Chinese female world records

[Flumpy]

That is quite simply one of the best posts I've ever read on this or any other forum.

It has actually made me reconsider the beliefs that I have held for nearly 20 years and whilst I doubt we'll ever know the truth this comes the closest making sense of any explanation I've heard.

[Flumpy]

Chinese women began appearing in WC/OG competitons in the late 80s, with little notice, as they made not a great impact in medals or times. As we all know, 1993 in Stuttgart was their big moment, but other than the surprise it generated among "us," it wasn't that big a deal:

1500m 1. Dong Liu 4:00.50
3000m 1. Yunxia Qu 8:28.71; Linli Zhang 8:29.25; Lirong Zhang 8:31.95
10000m 1. Junxia Wang 30:49.30; Huandi Zhong 31:12.55

A great meet for them, but the times were/are not outrageous, not out of line with other WC/OG winning/medal times, and certainly not of the order of "those people must be cheating."

Surely the troubling thing about the races wasn't that they won, but the manner in which they did it. If I'm not mistaken the negative splits were ridonculous and you knew whilst watching that they could have run much faster but were simply doing enough (And following the instructions) to win.

[Flumpy]

But imagine top runners in in their best shape, running a race under "ideal" conditions, and trying to run as fast as they could (instead of engaging in a tactical race). It is quite possible that they produce times they cannot come close to before or after.

This is a very good point. I remember in the late 90's early 00's when anyone of the likes of the likes of Gaby/Sonia/Gete/Berhane/Paula etc could have lowered the 5,000, record considerably but insisted on titting about and worrying that they would lose the race rather than trying to lay down a great time.

Babyface and Meseret have done the same.

[bman]

Look I'm not saying I'm an expert on this (before my time), but why is it hard to believe they were on EPO (or whatever the drug)? Seems clear to me, but like I said I wasn't around at the time. I do second many of the other factors people have mentioned, in summation saying Ma Junren was an extraordinary coach with extraordinary means, both cultural and institutional.

[kuha]

In the national meet in Beijing in 1993, we have:

10,000 (final, 8 September 1993):
1. Junxia Wang 29:31.78
2. Huandi Zhong 30:13.37
3. Lirong Zhang 31:09.25
4. Liyan Ma 31:10.46
My analysis: Wang is one of the great female distance runners, and in this national meet, of utmost importance – in some ways beyond the WC, she was determined to show it. Zhong, one of the other top, sort of benefitted by chasing her, running a top, but not shocking time. The others, were where I would expect. Without Wang, Zhong runs maybe 30-mid or 30-high for the win. Not shocking.

1500m (final, 11 Sept. 1993):
1. Yunxia Qu 3:50.46
2. Junxia Wang 3:51.92
3. Linli Zhang 3:57.46
4. Renmei Wang 3:58.64
5. Li Liu 3:59.34
6. Lirong Zhang 3:59.70
7. Yuan Wang 3:59.81
8. Yi Lu 4:00.05
My analysis: Two great athletes bashing each other to the limit to win a race that was of great, great importance in Chinese women's athletics, and to these two competitors, each of whom wanted to be considered the greatest Chinese women's distance runner. That's an accolade that probably doesn't mean crap to us, but our "greatest sprinter" debates don't mean much over there. After the two greats, a deep, but not outrageously deep, race. Some of the followers' times were the result of a version of what I call the "El G-Ngeny effect." A bunch of highly fit and talented followers, getting their fastest times ever in this one great race. Without Qu and Wang, this race would have been won perhaps in 3:58-3:59, or 4-low.

3000m heats (12 Sept. 1993)
Heat 1:
1. Wang 8:12.19
2. Qu 8:12.27
3. Liyan Ma 8:19.78

Heat 2:
1. Linli Zhang 8:22.06
2. Lirong Zhang 8:22.44
My analysis: Well, they put the two greats in the same heat, and the first one. Ma benefited from chasing. The other heat – fast, but not beyond what others have done. And, it needed to be fast to make the final. Not surprising there.

