Of course she's suspicious,but as she's a middle class white American she'll get a pass off most in here,bit like Houlihan did.
Of course she's suspicious,but as she's a middle class white American she'll get a pass off most in here,bit like Houlihan did.
One test in both 2020 and 2021
Actual, practicing First Amendment lawyer here.
The statement isn't libel. Not even close. We don't even need to get into whether Keira is a public figure under NY Times v. Sullivan because the statement isn't "false" when taken in context. There's a huge amount of caselaw about why you need to take the full context of a statement to determine whether it's an opinion or a statement of fact. As other posters pointed out, the OP is drawing a conclusion based on publicly available facts. If he purported to have first hand knowledge that Keira was a cheater, (e.g., "I saw her take drugs," "she told me she takes drugs," or "USADA covered up a positive test") that would be an objective statement of fact that we could evaluate for truth of falsity.
The OP would have no trouble getting representation in most states because anti-SLAPP laws would guarantee that his attorney's fees would have to be covered by the plaintiff who brought the frivolous suit.
Setting that issue aside, I don't much care for the OP's approach. Speculation is natural, particularly when stories are surprising. But let's not pretend that anyone can "just tell" whether someone is doping. We all have our personal lists of red flags, but our gut instincts are not highly reliable, proven scientific tools. I'd much rather people say, "these circumstances make me suspicious," than "so-and-so is so effing dirty."
As for Keira specifically, I happen to think she's clean, though I'll admit I'm not unbiased in this matter. I don't base my opinion on any assessment of her character because, while I think that doping is unethical, I think that generally good people still do bad things. My assessment is based more on the very early days of her comeback. She wasn't running world class times yet, but she was very, very quickly doing stuff that other elite women I have known (people who made US teams) absolutely could not do without much more training than Keira had under her belt at the time. I find it implausible that someone would be doping at that stage, when still just getting back into the swing of things with stated goals that were, in retrospect, truly pedestrian.
havetoaskthesequestions wrote:
One test in both 2020 and 2021
If that's true, that is awful.
Notime wrote:
Update for LRC: D'Amato was drug tested after the race.
LOL, yes, but almost nobody runs a race right after doping.
FYI, her USADA tests, including "all in and out-of-competition":
2019: 0
2020: 1 (15:08 5K, 1:08 half marathon, 2:22 marathon)
2021: 1 (32:16 10,000 m, 2:28 marathon)
Notime wrote:
Let's wait for the results because, remember, as Schumacher and Houlihan and Flanagan and Goucher have argued, the "tests are so sophisticated now that they pick up everything, incriminating the innocents."
Goucher, really?
In any case: Shelburito's whopping 5.8 ng/ml would have been picked up in the last century too.
havetoaskthesequestions wrote:
One test in both 2020 and 2021
Indeed - sorry, saw your post too late.
Unfortunately, we no longer know how any laws work anymore. For all we know, accusations = hate speech nowadays unless the accusations come from protected victim class then it is perceived as Fact even without any evidence.
HorchataConFartons wrote:
I'd expect her to be clean as a whistle for the race. To go into a race with drugs in your system is the most amateur thing you can do. A well-elaborated doping plan will get you clean to races.
Would love to know how many tests she's undergone in the build-up for this marathon...
Once in 2021 and once in 2020. That’s it.
Barry Badrinath wrote:
HorchataConFartons wrote:
I'd expect her to be clean as a whistle for the race. To go into a race with drugs in your system is the most amateur thing you can do. A well-elaborated doping plan will get you clean to races.
Would love to know how many tests she's undergone in the build-up for this marathon...
Once in 2021 and once in 2020. That’s it.
If I were an elite athlete, I would pay to get tested very often to make sure there's no doubt I'm clean. There's no way we can state that she is clean.
800 dude wrote:
Actual, practicing First Amendment lawyer here.
The statement isn't libel. Not even close. We don't even need to get into whether Keira is a public figure under NY Times v. Sullivan because the statement isn't "false" when taken in context. There's a huge amount of caselaw about why you need to take the full context of a statement to determine whether it's an opinion or a statement of fact. As other posters pointed out, the OP is drawing a conclusion based on publicly available facts. If he purported to have first hand knowledge that Keira was a cheater, (e.g., "I saw her take drugs," "she told me she takes drugs," or "USADA covered up a positive test") that would be an objective statement of fact that we could evaluate for truth of falsity.
The OP would have no trouble getting representation in most states because anti-SLAPP laws would guarantee that his attorney's fees would have to be covered by the plaintiff who brought the frivolous suit.
Setting that issue aside, I don't much care for the OP's approach. Speculation is natural, particularly when stories are surprising. But let's not pretend that anyone can "just tell" whether someone is doping. We all have our personal lists of red flags, but our gut instincts are not highly reliable, proven scientific tools. I'd much rather people say, "these circumstances make me suspicious," than "so-and-so is so effing dirty."
As for Keira specifically, I happen to think she's clean, though I'll admit I'm not unbiased in this matter. I don't base my opinion on any assessment of her character because, while I think that doping is unethical, I think that generally good people still do bad things. My assessment is based more on the very early days of her comeback. She wasn't running world class times yet, but she was very, very quickly doing stuff that other elite women I have known (people who made US teams) absolutely could not do without much more training than Keira had under her belt at the time. I find it implausible that someone would be doping at that stage, when still just getting back into the swing of things with stated goals that were, in retrospect, truly pedestrian.
Oh please. Almost no one is a "practicing First Amendment Attorney" More likely you are a 1L who took con law and has time to kill
It is a given that a previously mediocre talent who rises meteorically to the top of the sport while approaching middle age has depended on modern science to do so.
