Brits don't dope?

[blackcat]

Anyone can look clean if you try hard enough.

I almost thought something happened when I saw 100 new posts but then it's just a bunch of fanboy nonsense

not fanboys. The Hog correctly christened them, empire crew. non-definitive, just, empire crew.

sounds like a beat boy troupe, but its not, just merely some muscular christianity gordonstoun chariots of fire oxbridge boat race stiff upper lip type, we call
empire crew

 

[blackcat]

Savile is dead. In his case you may be wasting your time.

his teeth still exist in the hallows. or gallows now they will be the proxy in care of

its a little like benthams body in the museum sans the original head which moulded. meta moulded. as in mildew and tussauds. the teeth stand the test of time.

 

[Digger]

the funny thing about this thread - it only confirms what many of us have been saying about national bias and sky...

the similarities between the Radcliffe posts and sky are there...substitute tailwind for men pace setting and we're off again.
Like froome and sky, a syringe would EPO on the outside, being injected into Paula wouldn't suffice for Parker - he'd say someone photo shopped it

 

[blackcat]

the funny thing about this thread - it only confirms what many of us have been saying about national bias and sky...

the similarities between the Radcliffe posts and sky are there...substitute tailwind for men pace setting and we're off again.
Like froome and sky, a syringe would EPO on the outside, being injected into Paula wouldn't suffice for Parker - he'd say someone photo shopped it

the best part, they will line up with Hoy and Wiggins and PR and all back eachother and assert that none of the others would dope.

Froome will not get that service, cos he is a walking cicada and a johnny come lately from kenya

 

[Catwhoorg]

hope this aint a coyle efficiency study.

can i peer review the coyle study never having studied any science in highschool or uni?

Coyle is mentioned on page 10 as I printed it (page 109 as labeled). The author even compares PR's results to Lance's improvement.

I am going to insert the entire paragraph and bold one sentance.
==========
Figure 4 shows that the O2 cost of running at 16 km · h–1, expressed in units of mL · kg–1 · km–1, has decreased markedly between 1992 (when it was approximately 205 mL · kg–1 · km–1) and 2003 (when it was approximately 175 mL · kg–1 · km–1), with this representing a 15% improvement in RE. This improvement in RE shows no sign of abating; most recently, RE was measured at 165 mL · kg–1 · km–1. These results share similarities with those recently reported by Coyle [38] for Lance Armstrong, the multiple Tour de France
cycle champion. It appears, therefore, that the physiological adaptations which permit a reduction in the O2 cost of sub-maximal exercise are the key to continued improvements in endurance exercise performance over the longer term.

===================

None can reasonably dispute why Lance's results improved.

 

[del1962]

Savile is dead. In his case you may be wasting your time.

Dont worry the cat has just come back high from a shoot

 

[wrinklyvet]

the funny thing about this thread - it only confirms what many of us have been saying about national bias and sky...

the similarities between the Radcliffe posts and sky are there...substitute tailwind for men pace setting and we're off again.
Like froome and sky, a syringe would EPO on the outside, being injected into Paula wouldn't suffice for Parker - he'd say someone photo shopped it

I am happy to say it doesn't yet suffice for me. I see the posts, I see you are mostly in agreement and I conclude that's good enough for you. Further congratulations on your self-congratulatory posts.

I will wait and see how this pans out. I don't say I won't believe it.

I read, "A breathtaking 58 Russians and 25 Kenyans are on the list of those to have recorded suspicious blood samples that were not acted upon.

Of the 225 athletes named from 39 countries 12 were from Spain, 11 from Ukraine and Romania and 10 each from Morocco and Ethiopia."

And you guys are so keen to identify the Briton said be implicated.

Haven't there also been well-publicised Aussie scandals too, including one playing out at the moment and an Australian said to be included in this latest list?

Anyway, keep up the good work chaps. It's going really well. Find something really convincing and I will join in the stone throwing perhaps!

WADA has now confirmed it will begin investigating the WDR claims so perhaps we will hear more one day. But it strikes me that if a suspicious reading did not lead to a more conclusive test in most of these cases the public will never really know.

But you will, I am sure.