3000m final (13 Sept. 1993):
1. Wang 8:06.11
2. Qu 8:12.18
3. Yinli Zhang 8:16.50
4. Liyan Ma 8:21.26
My analysis: More Wang and Qu, and a couple of athletes who benefited from chasing their great battle.

Master Po: Many thanks for this. I truly admire your clarity, logic, and care. This is a compelling argument that deserves to be taken very seriously.

I do think, however, that you've underplayed the anomalous nature of this whole week, as well as the WAY in which some of these performances were achieved. In shorthand:

-it wasn't simply the 29:31 time that was amazing, but the fact that the last half was 14:26, and the last 3000 in 8:17--both way under the then-current WRs. By this measure, the 29:31 was probably easily "worth" 29:15, no? And for the race as a whole, best ever marks for place: 1-13.

-2 days later, 10 Sept. saw the 1500 heats, in which Qu ran 3:59.38; Wang ran 4:01.55; and the slowest qualifier, in 12th, was 4:02.44 (!).

-the next day, 11 Sept, saw the 3:50.46 WR, with Wang also under the old record; best ever marks for place: 1-2, 7-9

-the next day, 12 Sept, saw the 3000 heats; in the first the top two broke the standing WR (8:22.06, 8:22.44); in the second, Wang ran 8:12, followed by two more under 8:20 (best ever marks for place: 1-3).

-the next day, 13 Sept, saw the 3000 final, with an 8:06 winning time, Qu at 8:12, and 3 more under the original WR (best ever marks for place: 1-5).

How many "the next day"s can we really stomach here? Why the absurdly fast heats? (Not all were needed for actual advancement to the final.) Why the mass of no-name athletes destroying the previous WRs? (But I fully agree that Wang and Qu were extremely talented.)

There were a total of 14 performances under the previous WRs. There were a total of 8 under 1:59 in the 800 (which I haven't even bothered to insert in the chronology above); 7 under 4:00 in the 1500; 5 under 8:22 at 3000; and 11 under 31:33 in the 10,000.

Nothing in previous history comes remotely close to this deep, sustained, and wholesale slaughter of the record books. And absolutely nothing since has come anywhere close to duplicating it. Nothing comes close in terms of day-after-day astonishing performances from several of these athletes. That week stands, conspicuously, as a historical case study of one, and only one. And as an historian, that makes me very nervous--and very doubtful.

A short track would explain this to me, whether or not it's really possible. Drugs? Perhaps, maybe even probably, but the rest of the world had them too... High testosterone levels? Castrated men? Admittedly, the theories go from plausible to not very...

So it remains a mystery to me. But after all these years, I still do not believe them. They still simply make no sense to me.

But I do appreciate your thoughtful argument....

[Conor Dary]

A short track would explain this to me, whether or not it's really possible. Drugs? Perhaps, maybe even probably, but the rest of the world had them too... High testosterone levels? Castrated men? Admittedly, the theories go from plausible to not very..

If it was just drugs, then why hasn't anyone else come anywhere close, especially in the 3000? For actual women, 8:22 seems to be the limit, drugs or not, but the Chinese obliterated it in large numbers and then disappeared.

I think they were all guys.....that or a short track.

[Marlow]

Before we get into the more esoteric voodoo theories, Occam's Razor suggests that the Rasputian force of personality (and training methods) of Coach Ma, together with some powerful 'supplements' (caterpillar soup!), enabled the Chinese women to achieve the unachievable times they did.

[Conor Dary]

Before we get into the more esoteric voodoo theories, Occam's Razor suggests that the Rasputian force of personality (and training methods) of Coach Ma, together with some powerful 'supplements' (caterpillar soup!), enabled the Chinese women to achieve the unachievable times they did.

I was applying Occam's Razor, and Old Ock says they were guys....

[Marlow]

I was applying Occam's Razor, and Old Ock says they were guys....

THIS is a guy??!!

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_at ... 8_GH_R.jpg

[mump boy]

I think they were all guys......

Master Po writes one of the most intelligent, well thought out, elightening, long posts i have ever read and this is your juvenile response ?

