Why did she say the 3:49 was her first marathon? She ran a 3:20 eight months before that.
Why did she say the 3:49 was her first marathon? She ran a 3:20 eight months before that.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yankee Candle wrote:
Okay? So she was out of shape. And she’s not out of shape anymore
According to that argument the average out of shape runner could end up running an American record. 3.49 shows more than being "out of shape" - it shows no talent. 2.19 is chemically produced.
So you believe that any average, run of the mill, no talent 3:49 marathon runner can take some chemicals and run 2:19? Must be some good stuff... imaging if she actually had talent... she'd probably be setting the world record.
If she was walking then the 3:49 doesn't indicate too much... just that she was under-trained and probably didn't care about her finish time.
pathetic wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
According to that argument the average out of shape runner could end up running an American record. 3.49 shows more than being "out of shape" - it shows no talent. 2.19 is chemically produced.
You are so desparate for her to be doping. it's even more pathetic than people desparate for Shelby Houlihan to be clean.
There are so many reasons D'Amato's record could be legitimate:
-she's shown an actual normal progression for the marathon, especially for someone her age
-the AR isn't actually that fast; this isn't even a top-20 perfrmance all time
-The race was in absolute pefect conditions: perfect weather flat course, male pacers whose job it was to pace her to the record
And there's zero reason for her to be doping. Nike pays her to be an inspirational full-time realtor/mom who gets on the leaderboard at races; they're not going to dope her to get an AR.
But go ahead, keep typing 'chemicals" like you have any idea what you're talking about.
Normal progression.? For her age? Are you dumb? No one take 10 years off, starts running again in their LATE 30's, then magically drops 2 hours from their marathon time in a couple years without some chemical assistance.
pathetic wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
According to that argument the average out of shape runner could end up running an American record. 3.49 shows more than being "out of shape" - it shows no talent. 2.19 is chemically produced.
You are so desparate for her to be doping. it's even more pathetic than people desparate for Shelby Houlihan to be clean.
There are so many reasons D'Amato's record could be legitimate:
-she's shown an actual normal progression for the marathon, especially for someone her age
-the AR isn't actually that fast; this isn't even a top-20 perfrmance all time
-The race was in absolute pefect conditions: perfect weather flat course, male pacers whose job it was to pace her to the record
And there's zero reason for her to be doping. Nike pays her to be an inspirational full-time realtor/mom who gets on the leaderboard at races; they're not going to dope her to get an AR.
But go ahead, keep typing 'chemicals" like you have any idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, because Nike has NEVER doped any of their athletes before. Let alone any athletes who are running slower than national record times.
Must've been a fun run for her with friends or something. She's totally effortless at the finish.
Probably yes wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
According to that argument the average out of shape runner could end up running an American record. 3.49 shows more than being "out of shape" - it shows no talent. 2.19 is chemically produced.
So you believe that any average, run of the mill, no talent 3:49 marathon runner can take some chemicals and run 2:19? Must be some good stuff... imaging if she actually had talent... she'd probably be setting the world record.
If she was walking then the 3:49 doesn't indicate too much... just that she was under-trained and probably didn't care about her finish time.
You don't understand how PED's work, do you?
AsbelKiprop wrote:
pathetic wrote:
You are so desparate for her to be doping. it's even more pathetic than people desparate for Shelby Houlihan to be clean.
There are so many reasons D'Amato's record could be legitimate:
-she's shown an actual normal progression for the marathon, especially for someone her age
-the AR isn't actually that fast; this isn't even a top-20 perfrmance all time
-The race was in absolute pefect conditions: perfect weather flat course, male pacers whose job it was to pace her to the record
And there's zero reason for her to be doping. Nike pays her to be an inspirational full-time realtor/mom who gets on the leaderboard at races; they're not going to dope her to get an AR.
But go ahead, keep typing 'chemicals" like you have any idea what you're talking about.
Normal progression.? For her age? Are you dumb? No one take 10 years off, starts running again in their LATE 30's, then magically drops 2 hours from their marathon time in a couple years without some chemical assistance.
True. And neither did she.
She said she wasn't in shape and ended up walking a good part of the later miles.
Probably yes wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
According to that argument the average out of shape runner could end up running an American record. 3.49 shows more than being "out of shape" - it shows no talent. 2.19 is chemically produced.
So you believe that any average, run of the mill, no talent 3:49 marathon runner can take some chemicals and run 2:19? Must be some good stuff... imaging if she actually had talent... she'd probably be setting the world record.
If she was walking then the 3:49 doesn't indicate too much... just that she was under-trained and probably didn't care about her finish time.
It shows that some improvements are too good to be true. That's what doping does.
AsbelKiprop wrote:
No one take 10 years off, starts running again in their LATE 30's, then magically drops 2 hours from their marathon time in a couple years without some chemical assistance.
Ummmm ever heard of Weight Watchers?
brien evans wrote:
AsbelKiprop wrote:
No one take 10 years off, starts running again in their LATE 30's, then magically drops 2 hours from their marathon time in a couple years without some chemical assistance.
Ummmm ever heard of Weight Watchers?
So her success is due to Weight Watchers? I had no idea she was that fat.
Haha a 4 hours Marathon indicates mediocre talent even if out of form. Makes peds even more likely
Armstronglivs wrote:
brien evans wrote:
Ummmm ever heard of Weight Watchers?
So her success is due to Weight Watchers? I had no idea she was that fat.
She looks like she is at a healthy weight in the video posted above. As someone else posted, Keira said she walked/jogged a lot of the second half after shooting for a 3:20. Her strong finish in her video clip backs up her story that she picked it up after she was about to be passed by the 3:50 pacer (the guy carrying balloons that finishes a little bit after her).