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

I ran against her in an open 10K road race in the 1990's. She was already fast. She was one of the toughest runners I ever went head to head with male or female. In the end she beat me by a few seconds. This says far less about me and much more about her.

meh, its ok

I heard she beat up chuck norris!

Probably have no basis to respond as I was no where near the runner that Joe Rubio was...but I ran with Linda at Davis and can verify that she: #1 has never stopped running competitively since college (which in itself is unusual), #2 is as tough as nails, and #3 has an unbelievable nature ability and has done some truly remarkable things...nothing illegal here! She is a great runner!!! GO LINDA.

whirledpeas wrote:

linda makes me want to quit. how come i'm so much slower than 25 years ago, while she barely slows down over so many years? 16:14...age 48--geez.

Put on your thinking cap. If it's too good to be true, well, you get my drift.

One word: "Eddy"

College track 10K PR: 34:38 (UC Davis)

Assuming she was 22, that's a 76% age grade and it's equal to 16:36 for 5K ON THE TRACK. The equivalent road performance is 16:57.

To run that much faster almost three decades later seems, well, incredible. Just sayin'.

I knew Kara June was from San Luis Obispo... so this whole group trains there and at Cuesta College? Do you all ever see Jordan Hasay? She trained there (throughout her years in San Luis Obispo). Does she ever run with you all? Good training partners...

why you all delete de othah thread?

cuz Linda is a lawyer.

The situation says Linda can suck it!

Thank you Mr Rubio for your reply.

I am from Australia but remember her performances from years ago. I was very happy to see that such a quality athlete was still running quality times at 48.

This is a similar performance to our own star Steve Moneghetti who recently dropped a 30.00 at 46 or 47 years of age.

Except Moneghetti ran 13:25 and 27:47 in his prime. He should be running about 13:30 and 28:00 right now, according to the paradigm under discussion, not 30:00.

I take that back, 2 or 3 years FROM NOW he should be hitting around 13:30 and 28:00. Tha should set him up for a 2:09 - 2:11 marathon.

Sweet.

bumper

linda fan wrote:

I have known, raced and trained with Linda for 20 years.

That doesn't give you any special insight. None of us can really know anyone that well to say that we can be 100% sure that they're completely above reproach and never do anything at all wrong. Mother Theresa isn't lacing up the racing flats anytime soon. In short, you don't know shit, just like everyone else.

So you'll gladly make a claim but you're not the least bit curious as to its veracity. Maybe if you were less condescending your claims might be more acceptable. As it stands, you're a blowhard without a clue.

Linda's progression is available for all to see at zinsli.com. She wasn't within an asses roar of 16:14 10 years ago when she was running very well indeed and was not injured. She was qualifying for olympic trials and racing lots on the road, and never got close to that sort of performance.

If your eyebrow's aren't just slightly elevated you haven't been paying attention. There are bell curves and there are charts, this result is off both. You simply don't get faster at 48 than you were at 38 or 28 especially if you were an elite athlete all through your career and not some late developer or someone relatively new to the sport.

All that said, the human body is a funny thing and nothing is impossible and until there's more than conjecture you have to take this performace for what it is, a great run by a great runner. Unfortuntely history has taught us that such performances are often not what they seem. I sincerely hope this one is.

Red Glare wrote:So you'll gladly make a claim but you're not the least bit curious as to its veracity. Maybe if you were less condescending your claims might be more acceptable. As it stands, you're a blowhard without a clue.

I'm not "curious" about the veracity because I know the person, her dedication, and her capacity for hard work. I'm merely impressed by her performance. Her performances are out there, documented, and it's not like she just fell out of the the yesterday. Has she run a lot of 5K's with an elite field? No. Smart people would comprehend that might have something to do with a exemplary performance.

Since it's pretty damn clear anonymous clueless jerk-wads such as yourself would rather slander a hard working, honest person than spend a few minutes even thinking about a performance history and progression it makes it makes little sense for me to copy and paste a bunch of stuff here. Since I pointed out plenty of available information it pretty much proves my point. Your aim is to degrade and slander rather than learn and understand so I see no point in being anything BUT condescending. You don't deserve an ounce of respect.

Should a record setting performance by a 48 year old raise an eyebrow. Sure it should. I tend to raise an eyebrow when I see something pretty f**king impressive. I thought it was pretty impressive when she led the race for a time at club nationals also. Now when I see an impressive performance like that by Linda, or Pete McGill or Joan Nesbit Mabe, or John Hinton the first thing on my mind isn't to run up to them and say "what drugs are you on"?

It's also pretty clear someone has got some sort of vendetta going on with all the various non-congratulatory threads opened up about Linda. Thankfully some have been deleted, but Linda was dead on Saturday when she said some of you people are just plain mean. That's a real person you're slandering by name among her peers. Your mother would be so proud.

Right, you're biased. Your overblown responses to things that require much less response say one thing, that you're compensating.

Stop imagining this to be something that it's not. We're standing up to nonsense, to what we have to deal with as a result of a lack of transparency and fidelity in our sport, it's nothing personal at all about Somers-Smith. Try to imagine having any interest at all in anything bigger than you and your pathetic personal relationships.

Red Glare wrote:

...it's nothing personal at all about Somers-Smith...

Really? You drag her name through the mud and it's nothing personal?

The point is this: We have all learned to be skeptical of outstanding performances in every sport, but this doesn't give anyone the right to call someone out based on conjuncture.

None of you have any proof about Somers-Smith, you're making guesses based on the quality of her performances. And guess don't cut at as proof when you are calling someone out on a public message board.