Classy

FWIW i think MP makes some very valid points and i don't believe 29.29 in particular is a time that is unapproachable to modern athletes at all but 8.06 is ridiculous and the depth of 1500 times is also very hard to take.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the chinese swimmers of the same period who broke every record in sight while looking like linebackers ? and also why, if indeed cultural influences had suchh a bit effect on these performances we have seen nothing even remotely approaching them since

[jeremyp]

-it wasn't simply the 29:31 time that was amazing, but the fact that the last half was 14:26, and the last 3000 in 8:17--both way under the then-current WRs. By this measure, the 29:31 was probably easily "worth" 29:15, no? And for the race as a whole, best ever marks for place: 1-13.

-2 days later, 10 Sept. saw the 1500 heats, in which Qu ran 3:59.38; Wang ran 4:01.55; and the slowest qualifier, in 12th, was 4:02.44 (!).

-the next day, 11 Sept, saw the 3:50.46 WR, with Wang also under the old record; best ever marks for place: 1-2, 7-9

-the next day, 12 Sept, saw the 3000 heats; in the first the top two broke the standing WR (8:22.06, 8:22.44); in the second, Wang ran 8:12, followed by two more under 8:20 (best ever marks for place: 1-3).

-the next day, 13 Sept, saw the 3000 final, with an 8:06 winning time, Qu at 8:12, and 3 more under the original WR (best ever marks for place: 1-5).

How many "the next day"s can we really stomach here? Why the absurdly fast heats? (Not all were needed for actual advancement to the final.) Why the mass of no-name athletes destroying the previous WRs? (But I fully agree that Wang and Qu were extremely talented.)

There were a total of 14 performances under the previous WRs. There were a total of 8 under 1:59 in the 800 (which I haven't even bothered to insert in the chronology above); 7 under 4:00 in the 1500; 5 under 8:22 at 3000; and 11 under 31:33 in the 10,000.

Nothing in previous history comes remotely close to this deep, sustained, and wholesale slaughter of the record books. And absolutely nothing since has come anywhere close to duplicating it. Nothing comes close in terms of day-after-day astonishing performances from several of these athletes. That week stands, conspicuously, as a historical case study of one, and only one. And as an historian, that makes me very nervous--and very doubtful.

A short track would explain this to me, whether or not it's really possible. Drugs? Perhaps, maybe even probably, but the rest of the world had them too... High testosterone levels? Castrated men? Admittedly, the theories go from plausible to not very...

So it remains a mystery to me. But after all these years, I still do not believe them. They still simply make no sense to me.

....

I absolutely concur. No such slew of incredible mass performances has ocurred in the last 60 years of Track. Unless we accept the strange cases of mass hysteria, and hysteria comes from the greek word for uterus......hmmmm?

[Conor Dary]

Master Po writes one of the most intelligent, well thought out, elightening, long posts i have ever read and this is your juvenile response ?

Classy

but 8.06 is ridiculous and the depth of 1500 times is also very hard to take.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the chinese swimmers of the same period who broke every record in sight while looking like linebackers ? and also why, if indeed cultural influences had suchh a bit effect on these performances we have seen nothing even remotely approaching them since

You are welcome. By the way, what is your point? You seem to be agreeing with what I said. The 3000 times are ridiculous...

[bman]

My problems with Master Po's legendary post:

1. Over estimation of the "El G-Ngeny effect". Its simply not that extreme. National class runners don't just get "pulled along" to world records (records that are strong anyway, judging by their resilience, particularly in the 1500).

2. The importance of Ma Junren. We know some of his athletes tested positive before Sydney, and I also heard he had someone that was found to have used steroids in like '94 who was ostracized from the camp.

3. Influx of East German scientists into China in the early 90s. Is this true? If so, these were highly skilled people who would naturally cause a dramatic increase in performances in a new athletics country like China (with drugs obviously).

4. The "girls don't like PEDs" theory. I have never liked how people throw this idea around, that somehow no girl would want to use steroids because it could compromise what is supposedly more important to a female, her feminine body. For females who are elite athletes, I really don't think there is any evidence or validity to this.

