Natalie Cook 16:03!

She wasn't. She ran all over the country. New Balance. NXN. Music City. Never showed any elite potential then suddenly, after she turned 18 before her senior year, she started running national class times.

I think Cook must have smashed Astro’s wife. Imagine being this hateful to a teenage female runner. Sad.

No. I just question things when they seem out of place. You would be a fool not to in this sport. I do it fairly. When I see an odd progression, that is when my radar goes off, such as when Houlihan went from a college best of 15:49 to 15:06 a few months after joining the BTC pro team. If a pro showed the same weird progression as NC, we would question it. Here we are supposed to believe that a runner who was a year older than a typical high school student in her grades went from showing no elite ability at all through the age of a typical high school senior, lost her first XC race of her senior year, then suddenly became a top national, record breaking runner. Not even Schweizer, a putative late bloomer, had that drastic a progression. And the supposed explanations are a song we have heard many times. I am supposed to just accept that a runner who got trounced in the slow section at New Balance in 2019 or lost to Hutchins by 30 seconds at Music City in 2020 or could not even qualify in her section later that same year just always had this hidden natural ability that just suddenly appeared? That all it took was some crosstraining to unlock? Not in this sport. Not when the progression is this anomalous. Nor was this someone being coached by the local social studies teacher. Both her parents are pro runners. Her mom ran at a high level for the NB pro team. These are people deeply enmeshed in the pro distance running culture we so love and admire. Who know all the ins and outs. Is it so outlandish to wonder if this is all merely coincidental, or if this has something to do with the sudden, prococious pro-like progression?

I call them like I see them. It is not about favoritism or animus. It is nothing personal. I just call them. Again, when my radar goes off I don't ignore it. Maybe I am conpletely off base in harboring distrust. Maybe not. Maybe I am bias. I guess I just have to stand by my track record.

Anyway, I did not bumped this thread. But if you want to argue, why not?

You do realize that everything was cancelled in spring 2020 so most every runner has that gap.

Distrust late bloomers?? Ooookay. I distrust early bloomers, because the odds of them peaking early and burning out are very high. I'd rather see a grinder that continually takes 20-30 seconds off their 5k PR year over year. I guess you like high floors. I like unknown ceilings.

wasnt she injured on and off for awhile? thatd explain the slower performances....they finally found the right program for her...what am i missing?

You realize COVID skipped over Texas or maybe just Southlake, they ran 5 races Spring 2020.

Tuohy was an early developer and is much more muscular than any other college runner. Those 2 things raise more suspicision than anything.

WHY would it raise more suspicion? Do you mean to accuse that her parents drugged her?

Katelyn Tuohy was an immense talent since the start of her running career and she was 12 years old, her stride is light and day better than others, and her work ethic is unmatched....at 12 years old she was already running sub 5 1600m and and sub 5 mile. Katelyn also loved going to the gym since HS days, she's so competitive and trains like crazy, runs 70 miles per week. Plus she eats properly and luckily does not have trouble with food.

4:58 mile as a 7th grader
4:24 1500m as an 8th grader
15:37 5k as a 15 yr old
4:33 mile & 9:47 2mile as a 16 yr old
9:01 3k as a 17 yr old
4:12 1500m as an 18 yr old (post knee surgery)
8:54 3k as a 19 yr old
4:06 1500m & 15:14 5k & NCAA Champion at 20 yrs old

She has been doing training for years.

only in letsrun where having phenomenal work ethic at a young age is "suspicious'

Only in Letsrun where anyone younger than Tuohy who is better than her is automatically suspicious.