You moved your head from the sand to the bullshit. Or maybe to the crackhouse. I'm okay with you remaining in your ignorant stupor, if that's what you really prefer. I'll still be here, level-headed and sane and dropping knowledge to counter buffoonery.
in reponse to this attitude and that of the poster who questioned me directly, where is your evidence that I, or HRE, or anyone else have their "head in the sand."
In other words, there is a VAST difference between having, as you put it, "level-headed and sane" approach and writing anonymous, slanderous comments every time someone runs a PB. a VAST difference.
For example, if someone changes coaches to an individual with known ties to doping, that's a red flag. If someone runs amazing times while professional coaches question their form (this occured with Tim Montgomery, for example), that's a reasonable red flag. And I think the original poster's question should not have first been "is LHG dirty," but rather "can someone in this vast running community shed light on how a late-30's female of established baseline talent achieve such a breakthrough?" Because exploration of the uncertain, we can move towards an answer.
Simply throwing "________ must be doping," as is done routinely on this board, does NOTHING to "clean up the sport" as a few of you would have it. It merely muddies the waters so NO ONE can see clearly enough when PEDs are being used.
Lastly, some of you are reveling in the fact that your "I was right" was correct. But out of how many accusations? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? How many innocents must you accuse blindly before you randomly are correct?