[Conor Dary]

I was applying Occam's Razor, and Old Ock says they were guys....

THIS is a guy??!!

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_at ... 8_GH_R.jpg

Yes, there was an exception or two. But look in the Track and Field News from some of those races and my reaction was, these are women?

[gh]

.... the depth of 1500 times is also very hard to take. ...

This is the same kind of sniff test that Flojo's 10.49 flunked. There are always going to be super-outliers (think Beamonesque), but when "everybody" in the race shows a similar improvement—and can never replicate it—then you start looking for something other than a level playing field.

[kuha]

FWIW i think MP makes some very valid points and i don't believe 29.29 in particular is a time that is unapproachable to modern athletes

Why do you--and so many others--insist on being misleadingly selective in analyzing this data? For the millionth time, it wasn't simply that Wang did 29:31, even though no one has come close to that time in the last 14 years. Its that the 29:31 was done with 15:05 / 14:26 splits (last 3000 in 8:17), with both of those last two times WAY under the standing WRs. On what planet is that possible--in either 1993 or 2011? Seriously--please name the planet.

And, yes, of course 8:06 was ridiculous, just as 8:12 in a qualifying heat was ridiculous. And just as 14 performances under the previous WRs in a week by one group of athletes was ridiculous. That's a lot of ridiculouses....

At the time, many smart folks said that the records were weak and ripe for revision. Nearly 18 subsequent years of history have shown, as clearly as anything can show it, that that view was false.

I still go with the short track theory and await anyone that can actually prove it wrong.

[TN1965]

What were the winning times of 800m and under in that 1993 National Meet?

And what were the men's winning times?

If the track was short, wouldn't that have affected every one (and not just women's 1500-10000)?

[kuha]

What were the winning times of 800m and under in that 1993 National Meet?

And what were the men's winning times?

If the track was short, wouldn't that have affected every one (and not just women's 1500-10000)?

If the track was short, then of course, yes, it would have affected everyone. Naturally.

The 800 went in 1:55.54, with--as stated above--8 under 1:59.

The winning man was 1:49.27, but so what? The men were relatively bad--exactly how bad, we don't know, and don't honestly care.

What difference would it make if the track was, say, 5m short per lap? That's 10m in an 800, just shy of 19m in the 1500 and 37.5m in a 3000. Or, at 7.5m shy per lap, you have 15m in an 800, ca. 27m in the 1500, and ca. 50m at 3000.

How good was Wang? Pretty damn good, I'm sure--but I'd guess roughly 8:20 good, not 8:06 good. If that guess is right, we can then make further guesses at how short the track MIGHT have been. But can any of this be "proven" now? Probably not. And the bottom line remains: what better answer is there?

[Pentathlete 2]

Great post Master Po(ster)!

Great thread too!

Bulgaria, with a population of less than 10 million, became a world beater in weightlifting, by (in-part) identifying talent and working the heck out of them. The 'survivors' of the multiple workouts per day, lifting close to maximum frequently, program became medalists.

I've thought if Bulgaria with 10mil can do this, what can China with 1.3bil do?

[gh]

Is that the same Bulgaria which had its entire team banned from Beijing for systematic steroid abuses?

[bambam]

Great post Master Po(ster)!

Great thread too!

Bulgaria, with a population of less than 10 million, became a world beater in weightlifting, by (in-part) identifying talent and working the heck out of them. The 'survivors' of the multiple workouts per day, lifting close to maximum frequently, program became medalists.

I've thought if Bulgaria with 10mil can do this, what can China with 1.3bil do?

Is this a serious post? As E Garry pointed out, Bulgaria became the top weightlifting nation pharmaceutically.

[Marlow]

I was applying Occam's Razor, and Old Ock says they were guys....

THIS is a guy??!!

http://www.sporting-heroes.net/files_at ... 8_GH_R.jpg

Yes, there was an exception or two. But look in the Track and Field News from some of those races and my reaction was, these are women?

But Wang Junxia was THE star of stars!! If she's a woman (and she is), then the rest, who were not as spectacular as she, were too.

[Conor Dary]

I've thought if Bulgaria with 10mil can do this, what can China with 1.3bil do?

