Brits don't dope?

[More Strides than Rides]

Re outlier, her 2:15 marathon isn't an outlier based on the relationship between her 5k, 10k and HM performances. It's obviously an outlier relative to the rest of the world, though!

I'm trying to argue that it is. Her shorter event PRs are way slower than what a 2:15 runner "should" run, as indicated by the calculators.

Take a look at some top-lists, and see how many 31:00 10k runners, compared to 65:40 and 2:15 runners there are.

They don't line up.

 

[the sceptic]

Then why are you here? It would appear to troll.

Radcliffe being clean makes about as much sense as Bolt being clean.

Only people blinded by patriotism and with no knowledge at all about doping can believe that.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

There are so many factors in performance that are just ingored in favour of that one single factor. Doping.

I agree with this point 100%. It looks bad as an argument, but sometimes it takes being an athlete at a top level to understand all of those different factors.

But, PR is not a one off. Her bizarre set of personal bests. Her ties to a shady doctor. The comparisons of her efficiency to Armstrong (thanks Catwhoorg ). Her domination of an event loosely controlled by anti doping. Her domination over found-dopers. While the discussion at any given time may focus on one tree or another, there is no missing the forest when the whole discussion is taken together.

Edit: and this whole blood values thing...

 

[sniper]

Then why are you here? It would appear to troll.

good spot.
no doubt he'd prefer we not know either.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I'm trying to argue that it is. Her shorter event PRs are way slower than what a 2:15 runner "should" run, as indicated by the calculators.

Hmmm...

If an actual person exhibits a fairly uniform 3.5% reduction in speed each time the distance doubles from 5k to ~40k (i.e. three doublings) then the calculators are clearly wrong, and I doubt anyone who designed them would claim they are anything other than an estimate based on average performance changes.

Folk aren't all the same, even two elite athletes with the same 10k performance. According to the Runners World predictor I referred to earlier, I should be able to run a 95 minute half marathon based on my 10k PB. Sadly for me, I generally can't get within 5 minutes of this! So did I dope for my 10k PB?

The potential outlier may be the rate at which PR slows down as distance increases, though this isn't necessarily an indicator of doping even so.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Hmmm...

If an actual person exhibits a fairly uniform 3.5% reduction in speed each time the distance doubles from 5k to ~40k (i.e. three doublings) then the calculators are clearly wrong, and I doubt anyone who designed them would claim they are anything other than an estimate based on average performance changes.

Folk aren't all the same, even two elite athletes with the same 10k performance. According to the Runners World predictor I referred to earlier, I should be able to run a 95 minute half marathon based on my 10k PB. Sadly for me, I generally can't get within 5 minutes of this! So did I dope for my 10k PB?

The potential outlier may be the rate at which PR slows down as distance increases, though this isn't necessarily an indicator of doping even so.

The runners world predictor you remember from 7 years ago? Jack Daniels's formula comes from his book. He is a researcher, professor and coach. Greg McMillan was a researcher and now coach. Runners world is designed for finishing your first 5k, and training for a marathon off 4 days of training per week.

I'll spit some other statsfor you:
Out of US runners,
425 runners went under 31:00 (638 total perofrmances under 31:00
30:59.88 435. 638. Adam DAVIDSON 95 USA F2 13. Walnut (USA) 17.04 872

72 runners went under 65:40, (99 performances)
1:05:39 72. 99. Carlos TRUJILLO 85 USA F 7. St. Louis (USA) 06.04 968

15 went under 2:15:25 (16th was 2:15:47)
2:14:42 15. 15. Michael MORGAN 80 USA F 15. Chicago (USA) 12.10 1079

Her PRs do not follow any projected trend. Yes, that is a list of guys. Yes, there are many more collegiate 10k runners. But the numbers speak for themselves: A 2:15 runner is not the same as a 31:00 who is not the same as a 65:40 runner.

Individual variation, and a personal bias towards the longer distances does not make up the difference.

The argument you should be making is that she never ran a time-trial style track race. That still doesn't explain her HM time. Further, her overwhelming bias towards the marathon is way stronger than any other top marathoner.
Kipsang ran 27:32 in a 10k road race. Certainly not his 2:03, but it isn't ranking 400th on the 10k list.
Geoffry Mutai has run 27:19. Desisa, 27:18 on the track.

Her PRs are not normal

 

[ray j willings]

Radcliffe being clean makes about as much sense as Bolt being clean.

Only people blinded by patriotism and with no knowledge at all about doping can believe that.

Bolt has been setting records since he was a teenager. He his a giant of a man. We have not seen a runner of his height before at this level. His progress throughout his career looks legit. He his not some athlete who just starts winning from nowhere without much pedigree.
Radcliffe is adamant that she his clean and even protests against other known doped athletes so maybe she just drinks a lot of beetroot juice

 

[Benotti69]

Radcliffe being clean makes about as much sense as Bolt being clean.

Only people blinded by patriotism and with no knowledge at all about doping can believe that.

