No Surprise, Ed Whitlock does it again.

it's the exlax and the prunes

I'll have to wait until I get home before answering the question about my training before Sacramento.

Ed

Not to steal Ed's thunder, but the great Kiwi Ron Robertson has been having a great meet as well, taking down a few of Ed's m70 records (from Ken Stone's blog):

"Robertson, who earlier in the meet broke Whitlock’s M70 record for the 5,000 by clocking 18:15:53, added a second world record in the 1,500. Robertson ran the metric mile in 4:52.95. Robertson also won the M70 cross country title on July 7."

Rockefella wrote:

Not to steal Ed's thunder, but the great Kiwi Ron Robertson has been having a great meet as well, taking down a few of Ed's m70 records (from Ken Stone's blog):

"Robertson, who earlier in the meet broke Whitlock’s M70 record for the 5,000 by clocking 18:15:53, added a second world record in the 1,500. Robertson ran the metric mile in 4:52.95. Robertson also won the M70 cross country title on July 7."

Yes Ron is having a great meet but so is Keith Bateman from Australia taking down Ron's 1500 M55 record, also winning the xc and 5000. He's running the marathon this morning. He set new M55 records in the 5 & 10 before coming here and maybe other distances.

dork stick wrote:

I'd like to see Sprint Geezer apologize or he will lose all credibility with us.

This

You have many fans here.

Your times are deserved because of the hard work you do.

If I could run 2-3 hours a day I would expect really good race times too.

dork stick wrote:

I'd like to see Sprint Geezer apologize or he will lose all credibility with us.

Too late.

dam ed's cool

Hello, Ed.

Thank-you for the statement.

For everybody else, suspecting Ed of PED use is entirely legitimate, as are expressions of that suspicion and interrogatory strategies aimed at investigating that suspicion. Here's how the interrogatory posts proceeded:

In my early posts, I tried to use a “goading” approach (affirmative statements combined with "no evidence" statements to manufacture hyperbole) to articulate suspicion, an approach that in many cases tends to elicit responses from those under suspicion. I sustained that approach for a time, but realized it wasn't working.

Still looking for a response, I switched gears to an emotionally gentler approach, to which Ed has responded fairly quickly. It's the time-honored "I'm on your side" approach often used by media interviewers, who use strategies like externalizing the suspicion: "How do you respond to those who allege you are using drugs?" (i.e. how do you respond to "others" alleging that you use drugs?). I used the neutral language of requesting a statement, combined with the suggestion that I would be inclined to believe any statement as basically true.

I had prepared a long post using an intellectualized moral approach to use in case Ed didn't respond to the gentler approach, but clearly I don't have to use it. It talked about why the suspicion was legitimate, and why Ed has a duty to respond to inquiries, and I include it at the end of this post for those who care to read it.

Through his disclosure, Ed has risen to the occasion. His disclosure to us goes beyond any legal duty he has to disclose to doping control authorities, and satisfies those ethical duties he brings upon himself by competing in such venues, much the same as other elite athletes who are confronted with suspicions of PED use and voluntarily make public statements on the issue. The very recognition of such ethical duties, not to mention their satisfaction, is a hallmark of favorable character. Because his disclosure contained more than just PED information, Ed has shown himself to be not just a good guy, but a leader in the way he comports himself publicly.

I will show some reciprocal magnanimity: although eliciting of the statement required some strategy, and although in his statement Ed never specifically disavowed PED use, I accept that his statement to the effect that he does not have access to illegal PED's was his indirect way of saying that he does not use PED's, as clearly anybody with access to communication or internet has access to illegal PED's. And I accept his statement entirely, based on the favorable character Ed has demonstrated by answering the question at all.

I get the same accusations and questioning that Ed gets, and rightfully so. Anything far out of the ordinary in a particular context is legitimate to question, and suspicion of known strategies to achieve the quality of interest is also rational and legitimate. I understand the suspicion and respond to all questions and accusations made. Ed setting huge age-group WR's is FAR out of the ordinary in the track context, and it was nice to see him make a statement to us here on letsrun.

Now I can cross my fingers and hope that I am both lucky and smart enough to live as long and as well as Ed. I spent yesterday with a visiting great-aunt, 82 yrs old, who shows no sign of physical deficit apart from a deflected toe and slight hearing and vision loss. Seeing what excellent shape she is in, I am nevertheless left dumbfounded at Ed's performances. She could never do what he does--as apparently nobody else can either.

I am at a loss for an explanation of Ed. Training, healthy living, blah, blah, blah...there are plenty of people who do that, and achieve nothing like what Ed continues to achieve. Not only no PED’s, but no supplements or prescription medications? I hope I’m on the right track, as the ONLY thing I take is a multi-vitamin.

Ed, was there a time in the past when you DID take supplements or prescriptions, and if so, do you have any opinion as to whether doing those things can result in them being used regardless of whether or not they actually confer any benefit? i.e. did you try any supplements or medications and then go off them, and emerge healthy anyway?

