bigboper wrote:
Sounds like you were wrong. Astro said improvement is directly related to doping.
I see achievement, not improvement.........perhaps you say those are one and the same.......I don't see where doping is a nescessary ingredient of improving, but rather it affects the altimate achievement, and perhaps the degree of improvement. That is different than "the only way that runners improve after college is by doping"
Sounds good. No doping, no achievement.
"Clean athletes cannot compete with dopers". Tuohyvis doomed according to Astro. That is unless she dopes.
Rather than insult me, why not tell us what he really said? Why must Tuohy posters always resort to insulting other posters rather than engaging in a discussion? Seems pretty clear that he said without doping, no chance to compete and may as well surrender.
nc stater wrote:
Rather than insult me, why not tell us what he really said? Why must Tuohy posters always resort to insulting other posters rather than engaging in a discussion? Seems pretty clear that he said without doping, no chance to compete and may as well surrender.
he apparently said "you want to be a professional runner you have to dope. If not you get completely outclassed. That's it. Save the moralizing for a sport where achievement is not directly correlated to doping results. Clean athletes cannot compete with the dopers in running, and doping is so widespread that there is not much of a choice. If you are not prepared to dope as a pro, don't bother. I think the only difference is degree."
That does not say "no doping, no achievement". It seems to say higher achievement from degree of doping. It may well say "without doping, no chance to compete and may as well surrender." but now you are changing your arguement which started with "How so? If the only way that runners improve after college is by doping, Tuohy has to dope to get faster." and shifted to "Tuohyvis doomed according to Astro. That is unless she dopes."
You are correct. She can improve. She just can't achieve anything the pro level without some amount of doping amd she can't have high avlchievements without significant doping. That makes sense. No doping likely limits her to 15 minutes. Some doping gets her to 14:40. Moderate doping 14:30. Significant doping 14:25. That seems consistent with Astro's posts through the years pertaining to Americans.
nc stater wrote:
You are correct. She can improve. She just can't achieve anything the pro level without some amount of doping amd she can't have high avlchievements without significant doping. That makes sense. No doping likely limits her to 15 minutes. Some doping gets her to 14:40. Moderate doping 14:30. Significant doping 14:25. That seems consistent with Astro's posts through the years pertaining to Americans.
so, since her 8:35 seems to indicate 14:50ish, you are saying she is already doping? Or is she an exception to your proclamation that "No doping likely limits her to 15 minutes. Some doping gets her to 14:40. Moderate doping 14:30. Significant doping 14:25."
Prior to Tuohy running that time, Astro would have said every American under 8:40 is doping. I don't think she is but I don't think she can run 14:50. She hasn't done it. She has gotten bigger over the past year which will help her 1500 but hurt her 5000. I will go with 4:02/14:55 clean this year and 4:00/14:45 lifetime clean.
nc stater wrote:
Cording to astro, every runner starts doping when they go pro. So his logic would be that Americans improve later due to this. That means Tuohy would have to follow the same path or she won't improve.
However, for obvious reasons, Tuohy wouldn't be able to do that.
nc stater wrote:
Prior to Tuohy running that time, Astro would have said every American under 8:40 is doping. I don't think she is but I don't think she can run 14:50. She hasn't done it. She has gotten bigger over the past year which will help her 1500 but hurt her 5000. I will go with 4:02/14:55 clean this year and 4:00/14:45 lifetime clean.
I think Astro has also said he thinks Tuohy is more talented than most Americans (I am reading between his words). I agree 4:02 would be a great time for this year and 4:00 just seems too fast for this year. But I would not bet against her running 14:50 if she somewhere finds the right race for it - but looking around I don't see that race yet.
nc stater wrote:
How so? If the only way that runners improve after college is by doping, Tuohy has to dope to get faster. Just parroting what she has told us for years. Has she been in incorrect in all of her posts on this topic? Now you tell me she is incorrect. Do I believe you or do I believe her? Seems that Tuohy fans take whatever side of an argument makes her look best. When Monson is faster, it is because she is older. When Tuohy is faster than Cook, it doesn't matter that Cook is faster at a younger age.
She's basing her logic on her inside information about Tuohy and how she has gained her progress so far, but she has no actual experience with anyone else.
Possible opportunity for that 14:50?
Also, W 5000/3000 at 23 July London DL; W 1500 at 21 July Monaco DL
You have to be absolutely insane to think Tuohy is doping. That's the funniest thing I've ever read. It has to be a troll, but they won't stop because they get such a great reaction from saying it.
spot on the line wrote:
Possible opportunity for that 14:50?
Also, W 5000/3000 at 23 July London DL; W 1500 at 21 July Monaco DL
The Sound Running event is May 6th - a week before the ACCs. I don't see her doing it.
I don't think she is doping but any sane person could think she is. That is a reasonable assumption. Why would only an insane person thinkl that?
5 posts were removed from this page.
