Cross training isn't optimal. Come on. You know that. But Valby is more talented than the competition. She is a future 14:20 performer as she slowly increases her training.
So she is so talented she can make huge improvements and thrash the opposition on less than optimal training? (I guess with the right training she could have beaten 18 mins in her last xc race). Apart from those improvements what are you basing the claim on about her vastly superior talent?
Because on this subject it is always alleged talent. Point out that an athlete's progression does not seem natural, and the default response is always "well they are just so talented that they can." So if say an athlete comes back from injury and significantly prs in the high 15:30s, then two weeks later prs again in the high 15:20s, then two weeks later prs again at 15:20, it is because the athlete must have the intrinsic natural ability to run 15:00 and they are undertrained. The same circular logic every time.
That is the claim about Tuohy. She was so good so young because she is the most talented runner ever. Now we see what you are saying.
I will ask again, since Valby is so talented, and from what I hear did a lot of swimming before she began running so she had some fitness, why did it take her so long to run times Tuohy ran when she first left the soccer field in the 7th grade? I just don't understand. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but why was she initially so much slower than the 7th grade Tuohy?
Because on this subject it is always alleged talent. Point out that an athlete's progression does not seem natural, and the default response is always "well they are just so talented that they can." So if say an athlete comes back from injury and significantly prs in the high 15:30s, then two weeks later prs again in the high 15:20s, then two weeks later prs again at 15:20, it is because the athlete must have the intrinsic natural ability to run 15:00 and they are undertrained. The same circular logic every time.
In my view, Tuohy is a real outlier in terms of progression. I don't understand why she's the yard stick of "natural progression". The VAST majority of talented young female distance runners do not survive the transition to adult running. It's a bit strange how Tuohy has navigated it so smoothly, and raises a few questions.
It has been pointed out already that Valby's progress is similar to other elite Americans while Tuohy's is different than all others. Track Monson or Schwrizer then track Ping or Cain. Tuohy is highly suspicious.
That is the claim about Tuohy. She was so good so young because she is the most talented runner ever. Now we see what you are saying.
I will ask again, since Valby is so talented, and from what I hear did a lot of swimming before she began running so she had some fitness, why did it take her so long to run times Tuohy ran when she first left the soccer field in the 7th grade? I just don't understand. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but why was she initially so much slower than the 7th grade Tuohy?
I don't know why you think that everyone progresses at the same rate at the same time. Look at Abdihamed Nur; he was a nobody in high school and his first couple years for NAU, but look at him now. Is he doping too? Look at Yared Nuguse as well.
Tuohy's progression is NOT the norm, especially for girls.
Monson, Schweizer, Wayment, all must be doping. Reed Fischer. Matt Carmody. Bob Liking. All except a 7th grade girl who is the fastest of all time just because she is named Tuohy. No. Even with those broad shoulders and muscular thighs which are not the norm for runners at her level.
It is not uncommon for a girl to make the big jumps Valby is making just by changing diet. Google Valby and it is clear to see she was a heavier girl in her early high school years. She has shed that weight and is now very fast. One look at her parents and you can see she comes from extremely strong and athletic genetics.
Valby will win and it won't be close. She drops everyone during the 2nd mile.