We've closed this thread to new posts. Please discuss this topic in a new thread given the fact she just won the race outright in 2023. Does that mean that the 2022 cheating allegations definitely have no merit?
As a pro triathlete she's been consistently tested.
I'm not sure that is accurate. Based on numerous literature I've seen from credible sources, most professional triathletes are rarely tested out of competition. Testing at races is far and few between, although Ironman does have its own testing program.
Ironman is a for-profit business. They mimic testing guidelines from Professional Sport authorities but are not bound by them. Testing is at their "discretion".
I have known many Pro triathletes and do not recall any of them being tested at Ironman events.
FWIW, Paulson is not an athlete registered in Ironman's testing pool:
"It's ridiculous to think that the top runners didn't mess up the pacing WHEN they run the last two segments slower than someone who finished the race 8 hours slower than them"
So we have people who finished the race faster than Paulson, but finished the last two segments slightly slower. We also have people who finished much slower than Paulson, but finished the last two segments faster than her. Both these two scenarios are totally realistic, but somehow Paulson's pace is impossible.
Oh I see, so only if the best runners in the world over this races multi-decade history had known to pace better, they could have gone faster? LOLOLOLOL. I'd argue if Ashley ran that fast at the end, then she went out too slow. Ashley ran over 11 minute miles from Towne's Pass to Darwin (a net ~0 elevation differential), ran over 11 minute miles from Darwin to Lone Pine (a net drop in elevation of about 1,000 feet), but then ran 13:30s up a mountain. She left too much in the tank.
You forgot to mention from TP to DW there is over 3000 elevation change.
There were runners who run slower than Ashley Paulson, but run the last two segments faster than her. It's ridiculous to think that the top runners didn't mess up the pacing if they run the last two segments slower than someone who finished the race 8 hours slower than them. No matter how hard you laugh, it's historic reality written in the archive that those top runners messed up their pacing.
1) There is a drop and gain of elevation between those two for a net almost 0. There isn't a material net elevation change between those 2 points. 2) Comparing someone who also did 13 minute miles the last 4 miles but that took 15 hours longer to do the previous stretch is a near meaningless exercise.
So we have people who finished the race faster than Paulson, but finished the last two segments slightly slower. We also have people who finished much slower than Paulson, but finished the last two segments faster than her. Both these two scenarios are totally realistic, but somehow Paulson's pace is impossible.
I'm lost here.
Because you are purposefully ignoring the context of the data. There were only a couple people in the history of the race who ran faster at the end of the race. One was Pete Kostelnick, a world renowned ultra runner who has run a 14-hour 100 miler like 10 different times. He ran those fast splits after taking an 8 hour break immediately before. Using the split of someone fresh like that is meaningless and you know it (or at least, you should know better).
So we have people who finished the race faster than Paulson, but finished the last two segments slightly slower. We also have people who finished much slower than Paulson, but finished the last two segments faster than her. Both these two scenarios are totally realistic, but somehow Paulson's pace is impossible.
I'm lost here.
Because you are purposefully ignoring the context of the data. There were only a couple people in the history of the race who ran faster at the end of the race. One was Pete Kostelnick, a world renowned ultra runner who has run a 14-hour 100 miler like 10 different times. He ran those fast splits after taking an 8 hour break immediately before. Using the split of someone fresh like that is meaningless and you know it (or at least, you should know better).
I put the data exactly in the context. The context is that there are people who finished the race in 28 hours who ran the last two segments faster than Paulson. Which is definitive proof that the last two segments can be run at Paulson's pace at the end of the 135 race by lesser runners. Thus you don't call those splits IMPOSSIBLE.
She did not run impossible splits. Comparing them to other runners, whether they be good, great or legendary, does not make them impossible. People have run faster and weren't questioned. They prove that the splits are possible. People are looking at them largely absent of considering the weather, whether the athlete did an ultra a week or two before, whether the athlete knew the race was in the bag and walked it in, or even comparing what winners did compared to slower runners in that same years, etc.
If you don't understand what evidence looks like, go to Google and search for "Frank Meza cheating" and then click "images." See the guy jumping in and out of the race and riding a bike? That's evidence.
Because you are purposefully ignoring the context of the data. There were only a couple people in the history of the race who ran faster at the end of the race. One was Pete Kostelnick, a world renowned ultra runner who has run a 14-hour 100 miler like 10 different times. He ran those fast splits after taking an 8 hour break immediately before. Using the split of someone fresh like that is meaningless and you know it (or at least, you should know better).
I put the data exactly in the context. The context is that there are people who finished the race in 28 hours who ran the last two segments faster than Paulson. Which is definitive proof that the last two segments can be run at Paulson's pace at the end of the 135 race by lesser runners. Thus you don't call those splits IMPOSSIBLE.
But what does that "proof" mean? Many of the "lesser runners" may have taken a 6 hour nap, like many competitors do. It seems to me the only comparison worth making is against prior runners who did not take large breaks to refresh. Ashley seemed to run pretty much straight through. Compare her time to those like her. And account for the fact that she got to run in the cooler temps of overnight whereas the legends of the past ran it in daylight.
So what I am ultimately saying is that very few comparisons that have been done so far are likely worthwhile. I am leaning more and more toward she had an incredible race and finished it fair and square. Comparing her time to the ghosts of the past is meaningless.