800 dude wrote:
Actual, practicing First Amendment lawyer here.
The statement isn't libel. Not even close. We don't even need to get into whether Keira is a public figure under NY Times v. Sullivan because the statement isn't "false" when taken in context. There's a huge amount of caselaw about why you need to take the full context of a statement to determine whether it's an opinion or a statement of fact. As other posters pointed out, the OP is drawing a conclusion based on publicly available facts. If he purported to have first hand knowledge that Keira was a cheater, (e.g., "I saw her take drugs," "she told me she takes drugs," or "USADA covered up a positive test") that would be an objective statement of fact that we could evaluate for truth of falsity.
The OP would have no trouble getting representation in most states because anti-SLAPP laws would guarantee that his attorney's fees would have to be covered by the plaintiff who brought the frivolous suit.
Setting that issue aside, I don't much care for the OP's approach. Speculation is natural, particularly when stories are surprising. But let's not pretend that anyone can "just tell" whether someone is doping. We all have our personal lists of red flags, but our gut instincts are not highly reliable, proven scientific tools. I'd much rather people say, "these circumstances make me suspicious," than "so-and-so is so effing dirty."
As for Keira specifically, I happen to think she's clean, though I'll admit I'm not unbiased in this matter. I don't base my opinion on any assessment of her character because, while I think that doping is unethical, I think that generally good people still do bad things. My assessment is based more on the very early days of her comeback. She wasn't running world class times yet, but she was very, very quickly doing stuff that other elite women I have known (people who made US teams) absolutely could not do without much more training than Keira had under her belt at the time. I find it implausible that someone would be doping at that stage, when still just getting back into the swing of things with stated goals that were, in retrospect, truly pedestrian.
Thanks for the clear rationality! Good to see anywhere, and an oasis here.
She beat Molly Huddle, Amy Hastings, Shannon Rowbury and Jenny Simpson at 2005 NCAA cross. I guess they all turned out to be pretty good runners.
Zweeg813 wrote:
So the Marathon Project doesn’t count?
Or top 15 at the Trials in Atlanta?
So what’s this about “no resume”?
2:23 at the marathon project, and 15th (2:34) at the trials… That’s a “proven” resume to you?
What’s next… Chris Derrick breaking the American record in the marathon?
Yep. A change in form and late career PRs are a red flag. For people who say this is too cynical, well this is the state of the sport and every other endurance sport. You have a magic pill that can make you into a champion that is almost impossible to detect where fans will grasp at plausible or implausible deniability. We have alleged genetic predispositions or old standbys like clean living or culture. On the US side we see a lot about how an athlete was allegedly "low mileage" in high school and college. I have no idea if a particular athlete dopes. But I don't live under a rock either.
That is not true because if a runner really does well, especially surprisingly well, they are going to be eviscerated on LRC whether they are clean or not.
Unfortunately, in our sport, there will always be a large portion of us that are skeptical of any records, let alone those that come under atypical situations - peaking at a much later age than most of their peers, doing so without the same rest/recovery cycles of other athletes, large gaps in training, etc. And while some might make the argument that combined, they might help to explain this late career surge, they also should raise an eyebrow in a sport where too many elites and their records are the result of performance enhancing drugs.
As one other comment detailed, while she did set the American record, she is still 22nd in the world. So it isn't a stretch to say the US record is perhaps vulnerable to someone breaking it, even if they were a former standout, took a large break from the sport, and became involved in it at this later date. Given technology has improved in both areas of recovery and shoes, those factors all could play into it.
Furthermore, what serious attempts have elite American women made toward the marathon record since the advent of the super shoe? Or have more of their races been about placing or conducted on courses not necessarily known for fast results.
Her story is great and can be inspiring, but I think we've all been burned before by an inspirational story that proved fraudulent. I am hoping that is not the case here, but as with anything in this sport, I am no longer surprised when someone fails a test, and there is no one in the sport that I would be absolutely surprised if they were revealed to be a cheat.
gobluesasquatch wrote:
Unfortunately, in our sport, there will always be a large portion of us that are skeptical of any records, let alone those that come under atypical situations - peaking at a much later age than most of their peers, doing so without the same rest/recovery cycles of other athletes, large gaps in training, etc.
Thankfully the sport will just fine, better in fact, when these skeptics are gone. Popular sports don’t look at every result and question whether or not someone took different vitamins than someone else.
Are there forums right now questioning whether the 49ers doped in order to beat the Cowboys? No. In all likelihood, all of those guys are taking things that we would call “doping” in running, but people don’t care because it doesn’t matter.
Biggest doper in history was white Jim Ryun - yeah like sure he could run 3:55 on cinder track. Not believable. Doping.
Elite woman's athletics are suspicious as a group.
Sara (Bei) Hall ran 16:55 for 5k to win 2000 Footlockers at age 17. That's 5:25 mile pace. Nearly twenty years later she is able to run 5:09 pace for a half marathon and 5:20 pace for a full marathon.
By comparison Ritz ran 14:35 at 4:40 pace that same Footlockers and was effectively out of the sport by 2016. For his lifetime bests he managed 4:35 pace for a half and 4:50 pace for the marathon.
Yes, there is some supershoes benefit going on with recent results but many elite woman progress in ways that don't make biological sense.
The same can be said for the progression of 11.3 100 meter sprinters, (Richardson), 4:4x milers-( Houlihan), 2:10 800 runners (Grace) , and on and on.
I'm not saying that elite men are clean. It's just that the effects of doping are more dramatic with women.