I have been intrigued by this scandal but declare my general lack of knowledge of the world of field and track athletics - always open to education on this!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

This. Running is very linear - the projected times nearly always line up - for amateurs as well. It is even more linear than cycling because there is no drafting, big spikes in effort etc.

The relationship isn't the same for all athletes though. Once you get past the events with a significant anaerobic component e.g. 4 minutes and longer, each athlete will exhibit a roughly constant reduction in speed in % terms each time the work duration is doubled. This reduction is usually 5% for rowing on static machines, but 3% or 7% isn't unheard of. (Rowing on static machines is so boring that there isn't much else to do to pass the time than analyse such statistics!)

I think the rule of thumb on running websites is that you can run a half marathon 6% slower than you can run a 10k i.e. slow down 6% for slightly more than doubling the distance. It's not hard to conclude the figure is around 5% when looking at the PBs over 5k and 10k for folk who race regularly over both distances.

Basically, you need 3 "reliable" times over different distances to conclude that any time is out of line. PR may just slow down less as the work duration increases, or put another way, speed up less as the work duration decreases.

Taking PR's PBs as these:

5k = 14:29 (345m/minute)
10k = 31:01 (333)
HM = 65:40 (321)
M = 2:15:25 (312)

gives us a reduction in speed from 5k-10k of 3.5%, with 10k-HM of 3.5% and HM-M of 3%.

So her performances are consistent with each other. Maybe the marathon is a bit fast, but if she'd slowed down by 3.5% from her HM PB, she'd only be a minute slower, which isn't material at this level of precision.

Key word here is consistent. They might be consistently doped or consistently clean.

 

[The Hitch]

And you guys are so keen to identify the Briton said be implicated.

Of course everyone wants to identify the major star athlete which all the newspapers are saying is one of the biggest names in the history of the sport and the journos are saying would be a major story if her name is ever revealed.

You have some info on the other names on the list? Please do share.

Otherwise shut up and let us discuss what we want.

And feel free to pen some letters to the guardian and telegraph and daily mail etc demanding to know why they are only focusing on the star British athlete on the list and not all those other potential nobodies.
Or is it just this place you want to troll?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Otherwise shut up and let us discuss what we want.

And feel free to pen some letters to the guardian and telegraph and daily mail etc demanding to know why they are only focusing on the star British athlete on the list and not all those other potential nobodies.
Or is it just this place you want to troll?

Yes, there is public interst but I don't think you have quite got there yet and that's my point.

What part of the following prohibition don't you accept:

"Harassing other users by having a continuous negative or bitter attitude towards them."

Telling me not to post is out of order.

 

[Parker]

the funny thing about this thread - it only confirms what many of us have been saying about national bias and sky...

the similarities between the Radcliffe posts and sky are there...substitute tailwind for men pace setting and we're off again.
Like froome and sky, a syringe would EPO on the outside, being injected into Paula wouldn't suffice for Parker - he'd say someone photo shopped it

It doesn't confirm anything other than your intolerance to opposition to your sacred opinions. Your utter unwillingness to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

If people just say "I think Radcliffe doped because she is the fastest marathon runner of all time", then that's a perfectly valid opinion. I may not argee and find it a little nihilistic. But they may be right.
I don't know and I'm fine not knowing.

But other people have to try and 'prove' that they are right. And they do this constructing flimsy arguements based on whatever race times they can find on the internet. They don't watch the races or know any of the background, and have very little appreciation for the sport itself. It's these arguements I am objecting to.

You are mistaking criticism of a path taken to reach a conclusion as criticism of the conclusion itself.

But this is probably a little too complex for some to comprehend. Considering that other factors may contribute to performance is difficult when you are unable to process a thought without reference to doping. Easier just to play the 'nationalist' card and throw a few playground insults around

 

[del1962]

Doping or no doping, 1500m/mile time has little relevance to projected marathon time. If it was relevant then Cram would have a better marathon time than over two and a half hours.

