Wait. Someone downvoted this? Ok. Not that I think the ratings or data come close to showing this, but please explain to me how the hell a college runner can run 14:40 clean? By all means. The top college women's time ever run (in a fast pro race) was Koll at 14:55. The official NCAA record is 15:01 by Simpson as a senior who lived and trained at altitude. The ONLY way a college runner can approach this type of time is with PEDs. Period. Not even a close question. The inability to understand and learn anything from historical data is staggering. If a pro is running 14:30s they are doping. At peak in the mid 20s to upper 20s I think the top achievable natural time is possibly low 14:40s, and that is a projection based on times set in the legal blood doping era. For all top NCAA runners you have a natural ceiling and a doping ceiling. Incidentally I think Tuohy's full doping ceiling is low 14:00s.
By being a very battle tested crosscountry runner. :). Bear Mountain. Bowdoin. Sunken Meadow. Holmdel. Van Cortlandt. NXN. Those are the genuine article. Happily it was more of a divot than a hole.
Yes, that is definitely quite suspicious. Plus, how does a runner step in a hole, not fall down, not sprain an ankle, not break a leg, but actually end up winning the race!
Steroids to shed body fat and build endurance and recovery are the most likely candidates.
Yes, that's probably what it is, plus a long standing record of doing the same thing at other events.
You say that Tuohy beat Chelangat by more over a shorter race, and hence, Valby isn't as good, but Valby ran a faster 5k pace for 6k on the same course later in the season when Chelangat ran much better than in the earlier race.
You can't have it both ways. Either Valby is better than Tuohy (and hence, on your view, suspicious because no NCAA runner could ever do what she is doing clean, the content of half your posts) or Tuohy is better than Valby (beating Chelangat by more over a shorter race, as you say).
You say that Tuohy beat Chelangat by more over a shorter race, and hence, Valby isn't as good, but Valby ran a faster 5k pace for 6k on the same course later in the season when Chelangat ran much better than in the earlier race.
Quibbling about the course length and time ignores that fact that Valby crushed the field, which included an NCAA champion.
The operative question — which will not be answered by analysis or opinion until the race is run in Stillwater — is whether or not Valby can perform to a similar level on a course with the extended uphill pieces that Stillwater presents. In the past, she has shown some weakness on courses that present some climbing dimensions after 4K. Oxford was run on a very flat and dry course, and the weather conditions were perfect. Stillwater will challenge everyone.
He believes that Tuohy is better and that Valby is doping because nobody could be close to Tuohy.
The only reason he'd have for thinking that is if he's at least relatively sure that Tuohy has been doping, and as he has posted earlier, in many other courses and years, including in high school.
"Steroids to shed body fat and build endurance and recovery are the most likely candidates." - where he's trying to cast shade on Valby.
However that statement is FAR far more likely applicable to Tuohy, throughout her career, AND to North Carolina State's coach and their history. For example, both the coach and her daughter just happened to win the NCAA 5,000 meters, after unspectacular earlier histories.
And look who her daughter's training with now. The one person who was extremely jealous and hateful to Houlihan for constantly beating her in practices and races, and who - ohh now it's all starting to fall in place - happened to leave the BTC right AFTER Houlihan's failed drug test.
Unlike the others on BTC who knew Houlihan well, GDS hated and despised her. Perhaps that jealousy and hatred explains why none of the other BTC members have ever failed a drug test but Houlihan did. Which is very suspicious. Yes? Yes it sure is.