Linda Somers-Smith, age 48, ran 16:14 5K at Silicon Valley Turkey Trot!

Suspicious Sam wrote:

What has she run in the last 10 years that comes close to a 16:14 5K.

please cite the race and the date.

4/28/08, Oly Trials marathon 17th place, 2:38:49.

I only need to provide one performance within the last 10 years that even comes close to 16:14 to disprove your statement. In the database that you provided the link to (zinsli.com), which only provides data on regional races that she has run, Somers is listed for only one 5K prior to 2009. That is consistent with what I said about 5Ks being walk or fun run companions to 10Ks for runners of my era. She did win that 5K in 17:36 in 2002, but I don't know many people who hammer out PR efforts to win fun runs by minutes anyway. She has much faster times in at other distances in a time sequence bracketing that race. I certainly run minutes below what I have been capable of running in races that I have won.

These performances are better than 16:14 5K:

2/4/2001 Las Vegas Half Marathon 1:13:18

4/22/2001 Compaq's Up & Running 10K 4/22/2001 34:00

4/3/2004 U.S. Olympic Team Trials Marathon/St. Louis 2:37:28

4/20/2008 U.S. Olympic Team Trials Marathon/Boston 2:38:49

These performances are close to 16:14 5K. Note that she won most of these races, and probably could have gone faster if she was pressed. I haven't included races since this summer since you think they are suspect, but mostly because I'm getting tire of adding all these races to the list:

4/21/2002 Compaq's Up & Running 10K 34:51

9/28/2003 Heritage Oaks Bank 10K - Masters 34:38

11/16/2003 Big Sur Half Marathon 1:16:25

3/21/2004 Across the Bay 12K 42:13

Note that it is common for runners to be up and down through the years and then have things go the right way in the the rest of their lives that enables them to have an exceptional year. Many times I have gone years without doing squat in running, and then come back and have good years again because of other life circumstances.

I only need to provide one performance within the last 10 years that even comes close to 16:14 to disprove your statement. In the database that you provided the link to (zinsli.com), which only provides data on regional races that she has run, Somers is listed for only one 5K prior to 2009. That is consistent with what I said about 5Ks being walk or fun run companions to 10Ks for runners of my era. She did win that 5K in 17:36 in 2002, but I don't know many people who hammer out PR efforts to win fun runs by minutes anyway. She has much faster times in at other distances in a time sequence bracketing that race. I certainly run minutes below what I have been capable of running in races that I have won.

These performances are better than 16:14 5K:

2/4/2001 Las Vegas Half Marathon 1:13:18

4/22/2001 Compaq's Up & Running 10K 4/22/2001 34:00

4/3/2004 U.S. Olympic Team Trials Marathon/St. Louis 2:37:28

4/20/2008 U.S. Olympic Team Trials Marathon/Boston 2:38:49

These performances are close to 16:14 5K. Note that she won most of these races, and probably could have gone faster if she was pressed. I haven't included races since this summer since you think they are suspect, but mostly because I'm getting tire of adding all these races to the list:

4/21/2002 Compaq's Up & Running 10K 34:51

9/28/2003 Heritage Oaks Bank 10K - Masters 34:38

11/16/2003 Big Sur Half Marathon 1:16:25

3/21/2004 Across the Bay 12K 42:13

Note that it is common for runners to be up and down through the years and then have things go the right way in the the rest of their lives that enables them to have an exceptional year. Many times I have gone years without doing squat in running, and then come back and have good years again because of other life circumstances.

10K, 34:00, 4/22/2001, Compaq's Up and Running 10K

Note that there are also many other races in that database that she won, probably unpressed. Most people aren't out to PR every race. Instead they target important races to run fast in. Her 2004 and 2008 Olympic Trials performances likely best represent her fitness over the years, because they are the biggest events that she runs, and she is a former Olympian at that distance. You're telling me that you'd be suspicious of a guy or anyone running 16:14 5K who had run a 2:38 marathon the year before? That's really dumb.

fall is the way wrote:

Except Moneghetti ran 13:25 and 27:47 in his prime. He should be running about 13:30 and 28:00 right now, according to the paradigm under discussion, not 30:00.

I take that back, 2 or 3 years FROM NOW he should be hitting around 13:30 and 28:00. Tha should set him up for a 2:09 - 2:11 marathon.

Sweet.

Mona never broke 28 on the roads. Linda ran 32.04 on the roads at 34. Mona's ran 28.12 on the roads at 32.

