Parker Valby career progression graph is nearly perfect

The return of Valbymania in seven days.

Expect Great Things!!!

Tuohy fans try to discredit every runner who is better than her. She had been highly suspicious for many years.

Post the Tuohy and Wiley graphs please

You got my curiosity up so i dug up her results from Tully Runners, Milesplit, and WA and looked up the WA scores.

See linked Google sheet, not as pretty of a chart but the data is there is you want to make it more pretty. Some scatter, but she ran a whole lot of qualifying heats in 1500 and 3000 over the years which in itself produces some scatter. Chart includes races from 800 thru (the 1) 10,000 she ran, excluding a lot of hs relay legs.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12LilJPnQYYCXEA35Te7KsOsqSGbvk3zH/edit?gid=983816961#gid=983816961

And Shelby please 🙏

There’s some inconsistency over the years, but some of that might have been intentional. She has raced a lot.

What stands out the most, comparing her chart with Valby’s is how few races Valby has run in comparison. I’ve often wondered if Touhy’s issues over the past two years are result of too big of a workload for too long.

Lollllllllll.

Sorry but using Wiley (who was coached by the Johnsons since freshman year of high school) as proof of a clean progression made me laugh outloud. Let me help. The more perfect a progression, the less clean it likely is. Not complicated.

To explain how I did these graphs I will use Wiley as an example since I kept the statistics. Unfortunately, I did not save the specific stats for the others.

Anyway, for Wiley, I have a database of just about every race she has ever run, gathered from Milesplit, Athletic.net, Athlinks, WA, etc. In total, there are 207 races, including cross country, indoor, outdoor, road races, and even relays.

First, I eliminated all cross country and road races since they are varying (and uncertified) distances and terrains and are consequently useless to compare to one another.

Next, I eliminated all relays (even if I knew the split) because they are not true races – a 400m during a 4x400m is not the same as an open 400m.

Finally, Wiley is well known for competing in several races a day. For example, at the state meet her senior year, she ran the 1600m, 800m, and then only 25 minutes later the 3200m. There is no way that the 3200m could be an accurate assessment of her ability that day. To alleviate this problem, I used the best score of any meet where multiple events were run. I feel this best displays the athlete’s performance ability that particular day.

All told, this eliminated 33 relays, 34 cross country races, 10 road races, and 36 races that were multiple races, leaving the total at 94.

Finally, since there are no WA scoring tables for 1600m and 3200m, I used the Mileplit converter (https://www.milesplit.com/calc) to convert to mile and 2-mile.

All 94 races are plotted, regardless if they are finals, prelims, or races used as training runs. All distances are included – in Wiley’s case, this even included 200m races which for obvious reasons were not highly scoring.

On the track, she ran: 4x200m, 7x400m, 4x600m, 43x800m, 3x1000m, 20x1500m, 19x1600m, 11xmile, 3x3000m, 15x3200m, and 1x5000m.

Once the multiple race days were eliminated, those plotted include: 1x200m, 6x400m, 4x600m, 32x800m, 1x1000m, 19x1500m, 10x1600m, 9xmile, 1x3000m, 10x3200m, and 1x5000m.

The same process was used for Valby’s and Tuohy’s graphs.

ibb.co

Tuohy-Best-by-Age

Image Tuohy-Best-by-Age hosted in ImgBB

Open link

ibb.co

Wiley-Career-Graph

Image Wiley-Career-Graph hosted in ImgBB

Open link

ibb.co

Wiley-Best-by-Age

Image Wiley-Best-by-Age hosted in ImgBB

Open link

In Wiley's Best by Age graph, the only place where it was slightly off perfect was at age 19. This was also the first time she had ever competed in a race later than early July. So, I decided to redo the graph using her best performance at each age as of July 4 to keep it consistent. When I did, it put her entire career from her HS freshman year to present directly on the regression line. As close to a perfect linear progression as I have ever seen.

