[quote]sfu'ed wrote:
There are a few inaccuracies in this discussion which I would like to mention.
Rebecca:
Is in her 4th yr, not her thrid year.
Came into university with a 2:15.80 PB which she ran when she was 15.
I have personally known and trained with Rebecca for three years, and nothing in that time would lead me to believe that her improvement has been help by performance enhancers. Rebecca is one of the most motivated and tough athletes I have ever witnessed. That, combined with her natural talent is the reason we has so consistently improved. She was plagued by injuries and health problems until her second year, when her amazing progression started. But its not just one big improvement, she has consistently advanced her limits. I don't have her exact PB progession at hand, but from memory:
Jan 04: 2:14i, 2:13i
Apr 04: 2:13, 2:13, 2:13
May 04: 2:12.1, 2:11.1, 2:10.86
Jan 05: 2:12.00i
Jan 05: 2:10.48i (after 2:50 1000)
Feb 05: 2:08i
Mar 05: 2:08
Apr 05: 2:06.94, 2:06.1
May 05: 2:04.93
Jan 05: 2:05.53i (beat Diane Cummins)
Jan 05: 2:05.48i (after 2:45 1000)
Apr 05: 2:01.80
She has also run a 4:41 mile indoors and ran 56.0X in the rain just the weekend before last (and many 55 second splits)
And if you knew Rebecca, you would know she would never take steriods. Steriods give girls masculine features, and we all know that Rebecca is really pretty, and would never comprimise that!
She is just one tough girl on the track ...
===========================================
Read again the above post looks like natural progression to me. As this person trains with Rebecca I'm sure she know better than anyone here the reason for her natural progression.
Some more stats here:
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=can/athcode=211498/index.html
I'm amazed at all these comments about drugs about a 24 year old woman running 2:01. From a pr of 2:15 aged 15 its not really suprising if 9 years later she is running 2:01.
If a guy could do 55/6 for 400m would anyone be suprised if they ran 2:01? No, in fact they would be waiting for them to go sub 2
Of course we don't know if any athlete is using drugs. But, if there is no firm evidence surely they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. You may not agree with that, but then why continue to follow the sport?