Keira D'amato is Suspicious

Grassrunner wrote:

This is really an unfair argument because if she's clean that never can be proven. Only doping can be proven.

If she were doping, is this something she can reasonably do completely on her own with no assistance, instruction or guidance? Wouldn't there be a high likelihood that someone behind the scenes is in on this with her? If so, would it likely have to be someone well versed in the methodology? If so, who else are you suspicious of? Does this person have a history of suspicious activity in working with suspected dopers?

I wouldn't know who would be assisting her. What I do know is that the incidence of athletes today caught doping is a mere fraction of those reliably estimated to be doping. It isn't a problem getting away with it.

I am reminded of this watching the current Australian Tennis Open. Players - of both sexes and of every age - are faster and more powerful than ever and mostly tireless, even in the extraordinary heat. Every point is a sprint - in matches that last for hours. A few years ago there was a lot of speculation about doping in the sport. It has been officially recognised as a likely doping offender and was listed high up there by the Al Jazeera doco on sports doping a couple of years ago. Yet I can't recall the last time a tennis player was busted.

Anti-doping in sports is mere window-dressing now, to persuade the fans they are watching "clean" sport. Dopers are way ahead of the game. We can only speculate that athletes like D'Amato may be doping because it is unlikely they will ever be caught if they are. But I have followed sports for nearly 6 decades. It is pretty obvious to me what I'm seeing - and has been so for several decades.

Jo72 wrote:

15:00 males running slower than 2:30 or so never really trained properly for marathon. (Cf. Zatopek and other runners in the 1950s with comparably horrible marathon times because they ran this off their 5/10k training.)

This does not help for comparison, because it is the opposite situation.

As Ultra and triathlon shows, women are relatively better at longer distances (or put differently, relatively slower at track events). Therefore a ~16:00 woman can run 2:30 marathon or even faster.

Nevertheless, D'amato is still a bit of an outlier for women, both in the actual time run, in the improvement margins at 35-37 yo and in the marathon time compared to track or shorter distance times. The first and last point are not that extraordinary in the last few years, maybe partly because of the supershoes and more money to be made with road races/marathons.

Women like D'Amato are running times comparable to top males in the '60's like Olympic bronze medallist Barry Magee. He was in the Lydiard stable and typically trained 100mpw - at least as hard as these women - and was also a 13.36 runner over 5k, which was just off the then wr. It isn't only talent, training and shoes that have enabled women to catch up.

10.30 for 3200m was "insane" in HS? If we go back to the late '70's and early 80's I doubt Mary Decker or Zola Budd would have been impressed at that age - if we are actually talking about talent showing itself early.

someone wrote:

"IMO, the shoes explain the jump we see with Hall's road racing times."

How does that explain her performance at Berlin in 2:22:16 in traditional flats before Asics had a supershoe? She claims to have not been wearing a carbon plated shoe there.

If shoes were shown to do what EPO does they would have been banned.

What this thread reveals is that if a 37 year-old hadn't suddenly become the fastest American woman marathon runner we would never have known of her existence, because until very recently nothing in her previous competitive record lifts her out of the ordinary. If it is believable it goes hand in hand with miracles.

Armstronglivs wrote:

What this thread reveals is that if a 37 year-old hadn't suddenly become the fastest American woman marathon runner we would never have known of her existence, because until very recently nothing in her previous competitive record lifts her out of the ordinary. If it is believable it goes hand in hand with miracles.

Bingo

Doping in tennis is rampant, and they don’t care to catch it. I don’t think there is a single elite tennis player that isn’t doping. It’s the only way they can hold up to 5-set, 4-hour matches every 2 days in the summer heat without breaking down.

Armstronglivs wrote:

What this thread reveals is that if a 37 year-old hadn't suddenly become the fastest American woman marathon runner we would never have known of her existence, because until very recently nothing in her previous competitive record lifts her out of the ordinary. If it is believable it goes hand in hand with miracles.

