Who?!? and How!? Dreams Become Reality: Trevor Hofbauer goes from 2:16 to 2:09:25 to win Canadian Champs

HRE wrote:

Just because runners today have easier ways to make breakthroughs that weren't available 40-50 years ago doesn't mean all of them take them.

But enough have that it raises doubt when athletes make very big improvement jumps. Doping is more probable than mediocre athletes suddenly discovering talent.

Ironically, I agree with the stuff you post here much more than I disagree and I do not want to get into the kind of exchange we did on another thread not that long ago, but here goes. A point of agreement for us, I believe, is that NO performance can be above suspicion, note the 2:32 EPO guy. So yes, there has to be a question about Hofbrauer's improvement.

But there is also reason to think it's legitimate. 2:16 to 2:09 is NOT such a huge jump that it's impossible without drugs. It's just not. It happened for guys in the years before there was EPO so there's no reason it can't happen now. And when you question every big improvement elite runners make you're essentially implying that elite athletes lack the moral fiber that those of us of average or less ability have. That's a kind of arrogance I want to avoid. When Cathal Lombard went from over 30:00 for the 10,000 to 27:40 something I immediately thought "EPO." It was just too big a jump. But 2:16 to 2:09? Good for you and I'll think that until some other thing emerges to call it into question.

White/doper wrote:

Pretty obvious this guy is on the Kosgei combo. Ridiculous progression.

You said it. Trevor Hoffbauer and Gabriella Stafford, two Canadians with the most ridiculous single-season progressions in the sport.

I'm not arguing a big performance spike is impossible; I am saying it is unlikely without drugs. Particularly when drugs are everywhere, in all sports. Further, what we might consider a deficiency of "moral fibre" as recreational sportsmen is a different mind-set for the professional and the super-competitive, who seeing it as maximising their potential. Situational ethics. My core position is that trust in performances without drugs has irrevocably been lost in the sport, while acknowledging trust - or its lack - is not proof of doping in any individual case.

Really looks this guy taken "The Shortcut" . They will bust him soon when now tested more after 2:09:51 and Gold label!

When you get a 2:32 guy using EPO I'm not sure there's much of a different mindset but I'm mostly with you here. But I still will take Hofbauer's performance at face value until I have a specific reason not to.

Runners can improve, sometimes suddenly, without cheating.

I suppose it's inevitable anyone reaching a high performance level, or experiencing a significant breakthrough, becomes suspect - especially at LR.

I'm surprised nobody has drawn insinuations from Hofbauer's African pilgramage; "I had spent roughly 37 days in Iten, Kenya trying to find that “next-level” in athletic performance that every athlete desires."

Ernest wrote:

Runners can improve, sometimes suddenly, without cheating.

I suppose it's inevitable anyone reaching a high performance level, or experiencing a significant breakthrough, becomes suspect - especially at LR.

I'm surprised nobody has drawn insinuations from Hofbauer's African pilgramage; "I had spent roughly 37 days in Iten, Kenya trying to find that “next-level” in athletic performance that every athlete desires."

But you don't improve from a 1:04:30 half and 2:16 high marathon and just 1:06 half a couple of months before and then suddenly a 2:09:51.If it had been progression over some years it could have been this result, but not that fast improvement in short time.

Neither Clayton nor Rodgers had much progression. They both went from 2:19 to 2:09 in one shot. Given that almost no one progresses to 2:09 from anything you really cannot identify a "normal" way of getting there.

HRE wrote:

Neither Clayton nor Rodgers had much progression. They both went from 2:19 to 2:09 in one shot. Given that almost no one progresses to 2:09 from anything you really cannot identify a "normal" way of getting there.

Then no performance improvement is suspicious. Really?

HRE wrote:

When you get a 2:32 guy using EPO I'm not sure there's much of a different mindset but I'm mostly with you here. But I still will take Hofbauer's performance at face value until I have a specific reason not to.

2.32 can be super-competitive in attitude. Any level can. College sports, or masters. Transgender - it goes on. It depends how badly you want to succeed or improve.

Improvements are possible.

Flashback to 1978.

Name: Ghost

Club: Hercules Wimbledon A.C.

Race: Stafford 20 miles (Ghost's debut), time achieved. 1:57:55 (Mid March, 1978)

Race: Finchley 20 miles, incorporating inter counties. Time achieved -1:50:49 (April 22, 1978). 7 mins improvement. Ghost was not an EPO user.

Note: Ghost was a club runner in HW during mid 70s to late 80s. Mostly competing in road races (52.03 for 10 miles road) and cross country, mediocre track times -2.10/4.19/8.57/15.12/32.22 (800/1500/3000/5000/10,000).

Ran at Mansfield State College PA, under coach Winrow, 1980-1982, indoor 3 mile record, Bucknell, 14.42 (Feb. 1980).

These times are verifiable in 'Athletics Weekly' UK, concerning the UK performances.

Ghost1 wrote:

These times are verifiable in 'Athletics Weekly' UK, concerning the UK performances.

We believe you as no one would falsify those very average times, hope they're compensated by a $250k (£200k) salary and model wife/girlfriend.

Armstronglivs wrote:

HRE wrote:

Neither Clayton nor Rodgers had much progression. They both went from 2:19 to 2:09 in one shot. Given that almost no one progresses to 2:09 from anything you really cannot identify a "normal" way of getting there.

Then no performance improvement is suspicious. Really?

I really do not want to do this with you again so maybe this will answer your question here, though I kind of doubt it. If you read one of my earlier posts I acknowledged that with the current state of the sport the legitimacy of ANY performance can be questioned.

Note the 2:32 marathon EPO guy. Could there be someone who snuck under his Boston Qualifying time with a dose of EPO? Why not? I first learned about Lombard's performances in an article I saw in Irish Runner magazine when I was in Galway and went immediately from questioning his performance to outright disbelieving. I was immediately skeptical of Regina Jacobs'let career improvements. I don't get why you'd think I'm saying that no performance improvement is suspicious.

But big improvements do happen legitimately and there is no universal progression that they follow. Rodgers and Clayton went from 2:19 to 2:09 in one swell foop. Ron Hill went from 2:24 to 2:14 in one shot but then needed another six years to get to 2:09. To me it seems that you have a very rigid idea of how improvements are supposed to happen as well as having similar ideas about how rapid performance declines take place and when any performance falls much outside of your parameters you feel the need to cast the drug aspersion.

Don't argue with morans.

I'm not actually saying you are wrong, I'm just interested to know at what point would you become sceptical of the legitimacy of any given performance. Your previous comment didn't indicate that you had a benchmark. Do you?

For myself, I don't think it's a simple rule of thumb, such as 'x' seconds/minutes improvement, but other features that include the previous level of the athlete concerned, the kind of career path they have had, their age, and possibly who they are coached by and the country they come from. But I would generally be of the view that the bigger the jump the more it invites scrutiny. I would also say there are performances I just don't buy, based on what I think is possible in the sport. Flojo. Brigid Kosgei.

This

https://thexc.substack.com/p/inside-the-race-that-changed-canadian

All great points - you're on top of things.

Vaporfly Next% are worth seven minutes off a 2:16 (136x0.05).

Weird thread.