There isn't - and you aren't using the same criteria. You haven't followed the thread. You're just blowing air because you're offended at the suspicions levelled at Valby.
Incorrect. I am levelling suspicions at Tuohy, for perfectly legitimate reasons that have been used to judge Valby. And my posts are deleted. Why is that? I'm just asking questions. You believe that Tuohy is clean? Are you 5 years old? Doping occurs in the NCAA, and is more widespread than you think.
Your claim that doping occurs in the NCAA - it does - and that Tuohy is a doper is a non sequitar. The latter does not follow from the former. You have produced nothing to show she is a doper.
Agreed. The problem is that the race is was initially trumpeted as an major outlier when upon anaylsis it wasn't. People pointed to the incomplete NCAA 6k list which made it appear that this was 20 seconds faster than any other 6k result all-time. Turns out it isn''t even the UF record. People also pointed to the LACCTIC rating, but that was confusing. It was not saying that Valby race directly converted to 14:51. It was extrapolating that the race time allegedly reflected the average of what a 14:51 pr runner could run. The problem of course is that inexactitudes aside, there will be sigtnificant overlap. Meaning that if this is the alleged average for a runner with a certain pr, than a runner with a significant lower pr (say 15:20) could potentially run the time in a fast, all out race which Valby clearly ran. LACCTIC readjusted the time to an attempted direct conversion and converted it to 15:10, and I would guess anywhere 15:10 to 15:20 just where Valby's previous times would align. Just as an historical reference, Kelati's 18:58 at the Mountain Regional converted to 14:50 w/ super shoes and a few weeks later with said shoes in tow on the superfast BU track where PRs are expected she ran 15:14 and came in 3rd.
Moreover, just like the famous Trotter 180 SR race factors such as heat and the fact that the second place runner may have conceded the race under those conditions after the gap grew too big could easily skew the result. But using Engel at a reference Valby was almost a minute faster than Engel in the 5000m at Eastern Regionals and was about 35 seconds fatser than Engel despite an alleged fall at XC Nationals, so it lines up normally.
So as I ultimately concluded, there is less here than first met the eye. I admit I am deeply skepitical of UF, fair or not. And when one of their athletes apparently popped off, I said so and enjoyed the argunent too much. But unless Valby suddenly runs 14:50 next season, which I think would be suspicious, I think this was all a severe overreaction clouded by fan wars.
Incorrect. I am levelling suspicions at Tuohy, for perfectly legitimate reasons that have been used to judge Valby. And my posts are deleted. Why is that? I'm just asking questions. You believe that Tuohy is clean? Are you 5 years old? Doping occurs in the NCAA, and is more widespread than you think.
You really are obtuse. Either that, or you are just being disingenuous.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that would suggest Tuouhy isn't clean.
Incorrect. I am levelling suspicions at Tuohy, for perfectly legitimate reasons that have been used to judge Valby. And my posts are deleted. Why is that? I'm just asking questions. You believe that Tuohy is clean? Are you 5 years old? Doping occurs in the NCAA, and is more widespread than you think.
You really are obtuse. Either that, or you are just being disingenuous.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that would suggest Tuouhy isn't clean.
I am using the criteria that individuals like astro and Armstronglivs use to infer doping in college runners. I agree with them
You dismiss all my evidence without refutation. At least attempt to refute it.
It isn't evidence. You haven't offered what I consider facts.
I am using exactly the same set of facts that you use to infer doping in other college athletes. It's quite clear in Tuohy's case. You have cognitive dissonance.
It isn't evidence. You haven't offered what I consider facts.
I am using exactly the same set of facts that you use to infer doping in other college athletes. It's quite clear in Tuohy's case. You have cognitive dissonance.
Your claim that doping occurs in the NCAA - it does - and that Tuohy is a doper is a non sequitar. The latter does not follow from the former. You have produced nothing to show she is a doper.
I have, my posts are being deleted, and dismissed by you. I know you want to believe that your favorite runners are clean, but it's highly unlikely.
Listen, we all agree that Valby is doping, right? Isn't it suspicious that Tuohy could beat such an obvious doper so easily?
Tuohy isn't my "favorite" runner - I don't have them. But you haven't got a case.