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

A "breakthrough"???....dude, she's 48 years old, I think I raced her a few times.

Keith Stone wrote:

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.

___________________________

And, if they were "cheating", they would just tell us?

Suspicious sam wrote:

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...

I just looked at that site for Sacramento area results and it does have her as running 26:18 8K in 1997, which is a better performance than 16:14 5K at a not too different distance.

Drawing conclusions about drug use based on her track 10,000 PR from her second year of running ever is ridiculous.

Earlier in this thread, silly old fossil pointed out that she ran a 32:04 10K on the road. And she was 2nd in the Olympic Marathon Trials in 1996! I even remember that one. That was the caliber of runner she was. Her 34:high 10K track PR is completely misleading, and those who think it means anything in terms of her real ability are dumb or just trying to be asses. It has been pointed out repeatedly that her 1/2 marathon PR is faster than 34:high pace. The Sacramento area results website even has her running faster road 10Ks than that, and it doesn't cover all her races.

1995 Motorola East McDowell 10K Linda Somers 32:04 1st.

1996 Olympic Marathon trials 2nd

Her 26:18 8K listed on the zinsli.com site is about equivalent in performance to a 15:54 5K. I don't know if that's even her PR for 8K.

Of course her 2:30 marathon PR is worth about a 15:20 5K. You can see from the listed races on zinsli.com that she doesn't do many short races like 5Ks. However, a 16:14 5K doesn't seem unreasonable considering that she's a modern era US Olympian and has run much better performances at distances from 8K to marathon.

Wow...Back to the Future!!! you are quoting race results from 1995, 1996 and 1997...none of which were 10 years ago.

Nice try though.

zzzz wrote:

Her 26:18 8K listed on the zinsli.com site is about equivalent in performance to a 15:54 5K. I don't know if that's even her PR for 8K.

Of course her 2:30 marathon PR is worth about a 15:20 5K. You can see from the listed races on zinsli.com that she doesn't do many short races like 5Ks. However, a 16:14 5K doesn't seem unreasonable considering that she's a modern era US Olympian and has run much better performances at distances from 8K to marathon.

Let me make it easy for you. In the DECADE of the between 1999 and 2009 she ran a number of 10Ks on the road and she never broke 34 minutes in 10 years. During that same period she ran several 5Ks on the road and never broke 17:30. Now at the age of 48 she drops a 16:14 a time she couldn't get near when she was 38.

I'm not saying she's cheating, I'm just saying its off the charts and its only natural that people ask how she did it.

75% probability that she is on something.

20% that she is clean.

Approx 5% that she was on something for something else, and is getting results because of this.

Pghman wrote:

75% probability that she is on something.

20% that she is clean.

Approx 5% that she was on something for something else, and is getting results because of this.

That's about right.

Yes, really. Just because you believe and say that I "dragged her name through the mud" doesn't mean that I did. Stop crying, fanboys.

If nobody has the right to "call someone out based on conjecture" then nobody has the right to defend that person "based on conjecture." Can't have it both ways, homie.

Don't break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, Keith Neverwas. You're pathetic, typical Letsrun with the tired "your mom's basement" type of attempted insult and trying to toss in all sorts of imagined sins in a thread that has nothing to do with any of that. Whatever you do, don't keep bumping this thread up so that more people can see the open-minded among us rightfully questioning your hero's performances, fanboy.

props to Linda wrote:

6 Linda Somers Smith Arroyo Grande, CA 28 16:14 5:14 F Open/0 F-48 6 16:14 101.85%

Different age grading calculators give different results from F48, 16.14, 5km.

Factor: 0.8843

Age-graded result: 14:21

Open std: 14:25

Age std: 16:18

Age-performance %: 100.39

Age-Graded Time and Achievement Percentile

14:53

96.726 %

So perhaps we shouldn't read too much into that 101.85%.

Suspicios sam wrote:

Let me make it easy for you. In the DECADE of the between 1999 and 2009 she ran a number of 10Ks on the road and she never broke 34 minutes in 10 years. During that same period she ran several 5Ks on the road and never broke 17:30. Now at the age of 48 she drops a 16:14 a time she couldn't get near when she was 38.

I'm not saying she's cheating, I'm just saying its off the charts and its only natural that people ask how she did it.

You're not saying she's cheating, yet you continue to emphasize points that are are irrevelant considering the other data that you provided. She did run 34:00 flat within that time period, which is a slightly better performance than 16:14. You have to admit your point that she didn't run faser than 17:30 is not a worthy argument - I only see one 5K on that list before 2009! She ran 34:00 flat. That would surely qualify for faster than 17:30 - it's two 17:00 5Ks back to back!

I don't have any inside info, so I can't say for sure that she's not cheating, but I do remember that she was a FAST local and an Olympian from when I lived in the Bay Area. I chose to find her times are inspiring, not to make baseless accussations.