If she had acted with humility after her past transgressions, I could see why so many people here are defending her, but she didn’t. She excused herself away in each case, and downplayed what she did. To think she wouldn’t try to continue to cut corners to further her career as a coach and influencer is incredibly naive.
I put the data exactly in the context. The context is that there are people who finished the race in 28 hours who ran the last two segments faster than Paulson. Which is definitive proof that the last two segments can be run at Paulson's pace at the end of the 135 race by lesser runners. Thus you don't call those splits IMPOSSIBLE.
But what does that "proof" mean? Many of the "lesser runners" may have taken a 6 hour nap, like many competitors do. It seems to me the only comparison worth making is against prior runners who did not take large breaks to refresh. Ashley seemed to run pretty much straight through. Compare her time to those like her. And account for the fact that she got to run in the cooler temps of overnight whereas the legends of the past ran it in daylight.
So what I am ultimately saying is that very few comparisons that have been done so far are likely worthwhile. I am leaning more and more toward she had an incredible race and finished it fair and square. Comparing her time to the ghosts of the past is meaningless.
Which is a similar point to what you are making.
The "lesser" runner didn't take a 6 hour nap. He was already 3 hour behind by half point, which means he only run the second half about 1 hour slower than Paulson. He was able to finish the final 13 miles faster than Paulson.
Scott Jurek's name has been getting thrown around a lot. It would appear that Scott Jurek responded in favor of Ashley Paulson in the comments to the MI article. That, or it was someone impersonating him.
Highly unlikely that it was Scott. Reputable, established public people, with little to gain and only something to lose by "voting" one way or another, don't stick their necks out.
However, if you want to prevaricate based on the poor side of the odds, nothing to stop you.
To think she wouldn’t try to continue to cut corners to further her career as a coach and influencer is incredibly naive.
But who ever said that she wouldn't? Why would anyone defend against something they never said or a position they never took?
It is immaterial whether she WOULD cut corners to further her career. What matters is whether she DID and can anyone prove it, or are they just spinning their wheels and spewing innuendo.
The point is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that she cheated. There is not a shred of proof. Literally every bit of evidence regarding whether she ran this race fairly weighs in her favor.
To think she wouldn’t try to continue to cut corners to further her career as a coach and influencer is incredibly naive.
But who ever said that she wouldn't? Why would anyone defend against something they never said or a position they never took?
It is immaterial whether she WOULD cut corners to further her career. What matters is whether she DID and can anyone prove it, or are they just spinning their wheels and spewing innuendo.
The point is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that she cheated. There is not a shred of proof. Literally every bit of evidence regarding whether she ran this race fairly weighs in her favor.
There are separate concerns.
1. Taint from drug suspension. I accept, as did USADA, that Paulson inadvertently took Ostarine from a supplement. No "mens rea" (criminal intent) was shown.
2. Course-cutting. This could simply be going off course - which anyone who has raced competitively on roads has certainly done (probably several times). Some think her course cutting for the "1:14" Half was intentional. I don't know. Either way, she did seem to intentionally claim a result she knew to be bogus - until called out. The subsequent Instagram post was laughable and showed her to be a flake. Albeit a talented flake.
3. Badwater Win/CR. Suspicion from some, but without evidence. It seems probable to me no compelling proof of cheating will surface. Result stands and should be celebrated.
The "back" made it look like I literally ran in a straight line down the side of a mountain, thru heavy trees and some cliffs and then thru an apple orchard, thru a house on a property and then past the finish line before coming back thru the finish line.
when this happens it's because you've lost signal or connectivity. the device draws a straight line between the point it last tracked you and the newest data point. if the device has a power saving mode, activity it will often disable or limit the GPS functionality and result in these long straight lines where no data was recorded.
To have someone who at the very end of the race ran significant outlier splits while at a low heart rate (if the data is accurate), wasn't breathing hard in the finish-line video
An ultra isn't the same as a 10k, there shouldn't really be any point in the race you are breathing hard (except maybe going up the hills) because that wouldn't be sustainable for a long duration. Also she probably has a crazy high vo2 max so it would take much more effort to get her to a state of heavy breathing than it would for the average runner.
I am not sure about the heartrate. I have a similar marathon PB to her. In a recent 35k trail race which I placed first my average heartrate was 154 and during a fast final 5k my max HR was 189. Without the finish the average heartrate might have been about 145. Her race is much longer, so she is running at a lower intensity. But for her to run a fast finish with hills, I think her HR should really be higher than the 118 average that she recorded in the last 17 miles. But I don't know the course. If there was a lot of flat and downhills and just a small section of uphill, it's possible.
I don't think you can look at her heart rate data at all given the fact that her watch was turned around and loose. It had to be totally inaccurate.
I have found wearing it on the underside of the wrist to be more accurate, not less, possibly because the veins/arteries are closer to the sensor, I don't know. How do you know the watch was loose?
Like I said with Kip, Oscar Miranda, Rosie and Frank...run something similar just because you were going to anyways---you're a runner and that's why you train.
If she didn't cheat, I'm not saying she did, then just keep on running and that race or one similar will be on her horizons.
If she stops cold turkey, brings up "sudden" health issues, etc...it doesn't mean she cheated, but...it sure doesn't look good. If I ran the race and anything was in question, I'd run it again without hesitation. Oh well, carry on;)
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.