JK- what’s the most rational explanation for how Sara Hall runs significantly faster at age 37

Of course it's never ruled out.

Do you think what she has done is possible clean?

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Of course it's never ruled out.

Do you think what she has done is possible clean?

It is possible - maybe - but I think the most likely, i.e. "rational", explanation is doping. And that is what the thread asks. To suggest she has done it clean requires too many strained explanations to justify the exceptional. But if she is doping she will be one of many elites who see it as the best way to maximize their potential. I doubt anyone can now get to the top of the sport without doping - because you have to beat dopers to do it. The prisoner's dilemma: "If I don't, they will".

For the elite and professional sportsman/woman, doping isn't necessarily the ethical obstacle that it is for the recreational athlete; it may be what the driven professional simply recognizes they have to do. But not get caught.

Deena fan wrote:

Deena was light years ahead of Sara in the 5000, 10000 and marathon. Deena was also running extremely well as a master. So let's say the shoes are worth 2-3 minutes. How come Deena, who is immensely more talented than Sara, could not run 2:22-2:23 at age 37?

Injuries. She said in her book that was a problem in her later 30s.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Deena fan wrote:

Deena was light years ahead of Sara in the 5000, 10000 and marathon. Deena was also running extremely well as a master. So let's say the shoes are worth 2-3 minutes. How come Deena, who is immensely more talented than Sara, could not run 2:22-2:23 at age 37?

Injuries. She said in her book that was a problem in her later 30s.

Yet there have been threads here concerning masters runners who have been beset by injuries and yet somehow gone on to set world age marks. Injuries don't always explain decline - while aging might - and nor do they always seem to be a permanent obstacle to further achievement.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is possible -.

That's how we view it.

Shoes that make legs 1+ inches longer with same turnover + carnitine supplements.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is possible -.

That's how we view it.

You didn't grasp the rest of my comment, and apparently read only the first 3 words. It's "possible" you might compete in the next Olympics, but what is possible may also be extremely unlikely - against all probability and reasonable expectation.

That's how I view it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

That's how we view it.

You didn't grasp the rest of my comment, and apparently read only the first 3 words. It's "possible" you might compete in the next Olympics, but what is possible may also be extremely unlikely - against all probability and reasonable expectation.

That's how I view it.

No, it is not possible for me to compete in the next Olympics. At all.

I would have had to produce a performance that would indicate that possibility. I have not done so afaik,

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You didn't grasp the rest of my comment, and apparently read only the first 3 words. It's "possible" you might compete in the next Olympics, but what is possible may also be extremely unlikely - against all probability and reasonable expectation.

That's how I view it.

No, it is not possible for me to compete in the next Olympics. At all.

I would have had to produce a performance that would indicate that possibility. I have not done so afaik,

Now you're just being difficult. You know what he means, and in fact he's right that it is "possible" you could run in the next Olympics - even if the odds are vanishingly small. Your doing so would not violate the laws of physics.

I think the conclusion to this thread is, Hall's huge improvement in the marathon defies what one might call a "marginal gains" explanation - i.e. better training, better nutrition, increased mileage, less stress, etc. Those things are good explanations for small gains, but the fact that she's been running at an elite or sub-elite level for 20 years already virtually eliminates them as explanations in Hall's case.

Benefits from shoes, and/or benefits from doping, seem like the most promising explanations for the MAJORITY of her improvement (not saying she couldn't have improved at all without them, but not 6 minutes). But don't get upset! If you think she's a great person and a pillar of moral and ethical rectitude, you are free to dismiss doping as a possibility and attribute her improvement to the shoes. It's not even really a criticism, just a statement of what is likely a fact: Sara Hall's performances improved a lot because of shoe technology.

Not what champions do wrote:

Benefits from shoes, and/or benefits from doping, seem like the most promising explanations for the MAJORITY of her improvement (not saying she couldn't have improved at all without them, but not 6 minutes). But don't get upset! If you think she's a great person and a pillar of moral and ethical rectitude, you are free to dismiss doping as a possibility and attribute her improvement to the shoes. It's not even really a criticism, just a statement of what is likely a fact: Sara Hall's performances improved a lot because of shoe technology.

Isn't how much she improved the big question? How fast do you think a 4:08 woman whose best event is the marathon (i.e. an assumption) should run? In the old days we are talking ~2:25. If you assume the new shoes are worth 2-3 mins then we are left looking for 2 mins. Is that so absurd for going from 80mpws to 110+?

