Yes, they should - and you would fail it. There was no recording of Webb at the 1600 mark, as he was running a mile. Secondly, you have no idea whether he was slowing at the end of the race as his pace may well have been faster then than in the 2nd and 3rd laps. Even so, there is no way it would have taken him 2.4 secs to cover the last 9m - unless he was on all fours. You are wrong - as you are with everything else.
um, so what is your insinuation? I'm too focking lazy to go up and read through all of the drivel.
I guess my insinuation is that since her injury was senior year in hs going into freshman year in college it had nothing to do with her progression from freshman year of hs to sophomore year of hs.
Typically when girls "physically mature" it does not make them faster.(quote)
You are joking. If they are still training and competing during that phase of their development they will almost all get faster. How do you explain they are immeasurably faster when they fully mature, as adults? Just doping?
Yes. Tuohy's progression is the benchmark. Every other type of progression has to be due to doping. I guess 99% of runners are doping.
That isn't the claim. But some athletes make much greater performance jumps than others. Such exceptions will naturally raise the question of how did they do it. Wiley is clearly one such.
Typically when girls "physically mature" it does not make them faster.(quote)
You are joking. If they are still training and competing during that phase of their development they will almost all get faster. How do you explain they are immeasurably faster when they fully mature, as adults? Just doping?
When boys hit puberty, they get a natural surge of testosterone. This is very helpful, and they can often improve their performances just off of this alone.
Girls may get a bit stronger, but often these changes are detrimental. They do not have the same surge of testosterone. Of course there are exceptions, but perhaps these exceptions are chemically aided in some cases, hmmm?
Yes. Tuohy's progression is the benchmark. Every other type of progression has to be due to doping. I guess 99% of runners are doping.
That isn't the claim. But some athletes make much greater performance jumps than others. Such exceptions will naturally raise the question of how did they do it. Wiley is clearly one such.
Exceptions from what? I can say from experience that a linear progression (especially for girls) is the exception.
You are being willfully obtuse. That 1600m was both a massive pr and an anomalous time, and occurred in the context of the HU scandal, with her mentor pacing the race. And in the context of all her prior times, it was out of nowhere.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
You are being willfully obtuse. That 1600m was both a massive pr and an anomalous time, and occurred in the context of the HU scandal, with her mentor pacing the race.
Ok, my point in general is that using a high schooler's progression to identify doping makes very little sense. Wiley's progression is nowhere near the strangest progression I've seen. From my perspective, she was fast as a freshman, improved a bit her Sophomore and Junior years, and made a jump in Senior year. Hardly unprecedented.
Typically when girls "physically mature" it does not make them faster.(quote)
You are joking. If they are still training and competing during that phase of their development they will almost all get faster. How do you explain they are immeasurably faster when they fully mature, as adults? Just doping?
When boys hit puberty, they get a natural surge of testosterone. This is very helpful, and they can often improve their performances just off of this alone.
Girls may get a bit stronger, but often these changes are detrimental. They do not have the same surge of testosterone. Of course there are exceptions, but perhaps these exceptions are chemically aided in some cases, hmmm?
Boys gain greater improvements through maturation but most female athletes will improve, too. If it were not so you would see no gains in female performances through college to when they become seniors and compete in their twenties, including those who become professionals.
When someone is suddenly able to run not just a massive pr but more importantly a crazy time that none of her prior results even suggested (it was several seconds faster than any other high school1600m ever run), that raises suspicions in itself. But then you add the context. That was not a mere "jump".
That isn't the claim. But some athletes make much greater performance jumps than others. Such exceptions will naturally raise the question of how did they do it. Wiley is clearly one such.
Exceptions from what? I can say from experience that a linear progression (especially for girls) is the exception.
You are being obtuse. The exceptions are those who make jumps in performance that far exceed those of most of their peers.
That is the most circular argument ever. Every athlete started out at zero. To run 14:30, they improved from nothing to 14:30. You are still focusing on linear improvement. Nobody improves like that. Every single athlete made a few big jumps.
Exceptions from what? I can say from experience that a linear progression (especially for girls) is the exception.
You are being obtuse. The exceptions are those who make jumps in performance that far exceed those of most of their peers.
Ok, maybe this will be helpful. Let's say that a highschooler (girl) runs 4:26 in her Senior year. What would be a "normal" progression in the preceding 3 years?