ibb.co

Wiley-Best-by-Age-July-4

Image Wiley-Best-by-Age-July-4 hosted in ImgBB

Open link

You have stated HUNDREDS of times on this board, literally HUNDREDS of times, that the "massive improvements" of Valby and Wiley are "red flags" of PED use. But now that it has been proven that neither of them ever had any unusual improvements in their progressions, you try to claim the opposite. So, I guess that means you now believe that Jessica Hull and Nadia Battocletti are both clean since they had a just in performance that was not linear. You contradict yourself so much that your credibility is absolutely zero. Nobody cares about what ridiculous lies you post.

Touhy’s graph is strange. Multiple periods of regression could be a result of injury, overtraining/too many races, or a combination of both. It may just be a classic case of burnout, since she’s been going hard for over a decade now. Perhaps the past year+ of lighter work will get her back on track?

Not every runner in a race is racing.

Lol. Yes, "proven". Like Wiley's sudden 1600 her senior year (out of nowhere) and massively improved times a year later. That in itself shows how full of it you are. H'm. Going from 2:03 to 1:57 seemed suspicious, but if you can plot it, its fine. Lolll! That you had to post this much drivel to "prove" your point makes it even funner. And didn't Valby go from 15:20 to 14:52? Linear, right? The complete absence of natural fatigue was just coincidental.

Here is the thing. If you dope early enough then the progression will seem linear, but its still dirty. Yes, doping can be seen in Houlihanesque jumps in performance. (Wiley is again a very poor counterpoint) But the laughable fallacy you engage in is assuming that a supposedly linear track is clean. That is nonsense. That has been a constant talking point with East African dopers, that they supposedly showed elite ability early, hence no doping. That of course turned out to be foolish bc as it turned out, they were doping as juniors. Point is, you are desperately using a fallacy. Hint: if it takes that much effort to prove an athlete is clean despite red flags, they aren't.

Anyway this one is for the books. Your poster child for a clean, unsuspicous progression is Wiley. OMG. The stupidity is special.

She definitely regressed her senior year of hs (age 17) due to her knee issue, a really bad race at the Dr Sander 3000 (pressure/nerves?) and no outdoor season (covid) and this continued thru her freshman season in college (age 18) after missing 6+ months of running she finally got back to her hs sophomore level after reaching age 19. imho the age year cutoffs are a bit arbitrary. The injuries impacted 2024 (age 22).

astro gets owned again. Must be Monday. Or Tuesday. Or Wednesday. Or ...

If there was PED use by an athlete, there would be tell-tale signs of jumps in improvement. The fact that neither has ever had a big jump is clear evidence that there is nothing nefarious going on. If PEDs did not improve performance, then they would not be performance-enhancing drugs. There would be absolutely no reason to use them. Based on the progressions of Wiley and Valby, the only "jump" was Valby in high school. So either (1) she loaded up on PEDs at age 15, made a big jump, and then got off of them and has been clean since or (2) she never used anything and simply made a jump that is common for people at that age. Hm, I wonder which is more believable? Good training = good improvement; good training + PEDs = a huge jump in improvement. Neither ever displayed this.

This is the first time anyone has shown any evidence of their clean progressions. Usually, it is just people screaming from their mommy's basements, "She's on drugs!" "No, she isn't!" It's nice to see some actual analysis done for a change. We just have two immensely talented young runners who are the future of USATF for 800/1500 and 5000/10000.

Right. At 15-16, Valby was only running to stay in shape for lacrosse. At some point, she realized she’s good at it, and broke a state record. I don’t think she did any serious training until college, and apparently it ended up being too much too soon, hence the injuries. Based on the videos Coogan posts, I don’t believe she’s backing off of her training much at this point. We’ll know soon enough whether her body can handle it.

Linear progression proves early doping? So nonlinear progression proves no doping. Seems to completely contradict your rants over the past 10 years, but good to know.