And finally, have you ever tried cycling on/off the glucosamine, and if so, did you notice any difference?

You must understand the intense interest, Ed—it’s as though you’ve discovered the fountain of youth. I’m half your age, and I notice that all my peers are broken-down pharma users.

You are especially interesting to me on a personal level. You embody all the qualities that I have been preaching all my life—but as I have gained maturity, I have realized that health status is often a total crapshoot, no matter how “well” somebody lives. And then you come along, and present a case that looks like it supports the “clean living and exercise” theory, which is tough for me to reconcile with the “crapshoot” theory. Maybe both have merit in different situations, and maybe you are the perfect storm of winning the crapshoot while living cleanly and training. Regardless, your story is interesting, and your life status is certainly one that I consider worth aiming for.

Rock on, Ed.

_________________________

If anybody cares, here follows the post I never made:

In the light of a new day, I have this to say regarding my semi-comatose posts of last night:

I absolutely and sincerely hope that Ed is "clean"--that is, that he doesn't get any inordinate performance benefit from anything that he is taking.

Why? Because it would be great to know that athletic performance was possible at Ed's age without PED use, as I hope to live that long, and as I don't plan on using any PED's.

Second, I used to think that anybody who had reached the age of 80 got a free pass, just by virtue of age. I thought hard about this when I found out that one of my wife's 80+-yr-old grandmothers was cheating at Scrabble by taking more letters and hiding them on her lap. She knew exactly what she was doing, she was lucid--and she decided to cheat.

I wish I had called her on it.

Everything is context-specific. Not all 80-year-old's are the same. Some have some sort of psychological deficit that should be accommodated. However, some are tack-sharp, and have all their wits about them.

Ed seems like one of the latter. Not only does he run, he takes the time to travel to officially sanctioned competitions, and accepts the recognition of his performances that is bestowed upon him by the official organization, not to mention the ensuing recognition and admiration from people and groups beyond the official organization.

While availing himself of the privilege of competition, Ed has a legal contractual duty to adhere to the rules thereof. While availing himself of the secondary personal emotional benefits attendant to that competition, Ed has a reciprocal ethical duty to adhere to some standards of integrity and candor.

The strength of the duty is proportional to the strength of the attendant recognition and admiration, which is in turn proportional to the strength of the performances upon which they are based.

Given the extraordinary recognition and admiration attendant his extraordinary accomplishments as a result of his decision to enter sanctioned events, Ed has brought a high standard of ethical duty upon himself.

The duty of integrity mandates that Ed take a look at himself, and decide whether or not he is availing himself of the benefits of sanctioned competition while obtaining an advantage that is unfair to the other competitors, past and present. If he is, he should not decide to compete in those sanctioned events.

The duty of candor mandates that Ed disclose those things that are relevant to not only the performance itself, but to the attendant recognition and admiration that he has brought upon himself by deciding to enter sanctioned events.

Relevant to the recognition and admiration are anything that is relevant to the fact that it was Ed in particular who delivered the exceptional performance.

1:34:23.4 is just an abstract number. As a half marathon time, it is an abstract concept. As an actual performance, it is the story of a run made by Ed in particular. Therefore, Ed has a duty to disclose anything asked of him that is relevant to the fact that he, in particular, ran a 1:34:23.4 half marathon.

That includes lots of things, like diet, sleep, injury history, training history, footwear, PED's, medications, hydration, outlook on life, supplementation, family history, and many more things.

It is entirely legitimate to ask questions related to each of the above, and many such questions have been asked.

I'm legitimately asking about PED's, and based on his self-imposed duty of candor, Ed has brought upon himself the duty to respond.

Of course, I wouldn't care at all if he didn't enter public, sanctioned events, as I wouldn't even know about him, and if I did, I wouldn't vest much credibility in his performance claims--but that is not the case.

Lastly, even though I admittedly know nothing about him personally, I would be inclined to accept as true any statement that he cares to make on the issue, unless facially contradictory or patently false.

Like everyone else, he deserves the benefit of the doubt--but there IS doubt, which he has brought upon himself by choosing to enter sanctioned events and receive the attendant recognition and admiration, while at the same time choosing not to make full disclosure.

Unless he HAS disclosed and I don't know about it, which is of course possible.

If he hasn't disclosed, the question then becomes why he has chosen to not make full disclosure. An obvious suggestion is that disclosure would be detrimental. An obvious reason for detrimental disclosure would be PED's.

