Can we be suspicious of amateurs?

Can you be suspicious of amateurs? Of course. Especially older males who might spend a little too much time around the anti aging clinics.

But there's nothing overly suspicious about the progression you noted. Plenty of people in their early 20s can run 2:36 without PEDs and it's not impossible for an untrained person who responds well to training to run 2:36 after 3 years.

Keep in mind sometimes people don't know how to pace a marathon so they might start out too slow just trying to beat a goal time. But if they would have started faster they would have run faster.

That is enough to raise an eyebrow, but... I hit some really good times as a Masters runner after a long episode of injuries. I hired a good coach, I got in a few really solid years of running and nailed some good times. I would HATE it if people thought I started doping.

Maybe she ran in college and is just getting into shape? We don't know what happened in marathon number one. Maybe it was hot and she cramped and walked instead of DNFing it? Before I start talking about doping, I'd want to know more about her background.

There are a lot of very naturally talented runners that never ran in HS or college because they were busy playing soccer, or whatever else. Maybe she is one of them?

More likely, she's just better than you.

Not likely suspicious. Here's why.

The 4:34 could easily be someone how ran a poorly judged first marathon and blew up, or simply ran one when they were fit in shorter races but no endurance, i.e. a very young runner of about 19 or 20.

Chalk up the 4:34 to either inexperience, or a blow up and you're left with 3:05 > 2:52 > 2:43 > 2:36 which doesn't look at all suspicious. It just looks like someone with some talent who started training very, very hard.

On the other hand, if a woman is doped to the gills and can't get beyond 2:36 in 3 years, they've probably peaked and won't get any faster. I wouldn't worry about them setting the world on fire, if you truly think they're doping.

Google Priscilla Welch. Try going from no running and smoking a pack a day to 6th in the Olympics in four years.

I agree with GFD. That first marathon should maybe be thrown out. It's a couple years before the others. Anything could have happened. Run it with a friend? Injury? No training?

If you know more about that race, it would be good to know.

The 30 minute drop after that is awesome. And maybe suspicious. But not automatically so for me.

So she's qualified for the Olympic marathon trials?

Congrats, good on her.

Yeah she could have walked a good portion of that first one or even lost a significant amount of weight in the 2 years following. The October/December being so close together makes me think she thought she underperformed with the 3:05 so tried again while she still had the fitness. It would be much easier to come up with an explanation by looking at splits from each of the races imo

Do you know anything more than the time progression? A very likely non-doping explanation is that she wasn't taking the marathon seriously at first and then decided to train seriously for it.

So when do yous think they started doping? That looks the progression of someone who went from 20mpwp to 70....

2:36 is a good time but in the super shoes area we are still talking a level that gundr