 

[blackcat]

empire crew as Sisyphus

pushing Radcliffe's $hit up hill

this is a gif

 

[del1962]

empire crew as Sisyphus

pushing Radcliffe's $hit up hill

this is a gif

*** happens

but its better than leaving boat loads of refugees to sink in the Pacific

oh and

is a canny bottle of beer

 

[More Strides than Rides]

The relationship isn't the same for all athletes though. Once you get past the events with a significant anaerobic component e.g. 4 minutes and longer, each athlete will exhibit a roughly constant reduction in speed in % terms each time the work duration is doubled. This reduction is usually 5% for rowing on static machines, but 3% or 7% isn't unheard of. (Rowing on static machines is so boring that there isn't much else to do to pass the time than analyse such statistics!)

I think the rule of thumb on running websites is that you can run a half marathon 6% slower than you can run a 10k i.e. slow down 6% for slightly more than doubling the distance. It's not hard to conclude the figure is around 5% when looking at the PBs over 5k and 10k for folk who race regularly over both distances.

Basically, you need 3 "reliable" times over different distances to conclude that any time is out of line. PR may just slow down less as the work duration increases, or put another way, speed up less as the work duration decreases.

Taking PR's PBs as these:

5k = 14:29 (345m/minute)
10k = 31:01 (333)
HM = 65:40 (321)
M = 2:15:25 (312)

gives us a reduction in speed from 5k-10k of 3.5%, with 10k-HM of 3.5% and HM-M of 3%.

So her performances are consistent with each other. Maybe the marathon is a bit fast, but if she'd slowed down by 3.5% from her HM PB, she'd only be a minute slower, which isn't material at this level of precision.

Key word here is consistent. They might be consistently doped or consistently clean.

Here are some calculators that people use (I plugged in 2:15:25):
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/

5Km
13:54
(4:28)
10Km
28:52
(4:39)
1/2 Mar
1:04:21
(4:55)

http://runsmartproject.com/calculator/
Half marathon 01:04:35 04:56 03:04
15K 00:44:56 04:49 03:00
10K 00:29:19 04:43 02:56
5K 00:14:06 04:32 02:49

If you have a citation for that 6% rule, please share it. Otherwise, Jack Daniels's (2nd leak) is the most renowned, (though I think Mcmillan is used more often, and more accurate).

And yes, they won't account for individual variation. But still, her 2:15 is such an outlier. There is no other performance that is so far away than the rest. Maybe FloJo's 100m rolleyes. Johnson's 19.32 used to be that, but at least it has since been approached by several rolleyes.

 

[RownhamHill]

Mine do. Pretty well from 5K out to the HM, well they did until I had a breakthrough time in the HM this year.

(Dropped 4 min off my time due to a much better training cycle).

Now I need to get the other distances aligned which certainly for the 5K requires a much different structure in training.

But enough about mid pack amateurs like myself.

Lets take Mo Farah (who I know several here have suspicions about)

Road PB for 10K is 27:44 (predicts a 2:07:52 marathon)
HM is 1:00:00 (predicts a 2:05:50 marathon)
marathon PB is 2:08:21

Not perfectly aligned but pretty close really.

(Edit)
He also is unlikely ever to win a major marathon without a step change in his performance. He is going to be 3 min behind the pace at most of them.

A much better training cycle? You don't expect us to believe that do you? ;-)

 

[RownhamHill]

I'm waiting for the tailwind. And the Walsh book.

Pretty sure there was something about ostrich meat being the key to her training at some point. . .

 

[del1962]

Of course everyone wants to identify the major star athlete which all the newspapers are saying is one of the biggest names in the history of the sport and the journos are saying would be a major story if her name is ever revealed.

You have some info on the other names on the list? Please do share.

Otherwise shut up and let us discuss what we want.

And feel free to pen some letters to the guardian and telegraph and daily mail etc demanding to know why they are only focusing on the star British athlete on the list and not all those other potential nobodies.
Or is it just this place you want to troll?

Three 2012 Olympic champions potential nobodies?

 

[thehog]

Pretty sure there was something about ostrich meat being the key to her training at some point. . .

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.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Here are some calculators that people use (I plugged in 2:15:25):
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/

5Km
13:54
(4:28)
10Km
28:52
(4:39)
1/2 Mar
1:04:21
(4:55)

http://runsmartproject.com/calculator/
Half marathon 01:04:35 04:56 03:04
15K 00:44:56 04:49 03:00
10K 00:29:19 04:43 02:56
5K 00:14:06 04:32 02:49

If you have a citation for that 6% rule, please share it.

