seems to me a lot of people have beaten tuohy. i can't remember anyone EVER accusing chelangat, roe, wayment, chmiel, or the 14 women who beat her in the NCAA xc finals last year of doping. you are the one that is obsessed with tuohy, admit it. it is unhealthy.
In 2019 Valby ran 10:10 for 3200 while Chmiel only ran 10:15. Roe only ran 10:18 in 2019.
So Valby was literally faster than those runners in 2019, so how could her progression be "anomalous"???
It seems LINEAR to everyone with a brain.
And how many years prior had Chmiel and Roe been running up to then, and how good was their training? It is difficult to make comparisons even having all of that info, so his ‘anomalous’ argument is obviously bullocks, yet he just keeps hammering it and hammering it like it’s something.
I write about doping all the time. Someone suddenly runs a crazy rated time, has an anomalous progression, shows certain odd but predictable performance patterns, has other red flags, it is going to be evaluated. Deflect and flak all you want.
Your premise is that since Tuohy was the fastest 7th grader in USA history, anyone who EVER beats Tuohy has by definition had an "anomalous progression" and thus deserves to be smeared as a doper.
In your mind there is no possibility that a more talented runner exists. Since Tuohy was faster as a 12 year old anyone that surpasses Tuohy must be a doper.
That isn't the premise. It's your straw man. You haven't followed the argument.
You do realize this is exactly the type of drivel we would see on the Houlihan threads, that she was this magical late bloomer, that her progression was natural, that she was "undertrained", that her late=bloomerism allowed her to have higher plateaus, that fans of other runners were jealous, etc? Even you don't buy that. Far more likely her supposed, sudden "generational" talent is synthetic.
What houlihan threads? Produce one. I’ll be waiting.
They/he are not making an argument, just throwing up a lame smokscreen.
To simplify it, if you suddenly run a dope suspected time after an already suspect, rapid progression after already suspect physical changes, you get scrutinized for doping. And then if your coach turns out to be knee deep in the BTC doping machine, you really get scrutinized, as it should be.
No the LRC threads were not near like this until the toohy’s showed up for purposes of trying to secure a future contract for their pride and joy.
Your deflection gives you away. Your arguments are weak. This thread has always been about Valby not Tuohy. But you are trying to make it about her. Sorry - it doesn't work.
You do realize this is exactly the type of drivel we would see on the Houlihan threads, that she was this magical late bloomer, that her progression was natural, that she was "undertrained", that her late=bloomerism allowed her to have higher plateaus, that fans of other runners were jealous, etc? Even you don't buy that. Far more likely her supposed, sudden "generational" talent is synthetic.
What houlihan threads? Produce one. I’ll be waiting.
You really have revealed yourself as utterly uninformed - and not just on Valby. Houlihan has been the subject of several threads on this site, that have gone into hundreds of posts. You know she was busted for doping - right? You have embarrassed yourself.
They/he are not making an argument, just throwing up a lame smokscreen.
To simplify it, if you suddenly run a dope suspected time after an already suspect, rapid progression after already suspect physical changes, you get scrutinized for doping. And then if your coach turns out to be knee deep in the BTC doping machine, you really get scrutinized, as it should be.
We did scrutinize, and it was found wanting.
You lost. You might as well get used to it if you wish to continue acting the Jack-ass.
So you believe her drop to 9:09 and diamond league level time was a normal progression? Hard to tell what you think a normal progression looks like based on your posts.
LOLL. Ok. The burning bush has spoken. How about: "You made a coherent argument, I cannot refute it or deflect it, I am strangely invested in not believing it, I show no knowledge of the doping history of the sport, but if I declare victory I win." Cool. You win. :)
I said produce the thread with all of the ‘apologists spiel’ Astro was making up. But that concept was obviously too deep for you. Figures, you have basically one punch line here, and it goes like this: “Doping, doping, they’re all doping! See? See? Waahaahaa!”
I said produce the thread with all of the ‘apologists spiel’ Astro was making up. But that concept was obviously too deep for you. Figures, you have basically one punch line here, and it goes like this: “Doping, doping, they’re all doping! See? See? Waahaahaa!”
Every Houlihan thread was full of apologists' spiel. You've clearly read none of them and indeed weren't even aware the threads existed. You have been living in a cave.