Shorthand reference for the simpler folk on this thread:
Massive post-college improvement, no failed drug test = we don't know
Massive post-college improvement, failed drug test = doping
e.g.: Deeja Youngquist: 34 min. 10K in college, 2:27 in her first (and only) marathon before being busted for EPO
I didn't say that it was the SAME situation. She was suspended for refusing to piss in a cup knowing that she would fail the test if she pissed. She's a convicted doper and went to an Ivy League school. That's the point. She knew enough to ask the right questions and not to piss so her claim of ignorance is laughable. The "this race never tested before so I thought I would be fine" excuse is even more laughable.
"S9 Glucocorticoids
•Inhalation of glucocorticoids (e.g. for asthma) is permitted."
Flovent is legal.
Dangling Participle wrote:
Shorthand reference for the simpler folk on this thread:
Massive post-college improvement, no failed drug test = we don't know
Massive post-college improvement, failed drug test = doping
e.g.: Deeja Youngquist: 34 min. 10K in college, 2:27 in her first (and only) marathon before being busted for EPO
From a federation that has testimony that samples are swapped, MANY positives go unsanctioned, accepts bribes for positives, the sport's largest sponsor pays the head of the federation and other signs of poor governance.
What is down today is up tomorrow at the IAAF.
Is she actually positive? Probably. Why pop another minor runner? Mostly to show they are "serious" about doping.
Is the fat guy running 5:37 pace beside her
hrunner2 wrote:
I think the stupidest thing I see on this thread is this quote from rojo
I even thought, "An Ivy Leaguer wouldn't dope in running would they?"
That is just dumb. As if being in the ivy league makes you morally superior. Reminds me of 'oh, floyd landis wouldn't dope, he is from a devout mennonite family'
+1
That is Mikhail Rossikov.
fred wrote:
http://m.tportal.hr/sport/403152/Nasa-poznata-atleticarka-zna-zbog-cega-je-pala-na-doping-kontroli.htmlIs the fat guy running 5:37 pace beside her
Some folks seem to be having a hard time grasping why Nemec's large improvement after college keeps being mentioned.
- large improvements are not enough to convict a runner, but they can provide a strong suggestion as to who is likely doping
- if somebody does make a large improvement, some sort of logical explanation would go a long way to dispelling accusations, i.e. in college I only averaged 20 mpw, but after I graduated, I built up to 100 mpw (generally speaking, greatly increased volume is by far the most likely valid explanation; breathing exercises, change in diet, etc are much more suspect)
- amount of improvement is important. Improving a few seconds per mile, or more, is to be expected as a runner develops, but going from long-time college pack fodder to Olympian is less common, and requires a more detailed explanation to make it believable.
- people who show massive improvement will generally have shown some hint of their ability before. Those close to them might note that the person seemed to have a ton of potential if they ever used it. Maybe they won their high school state meet in their first year of running. Maybe their previous modest personal bests were achieved with a shocking lack of training. That sort of thing.
Of Nemec's college performance, I think it would be charitable to say her PRs were roughly equivalent to a male who ran 14:30/30:30. Now, if some guy who ran those times in college (actually training and running on a serious team for multiple years, etc), and then a couple of years later ended up running a marathon that made him #6 in US history, you can't tell me that you wouldn't at least find it very surprising and interesting. Not enough to convict him of doping, to be sure, but you'd expect more of an explanation than that he started running some of his training runs really, really slowly to learn to burn fat, and that he learned some breathing tricks.
The couple of posters who tried to make out like Nemec improving to 2:25 after what she did in college wasn't really that surprising or unusual, you are just out of your minds.
Mike Bloomfield wrote:
Some folks seem to be having a hard time grasping why Nemec's large improvement after college keeps being mentioned.
- large improvements are not enough to convict a runner, but they can provide a strong suggestion as to who is likely doping
- if somebody does make a large improvement, some sort of logical explanation would go a long way to dispelling accusations, i.e. in college I only averaged 20 mpw, but after I graduated, I built up to 100 mpw (generally speaking, greatly increased volume is by far the most likely valid explanation; breathing exercises, change in diet, etc are much more suspect)
- amount of improvement is important. Improving a few seconds per mile, or more, is to be expected as a runner develops, but going from long-time college pack fodder to Olympian is less common, and requires a more detailed explanation to make it believable.
- people who show massive improvement will generally have shown some hint of their ability before. Those close to them might note that the person seemed to have a ton of potential if they ever used it. Maybe they won their high school state meet in their first year of running. Maybe their previous modest personal bests were achieved with a shocking lack of training. That sort of thing.
Of Nemec's college performance, I think it would be charitable to say her PRs were roughly equivalent to a male who ran 14:30/30:30. Now, if some guy who ran those times in college (actually training and running on a serious team for multiple years, etc), and then a couple of years later ended up running a marathon that made him #6 in US history, you can't tell me that you wouldn't at least find it very surprising and interesting. Not enough to convict him of doping, to be sure, but you'd expect more of an explanation than that he started running some of his training runs really, really slowly to learn to burn fat, and that he learned some breathing tricks.
The couple of posters who tried to make out like Nemec improving to 2:25 after what she did in college wasn't really that surprising or unusual, you are just out of your minds.
Thank you for bringing a little reason to this thread.
I want to read Rojo's takedown of why Desi's progression is less suspicious than Lisa's [aside from the positive test and the Eastern European factor] just like he explained re: Wejo's progression.