But still, her 2:15 is such an outlier.

I think the 6% rule came from Running World. I can't remember the exact details as it was 7 years ago I came across it by accident and already new of the "Double the D, add 5%" rule from rowing. It was clearly caveated as being only a rough guide, though, with good reason.

Your macmillianrunning figures show a 5.7% reduction in average speed from 10k to HM, so I don't think "approx. 6%" is a bad rule of thumb.

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!

 

[More Strides than Rides]

But other people have to try and 'prove' that they are right. And they do this constructing flimsy arguements based on whatever race times they can find on the internet. They don't watch the races or know any of the background, and have very little appreciation for the sport itself. It's these arguements I am objecting to.

So which arguments are those? That she has the top three marathon performances, beating out known dopers (one of them while taking a pit stop)? That her go-to doctor is Müller-Wohlfahrt? That her name has now been connected to a list of red-list blood values?

Unrelated, but came upon this old quote:

"I have absolutely no objection to my test being released," she said. "I would like to know it myself."

 

[pmcg76]

It doesn't confirm anything other than your intolerance to opposition to your sacred opinions. Your utter unwillingness to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

If people just say "I think Radcliffe doped because she is the fastest marathon runner of all time", then that's a perfectly valid opinion. I may not argee and find it a little nihilistic. But they may be right.
I don't know and I'm fine not knowing.

But other people have to try and 'prove' that they are right. And they do this constructing flimsy arguements based on whatever race times they can find on the internet. They don't watch the races or know any of the background, and have very little appreciation for the sport itself. It's these arguements I am objecting to.

You are mistaking criticism of a path taken to reach a conclusion as criticism of the conclusion itself.

But this is probably a little too complex for some to comprehend. Considering that other factors may contribute to performance is difficult when you are unable to process a thought without reference to doping. Easier just to play the 'nationalist' card and throw a few playground insults around

Nail meet hammer.

Sums up this place perfectly, I have no issues with people believing athletes/cyclists whoever dope. I do it myself(believing people dope that is). However the desperation in twisting evidence to fit that idea gets so silly a lot of the time, it is just ridiculous.

Also time and time again, it seems as the only factor in performance is doping. An example, Cancellara riders away from the field at a classic=has to be on some wonder dope or something. Then when he doesn't ride away from everyone, it is everyone else has upped their game as well. The only factor is apparently doping.

Well maybe Cancellara was doped but maybe he was just on a super day(they happen regardless) as well and just rode away from all the other dopers.

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

 

[the sceptic]

the funny thing about this thread - it only confirms what many of us have been saying about national bias and sky...

the similarities between the Radcliffe posts and sky are there...substitute tailwind for men pace setting and we're off again.
Like froome and sky, a syringe would EPO on the outside, being injected into Paula wouldn't suffice for Parker - he'd say someone photo shopped it

oh, I'm sure all these posters will rush to the defence of whatever Kenyans are on the list too

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

...pushing Radcliffe's $hit up hill

Nothing to do with doping, but PR was once described by a UK journalist as the woman who gives up when the going gets tough when running for her country, but is happy to take a dump on TV when running for money.

Harsh, but hard to argue with this!

 

[Benotti69]

It doesn't confirm anything other than your intolerance to opposition to your sacred opinions. Your utter unwillingness to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

If people just say "I think Radcliffe doped because she is the fastest marathon runner of all time", then that's a perfectly valid opinion. I may not argee and find it a little nihilistic. But they may be right.
I don't know and I'm fine not knowing.

But other people have to try and 'prove' that they are right. And they do this constructing flimsy arguements based on whatever race times they can find on the internet. They don't watch the races or know any of the background, and have very little appreciation for the sport itself. It's these arguements I am objecting to.

You are mistaking criticism of a path taken to reach a conclusion as criticism of the conclusion itself.

But this is probably a little too complex for some to comprehend. Considering that other factors may contribute to performance is difficult when you are unable to process a thought without reference to doping. Easier just to play the 'nationalist' card and throw a few playground insults around

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