NIce try, but how come with all those people they can't come up with any decent male runners?

[gh]

bingo! I won't get into any specifics (because even free-speech weekend prohibits it), but as a generalized statement, if any nation has great women's success without a concomitant rise on the men's side, well, you know.....

(and I don't believe--at least in a track sense--there has ever been a nation that has had stunning men's success and nothing on the women's side)

[Conor Dary]

What were the winning times of 800m and under in that 1993 National Meet?

And what were the men's winning times?

If the track was short, wouldn't that have affected every one (and not just women's 1500-10000)?

If the track was short, then of course, yes, it would have affected everyone. Naturally.

The 800 went in 1:55.54, with--as stated above--8 under 1:59.

The winning man was 1:49.27, but so what? The men were relatively bad--exactly how bad, we don't know, and don't honestly care.

What difference would it make if the track was, say, 5m short per lap? That's 10m in an 800, just shy of 19m in the 1500 and 37.5m in a 3000. Or, at 7.5m shy per lap, you have 15m in an 800, ca. 27m in the 1500, and ca. 50m at 3000.



How good was Wang? Pretty damn good, I'm sure--but I'd guess roughly 8:20 good, not 8:06 good. If that guess is right, we can then make further guesses at how short the track MIGHT have been. But can any of this be "proven" now? Probably not. And the bottom line remains: what better answer is there?

That is good. I like this theory.

Unfortunately, thinking more about it, it doesn't explain why there are no fast men times. I mean was this a female only track or meet?

[bman]

What ever happened to good old fashioned lying about times? Who was administering this meet? Why couldn't they have just knocked some time off in the back room without anyone knowing?

I personally would like to believe that they were drug assisted but otherwise legit. I hold the view that there was in fact some secrets Coach Ma had in his camp (besides drugs). As a coach I have come to think we are missing huge amounts of information about what goes into athletes preforming well.

[Conor Dary]

What ever happened to good old fashioned lying about times? Who was administering this meet? Why couldn't they have just knocked some time off in the back room without anyone knowing?

I personally would like to believe that they were drug assisted but otherwise legit.

Yes, lying could be an answer, but why would the men be left out?

As for drugs, why would they be so effective for the Chinese, but not for anyone else? It is not like no one else has tried.

[bman]

Yes, lying could be an answer, but why would the men be left out?

Perhaps because it was known the men could not compete at the World championships in Stuttgart.

As for drugs, why would they be so effective for the Chinese, but not for anyone else? It is not like no one else has tried.

There's only one Ma Junren.

[Conor Dary]

There's only one Ma Junren.

Thank god for that.

[bman]

There's only one Ma Junren.

Thank god for that.

I think a lot of his athletes left after 93 which could be another factor here to consider.

[TN1965]

What ever happened to good old fashioned lying about times?

My initial reaction to the negative split in 10000m was "they must have miscounted the laps and felt too embarassed to admit it. So they 'made up' those spilts to make it look like they actually ran 25 laps." And that record looked more like a time for 9600m.

[AS]

I seem to recall there being video footage of the meet... in which case the miscounted lap and made-up-time conspiracies would be easily disproved...

[Powell]

(and I don't believe--at least in a track sense--there has ever been a nation that has had stunning men's success and nothing on the women's side)

Sweden was one - they were a major force in certain periods (especially in the first few years after WW2), but had no success on the women's side pretty much right until the 1980s.

Of course things changed for them in the last 20 years, and they've now had a good few major female stars.

[kuha]

I seem to recall there being video footage of the meet... in which case the miscounted lap and made-up-time conspiracies would be easily disproved...

Let's see it. It SHOULD exist, but does it?

[gh]

(and I don't believe--at least in a track sense--there has ever been a nation that has had stunning men's success and nothing on the women's side)

Sweden was one - they were a major force in certain periods (especially in the first few years after WW2), but had no success on the women's side pretty much right until the 1980s.

Of course things changed for them in the last 20 years, and they've now had a good few major female stars.

I'm speaking of the era since male hormones became available to women.