Radcliffe being so vocally anti doping while doping is a huge hypocrisy one that the British will find hard to come to terms with. There goes the 'Damehood'

 

[sniper]

Radcliffe being so vocally anti doping while doping is a huge hypocrisy one that the British will find hard to come to terms with. There goes the 'Damehood'

perhaps she had some sort of agreement with IAAF along the lines of "you be our poster girl for clean athletics and we'll make sure you never test positive"

 

[del1962]

perhaps she had some sort of agreement with IAAF along the lines of "you be our poster girl for clean athletics and we'll make sure you never test positive"

Nah, they would have chosen someone with a much more pleasing to the eye running style for that

 

[The Hitch]

Bolt has been setting records since he was a teenager. He his a giant of a man. We have not seen a runner of his height before at this level. His progress throughout his career looks legit. He his not some athlete who just starts winning from nowhere without much pedigree.
Radcliffe is adamant that she his clean and even protests against other known doped athletes so maybe she just drinks a lot of beetroot juice

Well no, there was a leap from 2007 when bolt focusing only on the 200m just broke 20 seconds in the final, to 2008 when he run the 200m in 19.34 I think it was. That's a .6 second improvement on top of what was already a top performance in a doping era. It's like going from 10 seconds in the 100m to 9.7 and like improving a marathon time from 2.05 to 2.03. Only in marathon tacrics and course and pacemakers and 100 other things matter whereas in 100m it's run as fast as you can.

 

[the sceptic]

Radcliffe being so vocally anti doping while doping is a huge hypocrisy one that the British will find hard to come to terms with. There goes the 'Damehood'

Yes, no brit is going to believe Radcliffe is doping even when faced with a mountain of evidence.

Just look at this thread. People clinging to every little excuse they can find instead of facing reality.

 

[The Hitch]

Nah, they would have chosen someone with a much more pleasing to the eye running style for that

Not that I think iaaf would plan something like that but if they did running style would noy be a factor.

No one is that picky.

 

[TheSpud]

Equivalent performances, at the short distances you would expect a faster time.

In fact the 2:15 marathon, equivalent performance is about 29:20 for a 10K.


(Sort of like in cycling you can push a higher w/KG for 20 mins than for an hour)



Ross Tucker has long been an advocate that the key indicator that a sub 2 hour mens marathon is on the cards is the 10 000m on the track hitting a sub 26 min. That WR has been stalled since 2005.

Ok so youre saying to do a 2:15 marathon you should be at 29:20 for a 10k, as in a normal 10k (only) race not 4 consecutive ones due to the slowing / fatigue of a longer race. I can agree there is some logic to that.

However, if you look at all the good marathon runners the one thing that strikes me is the consistency during the race - the ability to bang out 26 miles at pretty much the same pace from start to finish. That would contradict the point above - so we have 2 conflicting views / scenarios.

The other thing of course is where she set the records - London and Chicago. Both well known 'fast' courses - in fact part of the London course has a downhill trend to it. Of course all the runners would get that, but the 10k times you're compating to would be flat track times. Dont know if that is relevant or not.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The runners world predictor you remember from 7 years ago? Jack Daniels's formula comes from his book. He is a researcher, professor and coach. Greg McMillan was a researcher and now coach. Runners world is designed for finishing your first 5k, and training for a marathon off 4 days of training per week.

I'll spit some other statsfor you:
Out of US runners,
425 runners went under 31:00 (638 total perofrmances under 31:00
30:59.88 435. 638. Adam DAVIDSON 95 USA F2 13. Walnut (USA) 17.04 872

72 runners went under 65:40, (99 performances)
1:05:39 72. 99. Carlos TRUJILLO 85 USA F 7. St. Louis (USA) 06.04 968

15 went under 2:15:25 (16th was 2:15:47)
2:14:42 15. 15. Michael MORGAN 80 USA F 15. Chicago (USA) 12.10 1079

Her PRs do not follow any projected trend. Yes, that is a list of guys. Yes, there are many more collegiate 10k runners. But the numbers speak for themselves: A 2:15 runner is not the same as a 31:00 who is not the same as a 65:40 runner.

Individual variation, and a personal bias towards the longer distances does not make up the difference.

The argument you should be making is that she never ran a time-trial style track race. That still doesn't explain her HM time. Further, her overwhelming bias towards the marathon is way stronger than any other top marathoner.
Kipsang ran 27:32 in a 10k road race. Certainly not his 2:03, but it isn't ranking 400th on the 10k list.
Geoffry Mutai has run 27:19. Desisa, 27:18 on the track.

Her PRs are not normal

You sound a bit to me like the financial trader who loses his shirt saying that the markets are wrong because they don't behave like his whizz-bang C++ simulation model.

I stand by my claim that her 5k, 10k, HM and FM performances are all broadly consistent and I'm happy to accept that she was doped to her eyeballs when doing them.

I'll leave it to you to explain how doping makes her slow down at a lower rate than her rivals who are also most likely doping, given that you claim her bias towards the marathon is greater than anyone else's.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Yes, no brit is going to believe Radcliffe is doping even when faced with a mountain of evidence.

