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

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Yes, but her shoes will be dirty. That's legal though.

If slow Joanie can flirt with 2:20 nearly 40 years ago, surely Hall can now.

"Slow Joanie" happened to be the world's best women's marathoner in her era, nearly 40 years ago. She was Olympic champion at 27 and recorded her best performance and world leading mark at 28, nearly a decade younger than Sara Hall. She didn't "discover" a talent for the distance in her 30's. Her career was plagued with injuries not long after her best performances and she certainly wasn't competitive at 37.

The point was more that she was undoubtedly quite a bit slower than Hall over short distances but still managed a 2:21..

There you are with baseless opinions again. The facts are that doping convictions are much lower and they are even lower for Americans Zhang some hot spots. The % of white American distance runners caught doping is 1%.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Slow Joanie" happened to be the world's best women's marathoner in her era, nearly 40 years ago. She was Olympic champion at 27 and recorded her best performance and world leading mark at 28, nearly a decade younger than Sara Hall. She didn't "discover" a talent for the distance in her 30's. Her career was plagued with injuries not long after her best performances and she certainly wasn't competitive at 37.

The point was more that she was undoubtedly quite a bit slower than Hall over short distances but still managed a 2:21..

I know that's your point but mine is that it isn't a helpful comparison for you.

bowly wrote:

There you are with baseless opinions again. The facts are that doping convictions are much lower and they are even lower for Americans Zhang some hot spots. The % of white American distance runners caught doping is 1%.

You don't seriously think that only 1% actually dope? The numbers caught are a fraction of those estimated to be doping (WADA has suggested between 1 in 10 and even 1 in 3 elites). That shows how easy it is to get away with it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

The point was more that she was undoubtedly quite a bit slower than Hall over short distances but still managed a 2:21..

I know that's your point but mine is that it isn't a helpful comparison for you.

I meant do you think Hall actually possesses 2:20 ability at any point.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I know that's your point but mine is that it isn't a helpful comparison for you.

I meant do you think Hall actually possesses 2:20 ability at any point.

Clean? I doubt it.

At the risk of oversimplifying our differences it seems to me that -

1. You think she has the natural ability to achieve that level without doping.

2. Athletes can continue to improve and even make dramatic improvements well into their late 30's.

In response to the first point, as others have posted here, the change in her level of her performance from her 20's to her late 30's makes me sceptical that her true natural ability has only just emerged now. I also find it difficult to believe she has spent most of her career competing in the wrong events.

In respect of the second point, before the widespread availability and likely use of ped's we didn't see athletes getting better as they aged (mid to late 30's and even 40's) or maintaining their best to 40, when human physiology indicates decline begins from the late 20's. It is therefore extremely difficult to discount drugs as the likely cause of such performances.

To be fair, I can't prove you wrong - but neither can you do the same in respect of my views. We are perceiving the sport from different perspectives - and there are grounds supporting both. Because I am partial to my own I suggest probability aids my perceptions, whereas you are required to find ways to justify the exception.

You are wrong. She has tested negative many times. She has tested positive no time.

I estimate that only 5% of Africans dope and 1% of Americans dope. Estimates are dumb. We have data that proves American distance runners are clean.

Do you think Joanie was clean? AW and all that.

Dixon sure busted out a great race in NYC when he was well past his peak years.

I've never opened this thread til now. Wondering how it got so long, I checked to see if it's 17 pages of Armstronglivs arguing about doping, and sure enough.

Hardloper wrote:

I've never opened this thread til now. Wondering how it got so long, I checked to see if it's 17 pages of Armstronglivs arguing about doping, and sure enough.

+1

He likes seeing his name in print and must have the last word.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

I've never opened this thread til now. Wondering how it got so long, I checked to see if it's 17 pages of Armstronglivs arguing about doping, and sure enough.

+1

He likes seeing his name in print and must have the last word.

It certainly isn't because of the quality of argument that I have been presented with.

Florida Informant wrote:

You are wrong. She has tested negative many times. She has tested positive no time.

Correct.But that only shows she has passed doping tests. You are apparently unaware the great majority of dopers do. Only a very small fraction are caught. Former WADA head, Richard Pound:- "Only the dumb and the careless are caught".

Do you think Joanie was clean? AW and all that.

Dixon sure busted out a great race in NYC when he was well past his peak years.[/quote]

I don't have any reason to think Joan wasn't - she peaked in her late 20's. But I wouldn't vouch for any athlete - particularly with the greater use of blood-doping from the 70's onwards. Rod, I wouldn't know either - but I don't believe he became a better runner in his later years than in his heyday in his 20's. But if you want to cast doubt on them then it isn't going to help your argument that Sara is clean.

Florida Informant wrote:

I estimate that only 5% of Africans dope and 1% of Americans dope. Estimates are dumb. We have data that proves American distance runners are clean.

Speaking of dumb estimates. Official estimates like those from WADA as well as from championship athletes surveys put it far higher. You can't prove an athlete is clean, only that they haven't failed a test. Most drugs are undetectable, through masking. Marion Jones showed that 20 years ago.

You live in the world of opinions. Many of us like to deal with facts instead. People who constantly provide opinions instead of facts, lose credibility.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Do you think Joanie was clean? AW and all that.

Dixon sure busted out a great race in NYC when he was well past his peak years.

I don't have any reason to think Joan wasn't - she peaked in her late 20's. But I wouldn't vouch for any athlete - particularly with the greater use of blood-doping from the 70's onwards. Rod, I wouldn't know either - but I don't believe he became a better runner in his later years than in his heyday in his 20's. But if you want to cast doubt on them then it isn't going to help your argument that Sara is clean.[/quote]

I want to cast the opposite on them. That slower 5k runners can run a fast Marathon and so can old long time runners.

If Lopes could run fast at 38 then so can Hall.

Coach of besty wrote:

You live in the world of opinions. Many of us like to deal with facts instead. People who constantly provide opinions instead of facts, lose credibility.

That appears to be your opinion, which is characteristic of those selective with the facts - as many here are.

What is apparent from your arguments ( and others here) is that there is no level of performance from an aging athlete that causes you to question whether it is bona fide. You will always find reason to justify it. How much faster does Hall have to run - to improve- before you say - "wait a minute" - and why? You give no indication of that, only an unwavering defence.