As someone who just turned 40 this year (I know, not quite 48), I find that even though I'm about 18 years past my PRs, most of the difference is because I'm 15 lbs over my old race weight. If I get inspiration to really train, I can see myself running PRs in the shorter distances like 5Ks that I didn't race back in the '80s and '90s (like Somers). People didn't seem to race road 5Ks back then - at least I never did. 5Ks where the walk/fun run companions to the 10Ks back then.

Red Glare wrote:

If nobody has the right to "call someone out based on conjecture" then nobody has the right to defend that person "based on conjecture." Can't have it both ways, homie.

I believe in innocent into proven guilty, you clearly don't. There's a whole group of people on this thread saying they believe that she is guilty based on her performances (because that's all the "evidence" they have. I think it's wrong to call someone out on a message board and yes, "drag her name through the mud," based on such an ethereal argument. I don't think it's wrong to have suspicions about someone, I just think you should keep your mouth shut until you have proof, or at least way better evidence than performances.

I suggest that all those defending Somers-Smith and due process just drop this thread. The ass clowns won't be convinced.

If this were a court of law, I would. But this isn't. The court of public opinion operates by different rules. You don't have to like it, but accept that as fact because you'll get nowhere insisting otherwise. Quote all of the instances (give dates and times for the posts) where people have stated that Somers-Smith is absolutely guilty doping. Unless you're imagining things to suit your angry and feckless flailing against your intellectual superiors and don't know what the fuck you're talking about and are just talking out of your ass. I suspect it's the latter because all your other statements are those of a bonafide moron. So yeah, I'll speak up because the sport means more to me than your chosen hero does. You can feel free to shut your stupid face if you don't like that, nobody will miss the idiotic things you have to say.

Gee Red Glare, I haven't had the pleasure of encountering you here before, but next time someone asks for poll of "Least Favorite Poster," you may be mine.

Someone is not a "fanboy" merely because he comes to the defense of someone who is being maligned without any evidence.

Your contention that "if nobody has the right to 'call someone out based on conjecture' then nobody has the right to defend that person 'based on conjecture'" shows you to be a truly scary individual indeed, one with no understanding of law, justice, logic, or reason whatsover.

Have a nice day!

Oh, "Red Glare", "SB" (from the other thread), or whatever you want to call yourself. Stop typing, take a deep breath, go look in the mirror, and ask yourself, why you are you really doing this? Your last post has revealed a little bit of your true face. You're not doing the sport any good with this nonsense. You're just stroking your ego. "Intellectual superiors?" No.

Here is a quote directed toward a man whose rantings and ravings and accusations are reminiscent of yours and your ilk:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

What's decent? A sport overrun by rats with needles hanging out of their backsides?

Here's 35 cents, go call someone who cares what you think. You wouldn't know evidence if it hit you with the force of a Mack truck upside your pea-brained little head. Circumstantial evidence is, yes, still evidence. The word "evidence" is right there in the term, how could it be more obvious?Thanks for doing your part to keep this going, though!

The Answer My Friend wrote:

Gee Red Glare, I haven't had the pleasure of encountering you here before, but next time someone asks for poll of "Least Favorite Poster," you may be mine.

Someone is not a "fanboy" merely because he comes to the defense of someone who is being maligned without any evidence.

Your contention that "if nobody has the right to 'call someone out based on conjecture' then nobody has the right to defend that person 'based on conjecture'" shows you to be a truly scary individual indeed, one with no understanding of law, justice, logic, or reason whatsover.

Have a nice day!

I just reviewed the thread again. It started off well, with many posters offering up wows/congratulations/etc. A couple of posters offered up doubts ("name optional here" and a deleted post) toward the end of the first page.

However, what really got converation going down the road was "Really" and then "dmb" looking at her 10,000 track PR from her second year of running (how fast did you run your second year of running?), and taking that to represent her ability. They obviously didn't know who she was. The were harping on a time that is barely national class in college, while in reality, she was one of the best post-collegiates, with a 2nd place at the freaking Olympic Trials. That's at least a couple of orders of magnitude better in terms of running achievement.

If you are going to make a push to show that she is a likely cheat, lay out the facts about what she has achieved in the past fairly. Don't deceive yourself and others by looking at her lesser run events. Especially since it seems she only started running in college and focused on the long distances. Like I said before, few people, including Somers ran 5K road races seriously in the 80s and 90s. I ran a lot of road races back in the 80s and 90s, and only ran my first 5K and only certified road 5K in 1999 (and guess what? it is slower than my 10K PR pace. Not a surprise for something that I only ran once).

Her best 10K is 32:04, not 34:3X. Her best marathon was 2:30:06, which was run about the same time as her 32:04 (and about equivalent in terms of performance). She still ran 2:38 in the most recent Olympic Trials, which is slightly better than a 16:14 5K. If all that real information was put out there initially, I don't think the drug speculation would have been all that high. Looks like only a few posters have been posting drug speculation:

name optional here

Really (but basing it irrelevant 10,000 PR)

dmb (also based criticism on 10,000 PR)

Bollshoot (also emphasised 10,000 PR)

Red Glare

Suspicious sam

Some of the above may be the same posters with different name. So it doesn't seem to me like public opinion is against Somers.