Thus, the question about PED's is legitimate even in the absence of any actual evidence of their use, unless of course Ed has already addressed the issue. This legitimacy is obvious in light of the fact that testing of bodily fluid samples is mandated by the US federal government in exchange for the privilege of engaging in activities that are sanctioned, and in part funded by, the US government under the USOC and its member federations such as the USATF. Whether the constitutional test used be the rational basis or some other test, and whether the interest at stake be unreasonable search and seizure or due process, testing as currently implemented is considered to meet constitutional muster--that is, there is a rationally-held general suspicion that athletes under USOC's umbrella could be using PED's, and the current doping control paradigm that includes search of voluntarily-provided bodily fluids for banned substances is proportional (to whatever legal standard applied) to the government interest involved. Without getting into too much detail, the suspicion that any athlete who avails himself of the benefits and subjects himself to the conditions of USATF membership or competition is using PED's is legitimate; all the more so if there is specific evidence, direct or circumstantial, pertaining to any individual, tending to suggest PED use. Exceptional performances such as Ed's are a form of that circumstantial evidence--that is how testing of medalists in some meets is justified, as medal performances are exceptional within the context of a specific meet. Bottom line: it is entirely legitimate to suspect that Ed is using PED's--and because ethical and moral as well as legal duties are invoked, Ed bears the burden of addressing those suspicions to the public as well as to the doping control authorities.

And of course this isn't about just Ed, but anybody who produces truly exceptional performances in public. We hold them all to the same standard, for the same reasons articulated above--reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with making money, but instead are predicated on our fundamental existence as social beings--that is, when one chooses to do something in public, one immediately implicates other members of the public in the experience, and must be prepared to interact legitimately with that public. And again, the expected intensity of the interaction is proportional to the performance. Ed therefore has a duty to make disclosures to not only doping control if asked, but also to the public, if asked. The public is not nearly so interested in inferior or mediocre performances than they are in exceptional ones, such as those produced by Ed.

In the case of top-level athletes, even if they do make disclosure in the negative, and can produce some evidence to back it up, other contradictory circumstantial evidence can exist, such as, for instance, unusual hypertrophy, unusually exceptional performances, voice and dermatological changes, acromegaly, highly irregular performance history, information affecting the credibility of either the athlete or the testing agency(ies) or both, etc..

It is because there is no such contradictory circumstantial evidence in Ed's case as far as I can tell, apart from his unusually exceptional performances, that I would be inclined to accept as true any statement he would care to make directly on the issue of PED's.

I would dearly love to believe that it is humanly possible to be physically anything close to Ed at his age--really. His performances are outstanding feats in the history of human physical endeavor, something that is common to us all--and it is for that reason that any of this matters, and that we should care about Ed Whitlock, and that he, in turn, should care about us.

Did someone say something?

[quote]Sprint Geezer wrote:

Hello, Ed.

Blah, blah, blah...

Sprint Geez: you'll increase your chances of approximating Ed's results by backing away from the crack pipe.

i guess humanity has reached its apex when being both an idiot AND an a$$hole have become legitimate and rational forms of philosophical discussion and engagement (not that i'm above either, i guess, as long as we call it what it is...).

now, in an attempt to put my natural snideness and snarkiness aside, i will say in all honesty that sprint geezer's "justification" scares me on a whole different hannibal-lecter-level. let's say we excuse the libelous/slanderous remarks in the name of free speech or some interrogation strategy (which i'd rather not, but what the heck); let's say we assume that ed, as a public figure, has a "duty" to his constituents/fans/etc. (this could be arguably true); let's even say that sprint geezer has a responsibility to expose corruption wherever it may be; let's say ALL of this, and you'll see geezer's remarks still make no sense. all we've found out about ed is what he (assuming any of the posters were the real ed whitlock) wants us to know. choose to believe or not believe (i choose to believe ed's clean, never having met him, without knowing one damn thing about his "favorable character," mainly because the alternative is a less likeable world. yes i'm aware that's probably naive; however, it's not like i'd bet my house on ANYONE's "cleanness"), but to think this resolved anything is absurd.

does anyone truly believe that browbeating someone anonymously on a message board is going to make them confess?

apparently sprint geezer does. if only...

I wonder if Seb Coe could have run under 12.0 from blocks...

I guess we'll never know!

Like I said, Ed appears sufficiently secure in who he is to not let browbeating affect him.

When entreated with a more even tone, he did make a statement, similar to the statements that other high-profile track athletes make to "the public".

Of course his admittedly self-serving statement does not offer factually conclusive resolution of the issue--but so what? For me, it was his silence on the issue that was curious.

Look at it this way: what if he had admitted to something? For instance, testosterone use as part of a physician-supervised anti-aging program (which appears to be becoming ubiquitous)?

Then there would be some people saying "oh well yes, he would never be able to do what he does were it not for the testosterone", even if the dosage was only that recommended in such an "anti-aging" regimen.

And being the apparent class act that he is, I believe that Ed would have disclosed any prescription drug use--why not? Prescriptions are legitimately granted under a socially-accepted legal regulatory scheme.

So, because silence was the major issue, it was the issue of silence that the posts were meant to address. Because he apparently made a statement, the issue of his silence was entirely resolved.

By the way my writing is much improved if I do say so myself.