Josh Hoey profile by JG

Agreed. If Hoey's dad is willing to go to such extreme lengths as buying $2.8 million worth of land and spending another $1 million+ to build him a track, then it's not a stretch for people to suspect his dad would also procure PEDs for him. Someone dropping from a 1:47 PB to 1:43 at age 24 should raise questions. At the same time, someone stagnating for 5 years after running 1:47 at age 18 should also raise questions regarding the lack of improvement. Gault's article provides good info. As readers and knowledgeable fans of the sport, we can decide what to make of it.

Why? You actually feel bad for this guy? He's a rich kid who gets to do whatever he wants, and until six months ago he was a failure. Give me a break.

I feel sad for Hoey because of how poor of a parenting job he and his brothers seem to be getting. Throwing money at your kids and trying to make their lives as easy as possible doesn't make you a good parent. It's embarrassing for all of this to be out in the open because of how crazy it makes them all seem.

That said, I'd have no sympathy for Hoey if he gets caught doping.

Doper or not, Hoey is obviously a diva after running thru all those coaches. Plus the wealth.

I don't know that that's necessarily the case. You could be taking a small percentage of total assets and just have a lot of clients (or a few very, very rich ones). With all due respect, the upside is a lot higher for a financial advisor than a doctor.

Personally I can't imagine hiring a financial advisor because I know enough and have enough free time to take care of it myself, but I can easily see how a rich business owner who has to spend his time worrying about his own business would be happy to pay 1% of assets per year to have someone else take care of his finances. And there are a lot of people like that out there, so it doesn't surprise me that there are some very wealthy financial advisors.

That said, the dad definitely comes off as a bit tough to work with. At least he's honest about it.

JG was also super excited by those best workouts ever from Kiprop some 10 years ago, and he was an avid defender of Houlihan and Asinga even after they tested positive and got banned. Same goes for the owners here. Gaslighting is a good term for that, all for $$$.

The father and the kids are out of their mind. The entitlement begins with the rich father. He seems to have no control and I guess that is what money can buy you. Maybe it will also buy them an Olympic medal. I will not cheer for this lot. May even cheer against them.

Great story. I had to dig up his firm's AUM to get an idea:

This should be accurate, and they've done pretty well and probably have <10 employees. https://fintel.io/i/hoey-investments-inc

The firm could easily be raking in $8-10m a year on a 1% fee and that doesn't include additional performance fees (not sure whether they charge clients this in good years). Even if half of it goes to Fran, it's not too difficult to afford a $2.8m track and a $1m house.

Right. Even from the JG piece, I don't really get the sense that it was any of the five coaches fault that Josh was stagnating. It seems more of an Allan Webb case where he is stubborn, doesn't listen to his coaches, expects immediate results, and when he doesn't get what he wants he jumps ship and blames everyone else.

The one coaching situation where it does not sound like Josh Hoey's fault is with the Akron coach Lee Labadie. It seems like circumstances with the COVID shutdowns were such that Labadie basically had to make a choice. You can't blame Josh for circumstances, but every other case sounds like Josh's fault that it didn't work out.

I assume LA 2028 is the end game, although making other teams is important of course.

Even with the recent success, I don’t see Hoey enjoying sustained success like the example cited, Boris Berian. There’s just too much competition in the 800 in the U.S. and globally.

I mean Berian being an example of someone who also had success in a limited amount of time.

It really is and it's insulting that they think we non-ivy league non-rich plebian message board posters are just so dumb and beneath their intellects that we can't see the truth about Athletics for what it is. Down at the bottom, they are afraid that if they voice the same skepticism for Hoey and others that the rest of us have, that will make the sport look like a rigged game with not one clean pro athlete (which is what it actually is). They know once enough people realize this, the fan base will shrink and shrink and as a result they will; lose Letsrun subscribers, then message board posters, and then advertisers before having to file for bankruptcy. So they have to pretend that when an obvious drug cheat like Josh Hoey comes along (who is so obviously a drug cheat that he could wear a red t-shirt stating, "I'm a Drug Cheat" and nobody would be surprised) that he's not one and attribute every other excuse under the sun to his rapid rise of success. It's just sad.

Doping is always an explanation for performance. But the gap between 1:47 and 1:43 can easily be injuries. You can go count the times someone ran a 1:44 and the next year they don’t break 1:47 cause of injuries. The reverse can also happen.

How many doping allegations did Jewett get from going from 1:47.12 to 1:43.85 in one year? What about a 27 year old Hoppel going from 1:43.95(fastest time in 3 year) to 1.41.67 ?

Personally I think all the pro picked up 1-1.5s by hoping on the bicarb train over the past couple years which makes the gains from nailing training after bit smaller.

The other thing is how many other 24 year old can keep going? If I am a 22 year old who just ran 1:47.5 and maybe qualified for the NCAA but not the finals. What are the chances I can get someone to subsidize me for 2 more years to chase my dreams? It makes it hard to know what is the normal range of progression.

I didn't say I feel bad for Josh Hoey (although I do feel sympathy for the younger version, 3 high schools, a private coach who is a heck of a nice guy who is no longer part of the family friend circle, etc.). What makes me sad is that so much money was spent on this, and there's still no good explanation for the mysterious 6 second drop. I feel sad about the sport in general after reading this. Boris Berian worked at McDonald's to keep his dream alive. This ridiculous level of investment is not good for the sport in general.

Pretty obvious these guys were not shopping around for coaching but for doping.

Probably noticed Rinaldi when Bol got popped.

So much jealousy of people with money in this thread. Every one of the complainers would kill their own mothers for a seven figure winning lottery ticket, but if someone else has money they are bad. Your bolshevik media and cluless teachers has done a great job of brainwashing. It’s hilarious.

Didnt he go from 1.47 to 1.42 or something? thats just ridiculous.

Whether or not you think Hoey is dirty, the jump from 1:47 to 1:43 is less of a jump and more of races catching up to training and natural ability. Not even a strong drug cocktail is worth 4 seconds in the 800, especially not in 1 year. Try doping up a handful of NCAA 1:47 guys and you won't see a Hoey story because Hoey was not a regular 1:47 guy.

If you told me a 1:47 high schooler would run 1:43 that makes sense. To some the stagnation makes this look more suspicious but to me it's 5 years of improving different stimulus. Each coach was likely improving a different part of Hoey (Threshold, aerobic power, anerobic power, top-end speed, etc) but not striking the right balance needed to translate that to an 800m race. Part of this is him not sticking with a coach for more than 1 season as he would have likely been an official 1:45 guy earlier.

Looking forward to him being tested more and still having success

Your first point is valid.

Your second point is assumptive. We don't know that Jewett and Hoppel were not doping. They may have been and just not have been caught.

Your third point is your ballpark opinion without concrete scientific evidence.

Your fourth point is speculative, but either way involves some kind of theoretical objective standard of progress which may or may not exist and ignores the subjective progressive of each individual. Individuals may vary to such a degree that there is no exterior normal range of progress.