide.com/fitnesscalcs/ageequivalent.cfm

and 2:00:25 matches with 2:16:30

average_runner

robinph wrote: »

The other womens 2:17 runs have been in London and Dubai, not certain on Dubai, but think that is a womens only field and London certainly is.

Last May in London Mary Keitany ran with male pacers

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

Last May in London Mary Keitany ran with male pacers

Forgot that, but just shows that people have bad days at the marathon. She ran the 2:17:01 the year before though without male pacers.

average_runner

robinph wrote: »

Forgot that, but just shows that people have bad days at the marathon. She ran the 2:17:01 the year before though without male pacers.

True, but I think Mary is now past it. Kosgei is the one to watch.

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

This suggests that 2:01:39 and 2:17:54 are equivalent for a 30yo male v 30yo female.

http://www.marathonguide.com/fitnesscalcs/ageequivalent.cfm

and 2:00:25 matches with 2:16:30

If this is accurate that it suggests that Radcliffe 2.15.25 at 30 equates to a Male 30yo doing 1.59.27..

That's about a minute faster than Kipchoge's staged and paced run with 4% runners...

So not only can women compete with her but seems men cant either, fair play to her

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

Forgot that, but just shows that people have bad days at the marathon. She ran the 2:17:01 the year before though without male pacers.

Bad day or maybe she needs a cutting edge coach...

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

If this is accurate that it suggests that Radcliffe 2.15.25 at 30 equates to a Male 30yo doing 1.59.27..

That's about a minute faster than Kipchoge's staged and paced run with 4% runners...

So not only can women compete with her but seems men cant either, fair play to her

It's not accurate. But give it a few weeks and see what time Kipchoge knocks out in Vienna.

I believe it is based off the WAVA tables and they favour womens standards, and especially vet women, which is easily noticeable just from looking at any parkrun results table which are also derived from the same WAVA numbers. Think that is mostly down to the lack of results for females through out athletic events making the percentage numbers unreliable.

But allowing for that slightly squiffy underlying WAVA data, the difference between male and female times for various distances, and for the 2:00(m)/ 2:15(f) against 2:02(m)/2:17(f) match very closely.

A second a mile faster by Kipchoge and slower by Radcliffe and the calculator would be spot on. Not beyond the realms of acceptable errors. Not saying there isn't a fire somewhere, but I don't believe the times are the smoking gun you are looking for as they just don't show anything out of the ordinary between the male/ female times.

Admittedly their were significant differences between the standards until last year, but where then is the accusations at Kipchoge/ Bekele now?