Linda Somers-Smith, age 48, ran 16:14 5K at Silicon Valley Turkey Trot!

Really wrote:

Why is it outside the realm of possibility? It's just not natural and should be treated with suspicion. The fountain of youth may be modern chemistry.

The fountain of youth may be superior/efficient running form....which she has.

Second only to Judi St. Hillaire in that respect....another "old" lady.

name optional here wrote:

She was always an odd girl and I would not be surprised if she is using something illegal.

Clearly your familiarity with Linda is from a far. If you knew her, you would realize how utterly absurd your speculation is.

1989: 2nd in California International Marathon (2:33:37)ranked #10 U.S. by T&FN.

From mcmillan, the 16:14 5k indicates 33:43 10k capacity which is faster than her 1983 10k PR of 34:36. Wasn't the A-Team on tv back then?

Using your logic then, a PR of 2:30:06 shows a capacity to 15:19 for 5K and 32:07 for 10K.I don't care what her PR from 1983 was, she was a well under 34 min runner. In 1988 my wife, a sub 35 10K runner, was 2nd to Smith at Pacific TAC xc championship. The then Linda Somers won the 10K at Auburn CA, going away by about a minute.Doug Bell of Colorado is another long time runner, who actually got faster at 5K and 10K as he got older. Back in the day (early 80s) he was a mid-high 2:20s marathoner and mid-low 15s for 5K. But in his mid and late 40s he was running well under 15.

Really wrote:

From mcmillan, the 16:14 5k indicates 33:43 10k capacity which is faster than her 1983 10k PR of 34:36. Wasn't the A-Team on tv back then?

AK-51 wrote:

Using your logic then, a PR of 2:30:06 shows a capacity to 15:19 for 5K and 32:07 for 10K.

Isn't that were the calculator breaks down? When there is a large delta in the race distances? That's why I compared 5k to 10k.

I don't care what her PR from 1983 was, she was a well under 34 min runner.

No, your confused, I said her 1983 10k PR of 34:36.

Grammner Nazi wrote:

How did we get to the second page without a GN pointing out the unpossible and disunderstood? Come on kids...stop paying attention in class and get on the message boards to make yourself feel better by pointing out others flaws...right before you go out for your 17:30 min 5k time trial you'll claim was 16:13 to save face from a beatdown by an "old" lady.

Seriously???

Pushing a half-century and dominating gals and guys less than half her age....WOW. just wow.

I'm impressed!!

I'm curious, does the therapy and drugs given during menopause aid in performance? I see a few examples lately of women around age 47-52 that seem to have renewed vigor and athletic performances. Are progesterone testosterone and estrogen hormones typically prescribed? I don't know the runner on this thread and would never make any accusation, so I want to keep this question more open and I just wonder if anyone knows of any studies on Therapy/prescribed drugs for Menopause that may aid in performance?

kapal wrote:

Lets Get Serious wrote:

Kind of like Liza Hunter Galvan, right?

I see your point, except that Hunter-Galvin was going after (and got thanks to PEDs) an Olympic team spot. I don't see Somers-Smith having such a lucrative motivation to push her to cheat.

This is how PEDs have ruined our sport. I don't really care if she's clean or dirty, it just sucks that it does come to mind. Anyone who claims that it is impossible that she uses PEDs is kidding themselves.

I knew a guy that faked a disability so that he could run 120 miles a week and clean up in the local master's races. People cheat during marathons all the time for a cheesy finisher's medal.

A 48 yr old woman who had a 34 min 10k PR in her prime and now runs a 16:14 5k is worth a closer look. It would be interesting to have a lot more data. Progression, training, etc.

I'm sorry but why does this matter? So she ran it clean--awesome for her. Alternatively, she ran it not-so-clean, well wow, she should get a life. At the end of the day, clean or dirty, does it really matter--like really??

'A 48 yr old woman who had a 34 min 10k PR in her prime and now runs a 16:14 5k is worth a closer look. It would be interesting to have a lot more data. Progression, training, etc.'

F off & get on the Jones thread. I don't see you commenting there. Concentrate on someone who has failed a test.

That's 16.14 is a brilliant run. If you step up your training it is possible to do good times when you are older. A Guy I used to run with and just beat is still doing the close to same times now and he's 45. He's dropped 20 seconds ove 5km & I've dropped more than 5 minutes (and the rest!). I'm not doing the training now but he would hammer me now even if I did

In her prime she was a 2-30 marathon runner:

Marathon 2:30:06 Columbia, MO 10/02/1996

Don't get out those stupid bloody tables and tell me what that is worth for 5 or 10km, I'm not bloody well interested. 2:30 for a marathon shows she's got class, something which you or I never had - just get used to the idea.

Get a grip fanboy and work on reading comprehension. I didn't say she was dirty or lacked class. I think it would be really interesting to know a lot more about how she got from 34:30 in 1983 to 16:14 in 2009 (at 48), yes with 2:30 in between.

This will be an important part of fighting doping. Hopefully you're interested in that rather than telling pointless random stories about you and your cohort's 5k times.

whatchya say wrote:

At the end of the day, clean or dirty, does it really matter--like really??

Why even race or keep score?

We are naturally curious, so it does matter.

If she's clean, it would be nice to know what type of training lead to the result. If she stumbled onto something great, think how it could help other runners.

If she's dirty, that would be important for her competitors who lost because she cheated. I bet they would like to know.

As another poster stated, it would be interesting to know more about how hormone therapy for menopause affects performance. For younger women, a birth control/performance study would be interesting too. We study everything else, so why not that too? Or is it taboo for social reasons?

Really wrote:We are naturally curious, so it does matter.

If she's clean, it would be nice to know what type of training lead to the result.

It's not like Linda or her coach are that hard to get a hold of, so if you're really are curious send her an email and ask. Report your findings. Your and dmb's continued insistence with very little basis that she's dirty until she proves to you otherwise is extremely condescending.

You obviously don't believe what anyone else is going to say anyway so instead of spreading innuendo do something useful and research it yourself.

athletics fan and runner wrote:

She would have been the 4th man on my college team. Her run is just awesome!

__________________________

Really? A 16:14 for 5k would score on your college team? Mens? Wow!!

Could you contact her coach for a 5k PR progression and post here?