How about this. If she was doping, I would expect faster times. Lombard dropped 2:30 off his 10k from doping so I would expect Sarah to run 14:20,29:40, 2:15ish. Or maybe she is just doing smaller doses:) Or just rubing some of Ryan T creme rather than injecting EPO...

In the end unless she gets busted we are left guessing. Nobody can improve through training without being accused of being a doper. And there is no way to disprove it. We are left wondering if elite running is like the tour de france in the 90s where basically everyone was doping or if we are looking at a sport where say only 20% of the elites are doping.

Not at all. Hall running 2:20 clean is so much more likely than me running in the next Olympics that they are not even in the same stratosphere.

The shoes surely helped her a lot so just add the required minutes and ask yourself if she could realistically have just steadily improved after actually becoming a Marathoner.

No physics are being defied, nor is physiology.

Its called shes on drugs that arent being tested...Sr 9009 or Gw guarantee it!

Realistically? No. Not that kind of increase. She became one of the fastest women marathon runners in the world in 2020 - at 37. The most "rational explanation" - as the thread asks - suggests performance aids, of which shoes/doping are the most likely. None of that requires bending the laws of physics or physiology.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Not at all. Hall running 2:20 clean is so much more likely than me running in the next Olympics that they are not even in the same stratosphere.

The shoes surely helped her a lot so just add the required minutes and ask yourself if she could realistically have just steadily improved after actually becoming a Marathoner.

No physics are being defied, nor is physiology.

Realistically? No. Not that kind of increase. She became one of the fastest women marathon runners in the world in 2020 - at 37. The most "rational explanation" - as the thread asks - suggests performance aids, of which shoes/doping are the most likely. None of that requires bending the laws of physics or physiology.

Doping doesn't bend the laws of physiology? Your big thing is the law of age related decline.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Realistically? No. Not that kind of increase. She became one of the fastest women marathon runners in the world in 2020 - at 37. The most "rational explanation" - as the thread asks - suggests performance aids, of which shoes/doping are the most likely. None of that requires bending the laws of physics or physiology.

Doping doesn't bend the laws of physiology? Your big thing is the law of age related decline.

It isn't about so-called "laws". This isn't a semantic debate. Doping affects human physiology; it isn't a law - or magic. Human physiology also changes with aging; that, too, isn't magic. It is fact. But with aging comes physical decline - for some faster than others but inevitable for all - although it can be slowed by doping and careers thereby extended. You really have no idea what is available to athletes today.

She would be running 5 minutes faster if 10 years younger. She wasn't training and racing at the same level then as she is today. Too many angry and jealous old men here. Somebody so squeaky clean living a perfect life just riles up the haters. No skeletons in her closet and living a Christian life seems to burn some people.

Hutchins Is the All-Time Greatest wrote:

She would be running 5 minutes faster if 10 years younger. She wasn't training and racing at the same level then as she is today. Too many angry and jealous old men here. Somebody so squeaky clean living a perfect life just riles up the haters. No skeletons in her closet and living a Christian life seems to burn some people.

Yeah, sure, 10 years ago - back when she was running a personal best 8:52 for 3000m, when she couldn't break 15:20 for 5k and couldn't break 32 for 10k - you're saying she would have run a 2:15 marathon?

Ah, but, that's when she hadn't discovered she was a natural for the longer distances, right? (because you would totally expect a potential 2:15 marathoner to be toiling away running a 15:20 5k). So here are her yearly best performances at 10 miles:

Performance Place Date

2019 53:11 Minneapolis, MN (USA) 06 OCT 2019

2018 52:47 St. Paul (USA) 07 OCT 2018

2017 53:43 St. Paul (USA) 01 OCT 2017

2016 53:33 Minneapolis, MN (USA) 09 OCT 2016

2014 52:54 Washington, DC (USA) 06 APR 2014

So she made, basically, no progress at a longer competitive distance, but we're to believe that she was this amazing marathoner trapped in a 1500-5000m runner, who could run marathons at a faster pace than she could run 10-mile races?

She can run 2:20 at age 37 but she was probably only capable of 2:25 10 years ago? So your point is that many runners reach their peak at 37 even if doing the same training as 27? Data would prove you to be incorrect. 99% of runners are capable of running faster at 26 than 37.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It isn't about so-called "laws". This isn't a semantic debate. Doping affects human physiology; it isn't a law - or magic. Human physiology also changes with aging; that, too, isn't magic. It is fact. But with aging comes physical decline - for some faster than others but inevitable for all - although it can be slowed by doping and careers thereby extended. You really have no idea what is available to athletes today.

It's entirely about laws actually. Not semantics at all.

Training also slows aging and decline.