so what is your cutoff for doping suspicion? (timewise related to the current age world record)
and do you think Ed Whitlock doped?
so what is your cutoff for doping suspicion? (timewise related to the current age world record)
and do you think Ed Whitlock doped?
mannnnn...you ain't never met no martin luther da king
Tommy - I think I gotta go with Armstronglivs on this, your time is too good to be true.
In this day & age the burden is on you to prove you are not on PEDS. That’s a big ask but as someone who loves running I would think you would be happy to do it & set a standard for others.
r4e3 wrote:
so what is your cutoff for doping suspicion? (timewise related to the current age world record)
and do you think Ed Whitlock doped?
I don't think Whitlock doped. His performances were undoubtedly exceptional but I didn't find them unbelievable for an athlete of his age. He didn't run times like a much younger man - he ran like a supremely fit runner of his age whose body allowed him to do it.
I don't see Hughes the same way. He has scarcely slowed since his peak - 2:36 in his mid sixties isn't exceptional, it is incredible. He is only about twenty minutes slower than at his peak yet he is the same margin faster than Whitlock was - more than twenty minutes - when Whitlock was only a few years older than Hughes. As I said, that is too good to be true for me to find that believable.