Addy Wiley racing Diamond League final?

That is as delusional as the old Houlihan fans grasping at explanations. Multisport. Undertrained. Maybe next you can say how she was abducted by aliens. It is pitiful. There is an overridingly important context that you are willfully leaving out. One that is infinitely more likely than this athlete suddenly running the fastest 1600/mile time in high school history out of no where naturally and then following it up with historically fast times. Sure, just a normal "big improvement." At what point does the credulity end?

Every doper has this type bs apologia where people grasp at excuses.

Good thread. I've been thinking about this since her 3:59. There's no reason for Wiley not to get the wild card. The noise around here doesn't translate and attach where it matters. Numerous posters here are far too fond of their noise. Somehow they believe cynicism on Letsrun and some frantic replies on Instagram equate to defining and nullifying.

Meanwhile it doesn't even register. The decision makers are focusing on talent and upside. Why in heck would anybody take the dullard approach of rewarding mid career established also-rans with the precious wild cards?

Houlihan is your example? You might want to brace yourself. I think Brooks just had four runners under 4:38 in a single race. Supershoe era.

Talent? The race organizers might not care. It is a rotten sport after all. And you might not care. But the rest of the running community does. It amounts to rewarding someone embroiled in a nasty scandal that includes peds.

I have rarely seen such a negative reaction to a supposedly great accomplishment. People are repulsed. Describe it as noise if you want, but when the almost universal reaction is disgust and understandable cynicism, that registers. But followers of the sport are not "decision makers" who know better? Because the sport is in such good health and propering so much. I would say pot meet kettle.

The problem is astro et al are looking at the wrong times when it comes to foreshadowing a spectacular 1500-Mile time.

A new-to-running freshman competing in distance events that runs a 2:09 800 tells me they've got at least 4:38 potential for 1600 down the road if they keep putting the miles in and at least retain that 2:09 speed.

That same runner in their second season of competing, now a junior, puts up a 2:04 800, which in turn tells me they've got at least 4:28 potential for 1600 down the road if they keep putting the miles in and retain that 2:04 speed.

1:57.64 for a runner that still hasn't put in higher mileage points to the possibility of about 4:15 for 1600, which is a 3:57 1500.

Those who are legitimately surprised are some combination of a bad student of the sport along with having poor pattern recognition.

if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck

Rojo, HU is clearly spamming the board. there are legal ramifications but this is your site and not first amendment territory

Sure hope they ban these Astro copycats.

You have no idea what you're talking about. There have been plenty of girls in US history who have run 2:04 in the 800 their junior year in high school, and until Wiley came along none of those girls ran 4:28 or faster their senior year.

You are just making sh!t up to try and justify Wiley's extremely unusual and totally unexpected 1600 performance her senior year.

You are correct. Wiley is far superior to thise other girls. Thanks for pointing this out. Some of us were underestimating her.

Rojo is spamming the board too, duh.

Of course it "tells you" and it allegedly forehadowed greatness because this is how the excuses work. They are flailing rationalizations. You have no clue what her training was, she ran a high volume of races her freshman year, yet she was allegedly "undertrained" and a "new runner." How much training and experience is required to run a decent time in the 1500 anyway? She ran cross country her sophmore, junior and senior years. She ran track extensively as a junior and was training with a college team and a pro runner. The undertrained" excuse is as stupid for her as for Houlihan. Her progression would raise red flags by itself. Then you add the context in which it happened.

First race in the 1600 was April 27th in 5:13, last was on June 1st in 4:46

You're batsht crazy if you think 35 days qualifies as anything other than a new runner

Find me one single coach in the US that doesn't think a freshman girl running 4:46 35 days after her first race isn't phenomenal

You have no idea what her training was going into the season and she ran a lot of races during the season and during her subsequent seasons. You are just clinging to nonsense at this point.

1:57

3:59

And I love how you cherry pick the first race in the 1600 when her racing started March 1. Keep inventing.

What is it you are trying to prove? She has run 1:57 and 3:59. This isn't Tuohy. This isn't Ping. This isn't Cain. All were great at different ages. Wiley surpassed all of them and became world class. Why do you care what she did at age 14 or age 16? You high school lovers can't move on.

The issue is how she did that. We know one surefire way to accomplish those times. People are trying to argue others. Poorly.

There is no surefire way to accomplish those times. 99.99% of runners could take all the PEDs imaginable and never run 1:57/3:59. It still requires tremendous talent.