The only reason you didn't know of Keira's existence is because you weren't following the sport when she was competing. Everybody knew who she was. Sixth at NCAAs is not "ordinary" by any stretch of the imagination. Her collegiate performance puts her solidly in the company of many of the best American road runners of the last 20 years. Head-to-head, she would've beaten Deena in XC the year Deena finished second, as collegiate running was much less competitive back then. Sure, you wouldn't have picked Keira out of a crowd of similarly accomplished athletes as the one likely to run 2:19, but you also wouldn't have picked Deena, Sara Hall, Huddle, or Rowbury to set ARs either, and they all did it. If Keira had competed for a decade after college so that everyone got used to hearing her name, nobody would say it's a "miracle" for her to set an AR. I'm curious, if Caroline Bierbaum had gotten back into running in her early 30s and set an AR, would that have been a "miracle"?

Basically, you can look at collegiate runners as falling into three categories. There are the ones who are so good that they seem destined for greatness. On the women's side in recent years, that's like Molly Seidel, Sally Kipyego, and Jenny Simpson. Maybe one or two others. Then there's the big pool of All-American caliber athletes who end up filling most of the ranks of professionals and Olympians. Only a small minority of these actually make it to that level, but it's pretty hard to know ex ante which ones will. Joanie, Deena, Huddle, and Hall all fall into this category. The third category is those who demonstrate during college, that they almost certainly lack the talent to be professional. That's most of the NCAA. Keira falls into that second category. She, specifically, wasn't likely to set an AR, but it was likely that the AR would be set by someone who had been at roughly her level in college because the number of athletes who were head and shoulders better than her is incredibly small.

If you asked me to name a 6th place finisher at NCAAs for literally any year since they kept track, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.

It’s like asking who had the 6th best record in the MLB last season. Who gives an eff?

Armstronglivs wrote:

What this thread reveals is that if a 37 year-old hadn't suddenly become the fastest American woman marathon runner we would never have known of her existence, because until very recently nothing in her previous competitive record lifts her out of the ordinary. If it is believable it goes hand in hand with miracles.

Color me jaded, but if it is too good to be true then it usually isn't.

37 years old, no noteworthy results in the last few years and now suddenly breaks the AR that withstood the onslaughts of the likes of Desi, Shalane, Hasay and Sara Hall??? Yeah right.

I agree with your conclusion 100%. It could be possible that her congenital left foot deformity (tarsal coalition) held her back performance-wise even when healthy although unless she ran with a limp I'd doubt that. It certainly held her progress back as her related injuries became an issue prior to her having the surgery.

So I guess I don't agree with you on that she never tried in her early days, but that she simply couldn't build on her college record to her potential due to the foot issues.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The one thing you can count on is that doping has continued to develop just as much as the rest of sport. It is big business world-wide. There is no way that we can conclude that it hasn't found a way to aid marathon runners, particularly when we see top runners using it, and when we see it increases aerobic efficiency in so many other sports. We know that doping in its variety of forms can benefit every kind of competitor, in terms of enhancing speed, stamina, strength, recovery and mental focus. The only information we don't have is exactly how much it benefits any given athlete, because no elite dopers volunteer to be research subjects.

For someone who didn't want to write a book, this looks like another reading from the Gospel according to Armstronglivs -- heavy on faith and light on details.

It doesn't answer any question I raised.

Nothing will. You prefer it that way.

You've just made an argument that without her recent efforts she would have been an averagely good college athlete known only to other college athletes. I doubt that she would have made professional at that level. Then we see at the advanced age of 37 she becomes the fastest woman marathoner in America. Two different universes.

She was a four time All-American, and eleven time Patriot League Champion, and was pro for 3 years.

rekrunner wrote:

She was a four time All-American, and eleven time Patriot League Champion, and was pro for 3 years.

That sounds impressive but it turns out it was no faster than 16.10 or thereabouts for the 5k. Are we predicting world class on the back of that?

It is interesting to see the contrast between the threads that discuss the rise of a remarkable talent like Athing Mu, who is already an Olympic champion at college age, and this thread in which virtually no one here would know of a certain college runner were it not that at nearly twice Mu's age she suddenly becomes the fastest American in her event - and almost literally left the couch to do it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

She was a four time All-American, and eleven time Patriot League Champion, and was pro for 3 years.

That sounds impressive but it turns out it was no faster than 16.10 or thereabouts for the 5k. Are we predicting world class on the back of that?

Let's not move the goalposts.

You were predicting "making professional" - another prediction made without any regard to historical fact back here in the real world.

You said: "I doubt that she would have made professional at that level."

Turns out your prediction was wrong. At that level, she did make professional.