Just look at this thread. People clinging to every little excuse they can find instead of facing reality.

Not sure about that, Pantani was a national hero and he was regarded as a doper in Italy.

Radcliffe taking a leaf out of Lances book and seemingly threatening the press isn't going to go down well.

The Armstrong scandal did shake up the landscape here, he was definitely a big name and with Radcliffe competing in a similar endurance sport, some people are less likely to believe than if it were Usain Bolt.

 

[TheSpud]

Why? That´s how it always goes. A doper is exposed, then defenders come up. Business as usual.

Just wait for the next 100 posts. I bet at least one of the "big 3" ("heart", "cadence", "better training") will come up.

And that comment is also business as usual. Every sport has to have someone who is more naturally talented than others - what will cause that? It could be a hundred things - just because uniball once used a comment about heart, etc. doesnt mean it isnt / wont be true for someone one day.

Anyway, toys out of pram moment done, i'd rather return to (slightly) more proper discussion.

 

[TheSpud]

go jimmy saville on her empire crew.
go jimmy saville on her.


the empire crew can do it. dont believe in false gods and charlatans.

empire crew can rise to the level of The Clinic 12. shur can.

I dont know whether you are from the UK or not but mentioning that mans name is pretty low.

1000+ potential victims. Totally irrelevant here. And if you are using 'empire crew' to tie us brits to him then please dont.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I'll spit some other statsfor you:

Try these 2014 bests...

Zach HEBDA:
5k = 14:33 (vs 14:29 for PR's 5k PB)
10k = 30:01 (same as PR's 10k PB)

TRUJILLO
HM = 65:39 (vs 65:4o)
FM = 2:16:49 (a minute slower than PR, so broadly the same loss of performance from doubling the distance)

MORGAN
5k = 14:15 (15s faster than PR)
10k = 29:30 (31s faster than PR. 15s per 5k faster)
FM = 2:14:42 (43s faster than PR. 11s per 5k faster)

All these guys actually demonstrate a similar loss of performance as distances increase as PR does. Morgan actually improves relative to PR.

Make of this what you will.

 

[The Hitch]

And that comment is also business as usual. Every sport has to have someone who is more naturally talented than others - what will cause that? It could be a hundred things - just because uniball once used a comment about heart, etc. doesnt mean it isnt / wont be true for someone one day.

Anyway, toys out of pram moment done, i'd rather return to (slightly) more proper discussion.

Someone has to be better in a clean sport. In a sport and era where doping is rife and heavy and very effective and easy to get away with, the chances that someone is naturally better than what the performance enhancement is producing is unlikely.

 

[TheSpud]

For me this confirms that Froome is clean.

With his humble upbringing in Kenya, battle with childhood asthma, coming 17th in the commonwealth games time trial in sandshoes and then his debilitating fight with badzhilla, his story is much more believable than Radcliffe.

I believe he is the only British athlete who is clean who has won a major title.

Have to call you out on that one Hog. He didn't race in sandshoes (and didn't claim to) - it was Sutton and Brailsford that said that. And as we know you think they are bullsh1tters so you need to remove that bit. The rest though, well who knows.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I stand by my claim that her 5k, 10k, HM and FM performances are all broadly consistent

Fine. I still don't understand why you cling to some magazine article 7 years ago, when the evidence there, but I'm not going to convince you. Moving on

and I'm happy to accept that she was doped to her eyeballs when doing them.

I'll leave it to you to explain how doping makes her slow down at a lower rate than her rivals who are also most likely doping, given that you claim her bias towards the marathon is greater than anyone else's.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I'm saying she doped. She doped so egregiously that her values rumored to be manipulated, beyond doubt. She doped for the marathon because... thats where the money is? ...the Chinese put the track 10,000 WR so far out of reach? ...because only competing twice a year means fewer tests? I don't know, it doesn't matter.

If you can't see that her marathon performances are a huge red flag, (in addition to other things), then I'm not sure what we can talk about.

 

[Benotti69]

And that comment is also business as usual. Every sport has to have someone who is more naturally talented than others - what will cause that? It could be a hundred things - just because uniball once used a comment about heart, etc. doesnt mean it isnt / wont be true for someone one day.

Anyway, toys out of pram moment done, i'd rather return to (slightly) more proper discussion.

Those days have passed a long time ago.

Coaches look for responders to PEDs not talent.

 

[thehog]

I dont know whether you are from the UK or not but mentioning that mans name is pretty low.

1000+ potential victims. Totally irrelevant here. And if you are using 'empire crew' to tie us brits to him then please dont.

I agree with Spud here. There is no need for Saville to even be mentioned. Its wholly distasteful regardless of nationality.

No one brought in a Rolf Harris tie in with O’Grady. There is no link.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Radcliffe being clean makes about as much sense as Bolt being clean.

Only people blinded by patriotism and with no knowledge at all about doping can believe that.

I´d say Bolt is clean. He broke junior records that still stand. So it´s absolutely possible to break 100 m WRs by 0.2 seconds that before were broken by 0.02 seconds every 20 years or so...