I was responding to a claim that a 21 year old must make significant improvements by their mid-twenties by pointing out that many great athletes had virtually peaked at that 21 and some are even prodigies in their teens - which won't necessarily mean they'll be the best runners in their twenties. That isn't trolling. It is debunking a false argument that improvements will be significant after 21 and are inevitable.
Your point about is idiotic because your principle examples were guys back during amateurism, that left the track to get jobs and support their family. Most US distance ‘pros’, getting paid, have typically improved after the NCAA, or they aren’t paid pros for very long.
You don't know enough about the history of the sport to make those claims. You probably don't remember anything before 2010. The runners I referred to didn't stop running "to get jobs" - they had hit their peak and accomplished their goals. That professionalism allows for longer careers doesn't also mean runners will continue to get faster - unless of course they dope, which they do now.
Your point about is idiotic because your principle examples were guys back during amateurism, that left the track to get jobs and support their family. Most US distance ‘pros’, getting paid, have typically improved after the NCAA, or they aren’t paid pros for very long.
You don't know enough about the history of the sport to make those claims. You probably don't remember anything before 2010. The runners I referred to didn't stop running "to get jobs" - they had hit their peak and accomplished their goals. That professionalism allows for longer careers doesn't also mean runners will continue to get faster - unless of course they dope, which they do now.
The fact I actually ran makes me more knowledgeable about the sport than you.
And by your flimflam logic, we can say so smarmby parmby and matter-factly that high schooler Jim Ryan ran Snell out of the sport when he humiliatingly crushed your Kiwi favorite at Balboa.
And yeah, I can keep repeating that over and over, saying it many different ways, for years on end, should I choose to, except I’m not a boorish tool, like you.
You don't know enough about the history of the sport to make those claims. You probably don't remember anything before 2010. The runners I referred to didn't stop running "to get jobs" - they had hit their peak and accomplished their goals. That professionalism allows for longer careers doesn't also mean runners will continue to get faster - unless of course they dope, which they do now.
Why does this idiot have to take over every thread and make it about doping
You don't know enough about the history of the sport to make those claims. You probably don't remember anything before 2010. The runners I referred to didn't stop running "to get jobs" - they had hit their peak and accomplished their goals. That professionalism allows for longer careers doesn't also mean runners will continue to get faster - unless of course they dope, which they do now.
The fact I actually ran makes me more knowledgeable about the sport than you.
And by your flimflam logic, we can say so smarmby parmby and matter-factly that high schooler Jim Ryan ran Snell out of the sport when he humiliatingly crushed your Kiwi favorite at Balboa.
And yeah, I can keep repeating that over and over, saying it many different ways, for years on end, should I choose to, except I’m not a boorish tool, like you.
Since you continue to show you don't know the history of the sport, Snell said he planned to retire after the Tokyo Olympics. He said he had accomplished his goals. He ran against Ryun in a farewell tour. He lost by a 10th of a second - that's "crushed? - when he was running off inferior fitness. He also came last in a mile race in Ireland on that tour and had other losses against runners he usually beat. But, wait - runners are always expected to get better in their mid-twenties on Letsrun? And Ryun was never better than he was at 20.
You don't know enough about the history of the sport to make those claims. You probably don't remember anything before 2010. The runners I referred to didn't stop running "to get jobs" - they had hit their peak and accomplished their goals. That professionalism allows for longer careers doesn't also mean runners will continue to get faster - unless of course they dope, which they do now.
Why does this idiot have to take over every thread and make it about doping
Over 32,000 posts in 2,242 days
sheeeeeeesh
They obviously have an effect. You haven't realised yet that running is about doping.
I think Valby is maxxed out. She took her big shot. Paid off to a degree.
Tuohy is the one that could actually do some damage if she plays the game. Might just have too much to lose. But a few years down the line. Look at Hull and Bell.
You don't really think that. But even so, she is an Olympian. She is younger than Tuohy. I remember all of those tiring posts about Tuohy being the fastest runner ever at her age. That ended well. Now she is just a low level pro who faded into the shadows. She is just another annoying Cain.
You don't really think that. But even so, she is an Olympian. She is younger than Tuohy. I remember all of those tiring posts about Tuohy being the fastest runner ever at her age. That ended well. Now she is just a low level pro who faded into the shadows. She is just another annoying Cain.
Valby’s Dad posts about her on here and pretends she’s worth more then she actually will be ever worth
I agree with you. Tuohy can increase her doping more and more but will never beat the clean Valby.
Except dopers have the advantage over clean athletes. So you may have the dopers around the wrong way.
You don’t know 2+2=4, but this is more of the kind of wasted clutter the BroJo’s allow you to trash this site with, because you absolutely do not know who is or who isn’t doping. And you are continually wrong.
No. Between two equal ability runners, the doped one wins. But if you or I started doping, we wouldn't beat top clean runners. Doping doesn't take a 6 minute miler to 4 minutes. There are thousands of high school boys doping who aren't even good enough to run in college.
You’re still wrong. It was obvious by Snell’s reaction after suffering the humiliating defeat to the better runner in the race.
You were there in 1965? You are full of sh*t. He showed no particular reaction to that loss. What he showed reaction to was coming last in a race in Ireland, due to gastroenteritis. He wasn't in condition on that tour.
Ryun was on his way to becoming a great runner. But he wasn't the Olympic champion - that was Snell, who was also the world record holder - and he never became an Olympic champion, unlike Snell. You are an ignorant twat.
No. Between two equal ability runners, the doped one wins. But if you or I started doping, we wouldn't beat top clean runners. Doping doesn't take a 6 minute miler to 4 minutes. There are thousands of high school boys doping who aren't even good enough to run in college.
We aren't talking about recreational athletes of widely varying abilities but two top collegiate runners. If one of them was doping we would expect it to be the one who is faster.
They obviously have an effect. You haven't realised yet that running is about doping.
“Running is about doping.”
“So called high-school running prodigies actually might have doped in high school.”
“They still run, and they still therefore might dope.”
”Winners and losers might dope, since running is about doping.”
Except “That some will dope doesn't mean everybody does.”
“Maybe cloudy today, maybe sunny tomorrow, winners and losers might dope, since running is about doping.”
How about 1 in 2 championship athletes are likely doping, as indicated by confidential athlete surveys? And this in a sport that WADA figures show has more doping violations than cycling. But you wouldn't know anything about that.