NVL wrote:
The difference is Stublic apparently failed a test. Details to follow, but that's the fact.
She failed a test, apparently - but details to follow?????
HUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Radcliffe failed MANY tests ~ apparently..... details to follow.
rojo wrote:
Houserocker wrote:. . .
The main lesson I take from this case, though, is that I'm really impressed at how effective those drugs (EPO presumably?) were! That's quite a transformation. I'm a guy, not very fast in college, but a fair chunk faster than Nemec's college times for 5k/10k. I trained pretty hard for the marathon, and my best was low 2:30s. I would have loved to hit a 2:25, and was nowhere near doing it. That's some powerful stuff.
Great post.
I hadn't thought of it that way (in comparing it to men's times). Her marathon PB is almost as good as mine. I'd like to think I'd at least have been able to dominate the Ivy League women's competition if I'd run collegiately.
No, it's not a great post. Rather, it reflects the writer's ignorance about the extent to which a post-collegiate runner -- male or female -- may improve performance through intelligent, disciplined, honest, drug-free training.
sanchobaile wrote:
I want to read Rojo's takedown of why Desi's progression is less suspicious than Lisa's [aside from the positive test and the Eastern European factor] just like he explained re: Wejo's progression.
I'm not Rojo, but my 10K PR is faster (even though I didn't break 16 in college). Go figure.
Desi Linden showed a lot of potential early on by running sub 5 for 1600 as a freshman in high school, and a senior was 4th in the state behind the likes of Sara (Bei) Hall. And she was all-American in track and cross country at ASU. Those are good credentials, even though she has exceed those with a 2:22.
Nemec was also an all-American and 10th in NCAA XC. People spend a lot of time looking at track prs as the ultimate indicator but XC might be an even better predictor for marathon potential. Neverthless, 2:34 to 2:25 in a matter of months is a big big jump.
Monopoly Man wrote:
ck3237 wrote:Bill Rogers ran only 8:58 in college and then ran a 2:09 marathon, was he on drugs?
I'm not sure how you can assert so strongly he wasn't.
It's possible. It'd be wrong to assume any professional athlete from any era was 100% clean.
I believe many steroids considered illegal today, were legal at that time as blood doping.
From that Columbia spectator interview with stublic a few pages ago:
http://columbiaspectator.com/2012/08/04/londonlions-do-you-have-be-insane-run-marathon
1. What Olympic athlete are you gonna ask to call you maybe?
I am not going to ask any Olympic athlete to call me. I am already in a very serious relationship, so this is not an interest of mine.
She was never top 10 at the NCAA cross country meet...best finish in cross country was 33rd in '05. She was 10th in the steeplechase.
where is vento? wrote:
[quote]sanchobaile wrote:Nemec was also an all-American and 10th in NCAA XC. People spend a lot of time looking at track prs as the ultimate indicator but XC might be an even better predictor for marathon potential. Neverthless, 2:34 to 2:25 in a matter of months is a big big jump.
jamesvoltage wrote:
From that Columbia spectator interview with stublic a few pages ago:
http://columbiaspectator.com/2012/08/04/londonlions-do-you-have-be-insane-run-marathon1. What Olympic athlete are you gonna ask to call you maybe?
I am not going to ask any Olympic athlete to call me. I am already in a very serious relationship, so this is not an interest of mine.
Same article - question #3:
3. You came to the sport pretty late, and even then, despite your insane natural talent and success you focused more on other interests. Is that true? How are your feelings about running different now?
When I was younger running was something that I did...it was more like a habit. I never really thought about it I just did it. Because of this in college I did not focus on the little things to improve my performance. As I grew older and started realizing that I hadn't reached my potential (but wanted to) I started making these small changes and they seemed to make a big difference. Still I still have the same attitude towards running. It is not an end all be all. It is a habit that I am fortunate to be talented in.
as volkswagen's scandal shows, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
"WHO: Lisa Stublic, 29
WHAT: A 2-hour, 10-minute "crescendo" run
WHY: To build strength, not speed, for the marathon's demands
WHEN: Once a week or every other week, usually on Saturdays
THE DETAILS: Stublic runs for 30 minutes in Zone 1 (starting at 8-minute pace and gradually speeding up to 7:15 per mile). Then she runs 30 minutes in Zone 2 (7:00 to 6:20 pace), followed by 30 minutes in Zone 3 (6:00 to 5:45 pace), 20 minutes in Zone 4 (5:30 to 5:20), and 10 minutes in Zone 5 (5:15 to 5:05). She ends with a cool-down of 10 minutes in Zone 1. She gets gradually faster within each zone; there are no abrupt speed changes. She'll run the first hour on a soft surface and then run onto the roads, where she knows the location of all the mile markers. She also uses a Garmin to help keep track of pacing."
Long progression starting a 8 and dropping to 5:05 with the last 30 minutes going from 5:30 to 5:05, every week or 2nd week.
Avocado's Number wrote:
rojo wrote:Great post.
I hadn't thought of it that way (in comparing it to men's times). Her marathon PB is almost as good as mine. I'd like to think I'd at least have been able to dominate the Ivy League women's competition if I'd run collegiately.
No, it's not a great post. Rather, it reflects the writer's ignorance about the extent to which a post-collegiate runner -- male or female -- may improve performance through intelligent, disciplined, honest, drug-free training.
No. Just no. This is Armstrong comic book fantasy logic.