So Mona has slowed by less than 2 minutes in 15 years. Therefore on yours and my reckoning Linda could probably run a sub 34 minute 10k.

Hmm. Looks like zzz has already supplied you with all the information you need.

There is no more to say.

I don't see how you can compare times from 6-8 years ago (age 40-42) to now (age 48, big difference!). According to the McMillan calculator, 16:14 5K is equivalent to:

5M= 26:54

10K= 33:43

15K= 52:15

10M= 56:30

20K= 1:11:06

13.1M= 1:15:02

Marathon= 2:38:15

The only recent time the slightest bit comparable was the '08 Marathon Trials, and even that time was comparably slower to her recent 5K (1 1/2 years later). Maybe she just had a "freak performance", under the right conditions (fitness, weather, fast course, good competition)? I think everyone wants to know "how she did it". I'm also willing to bet that Colleen will be even better than these times in 3 years (but we won't be surprised, given her consistency).

How many 48 yr old males can run 16:14? Not many I guess.I question this "freak performance"

I bet you, she believes she can run faster. That's what motivates the best runners, dontcha think?

I think all these results show is that she hasn't run a 5K or 10K equivalent of 16:14 for a very long time.

zzzz wrote:

Besides her performances, which were several orders of magnitude better than a 16:14 at 48 (world record indoor 1500 m at 39), Jacobs had a consisitent [sic] pattern of skipping big races with known rigorous drug while she was clearly in good form since at least 1995. Such as skipping the Olympics in 2002 where EPO testing was known to be finally ready, after winning the 1500/5000 double at the US Olympic Trials.

Why wouldn't she have skipped the Winter Olympics?

Interesting (if completely and laughably wrong) theory that there was EPO testing at the Olympics but not the Olympic Trials. And maybe if Regina was using something undetectable then maybe she wouldn't fear testing at races. So did they really test at the Silicon Valley Turkey Trot and Club Cross and what, exactly, did they test for?

wow ur dumb wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Besides her performances, which were several orders of magnitude better than a 16:14 at 48 (world record indoor 1500 m at 39), Jacobs had a consisitent [sic] pattern of skipping big races with known rigorous drug while she was clearly in good form since at least 1995. Such as skipping the Olympics in 2002 where EPO testing was known to be finally ready, after winning the 1500/5000 double at the US Olympic Trials.

Why wouldn't she have skipped the Winter Olympics?

Has anyone checked to see if the course was accurate?

Sorry, I meant 2000 Olympics. I'm in the winter Olympic frame of mind recent. I also don't proofread my message board posts, so if you want to nit-pit, you'll find a lot of typos.

Those aren't typos, they're brain farts. You just can't focus, clearly.

Red Glare wrote:

Interesting (if completely and laughably wrong) theory that there was EPO testing at the Olympics but not the Olympic Trials.

Hey, I don't make this stuff up. I said "when EPO testing was known to be finally ready." It wasn't ready at that Olympic Trials in 2000:

Tim Lyden of SI writes: "Regina Jacobs, U.S. 1,500 runner: After a brilliant spring and summer, and a double (1,500 and 5,000) at the U.S. trials in Sacramento, Jacobs got sick and pulled out of the Games. This is not only sad at face value, but allowed much of the world track press to suspect that Jacobs was pulling out to avoid the Sydney EPO test. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. And it might just be Jacobs' legacy." from:

"Although a test was introduced to detect recombinant EPO (erythropoietin) at the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000, a growing number of athletes were soon challenging the results in the courts." from:

"18 months out from the Sydney Olympics, the greatest fear of the organizers was that Sydney would become known as the “Drug Olympics”. With no test in existence, the drug EPO was being widely used by athletes winning large numbers of medals in endurance sports. The fear was that many of these athletes would compete successfully in the Sydney Games. Appreciating this risk, the Australian Government formed a team of scientists from the Australian Institute of Sport and the Australian Sports Drug Testing laboratory. Their challenge was to develop a test for EPO that would be accepted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in time to be implemented for the Sydney Games.

contentgroup was engaged by the Australian Government to manage all communication." from:

Who is laughably wrong here? Looks like you to me.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

Those aren't typos, they're brain farts. You just can't focus, clearly.

Yeah, one brain fart and a lot of typos that people have been nice enough not to pick on.

I can focus better than Red Glare and especially Suspicios Sam, who provided the link with all the results, but couldn't read them himself.

wonderer of things wrote:

Has anyone checked to see if the course was accurate?

My God, man, it was a Turkey Trot! You know they measured that thing obsessively. How dare you?!