Roberta Groner 2:29:06 PR AGE 41

Armstrong, do you realize how bad that research is? Do you realize how flawed science is and these research papers? I can tell you are young. In 24-36 months, there will be more research that contradicts everything you are reading today. But by then you will be off LRC because you are not true to the sport.

Do you have any thoughts on Priscilla Welch?

Armstrong, in addition can you provide any research that some type of doping at age 41 improves marathon performance below 2:30 in the marathon for women? Thank you.

No. Several have said that it gives pause. YOU tried to claim it as proof. Those are different things. It's like the flags that would lead to an investigation vs. those that would lead to filing charges vs. those that lead to conviction. You are ready to convict on the basis that she did not show this talent when she was 19.

There are many examples of people not having the passion or drive or motivation to pursue a talent at 19. Or having a talent that just goes totally undiscovered. Or having the motivation and the talent but lacking the know-how. Just because she did not run 2:24 at 28 because that was not where here interest or priorities were doesn't mean that she did not have that talent at 28. Just because she is demonstrating that talent now doesn't mean she got there through ill-gotten means.

Her age grade abilities are on Shalane Flanagan levels (96%). Maybe they're legit and she just didn't have the same drive or coaching when she was younger. Maybe they are not. But they are not unique enough results for the claims of certitude you are making, so you should measure your words and be careful with your accusations.

And also your references, logic, and conclusions were fundamentally flawed. That's why I stopped by.

That we don't have enough elite degradation data from 35 on to show what is normal or possible. That is from 35 plus athletes actively trying to train and compete at the top level.

As to your question on what would give pause, someone running an actual top time later in life after no early signs or relative mediocrity up to that point.

2:29 is not that.

EliteM wrote:

Armstrong, do you realize how bad that research is? Do you realize how flawed science is and these research papers? I can tell you are young. In 24-36 months, there will be more research that contradicts everything you are reading today. But by then you will be off LRC because you are not true to the sport.

Do you have any thoughts on Priscilla Welch?

He already had to go back to a paper from 1996 to support his point, that used masters records tables from 1991.

EliteM wrote:

I can tell you are young.?

Sadly, the dude is in his 60s.

I think it's funny that his go to paper is by an aging expert who veers more towards the unrealistic side of aging.

Boritz is one of those "everyone can live to 100" gurus.

Even aging deniers would use him as their last source of evidence.

"I'm starting to think you are actually really not very bright rather than just a troll."

This is why Let's Run is the YouTUBE comments section of the running world.

Armstronglivs, are you really in your 60s?

For what it is worth, based on age grading tables, her time is the equivalent of me running a 2:20. Am I talented enough to do that? No. But is it so far out of the stratosphere for someone my age to do that that I would make public statements suggesting doping? Absolutely not.

And here is the issue. If you are in your 60s, you should be mature enough to realize that you cannot hide behind statements like "I think it is fair to question this." Because at that age, you should know that just because something occurs to you in your mind, you don't need to say it out loud. That is especially true when the statement has clear implications and carries significant subtext. The words on their face seem defensible, but you cannot ignore the implication and the subtext. And when that comes on an anonymous message board, it makes the whole act seem not only to be in bad taste, but somewhat cowardly.

I have had lots of questions about lots of athletes, but you can scour these message boards and you will not find one post from me making accusations (whether overtly or, as you have done (whether you realize it or not), or implicitly) about them, even though my identity is fairly well known. I wouldn't do that because I don't have any proof of malfeasance and because that I know that once you start to associate someone's name with doping, it puts a stink on them and it diminishes their accomplishments.

If you cannot see the implication of your words beyond their literal meaning, and if you cannot see the impact that those implicit accusations have, then there is no point in talking to you.

If you think she is doper, then where on her steady and straight-line improvement do you think she went to the dark side? For almost every doper, there is an obvious enormous drop in performance (usually preceded by some type of plateau) at some point. If you are clean, and then you dope, it's expected you get a big bump in performance.

There's probably some anger that he not only missed out on an elite career in his prime but he's not even one of the top age group athletes everyone talks about.

That's the cocklebur in his budgie smugglers.

Smoove, I appreciate you are sincere in your comments, but I don't agree with you. We have a significantly different view about the sport. I have competed in it, as well as a number of other sports over the years, and I still try to remain active. But the view I have come to in more recent years is that sports today are afflicted by an epidemic of doping, and my understanding is that athletics/running is one of the worst. I find that very regrettable, as it has been a sport I have enjoyed, and I looked up to its champions.

However, if certain performances are brought to our attention in a forum like this, I am not necessarily going to join in the expected chorus of unqualified admiration; if I find aspects of the performance hard to believe or otherwise questionable I will say so, and give reasons why if I am asked or challenged. You and others are free to disagree. But an unpopular opinion isn't necessarily wrong; and the taint of possible doping in any performance, by any athlete - or in the sport generally - is not avoided by not talking about it.

I don't wish to offend you, but we do see things differently, and it is in part the product of my years - I have seen quite a lot of life - that I have come to see things the way I do. I may well be wrong, but it is only through cogent counter argument that I will be persuaded to change my mind; the standard response here of personal derision doesn't really cut it. I acknowledge however that is not your style, and I respect you for that.

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

EliteM wrote:

Armstrong, do you realize how bad that research is? Do you realize how flawed science is and these research papers? I can tell you are young. In 24-36 months, there will be more research that contradicts everything you are reading today. But by then you will be off LRC because you are not true to the sport.

Do you have any thoughts on Priscilla Welch?

He already had to go back to a paper from 1996 to support his point, that used masters records tables from 1991.

You do realise that the research you deride offers the more generous prediction of aging; that most other commentaries seem to incline to age degradation greater than that? Do you have a figure that you regard as acceptable or are you simply subscribing to the popular mantra here that "everyone is different" and so no standard applies?

Rope a Dope wrote:

If you think she is doper, then where on her steady and straight-line improvement do you think she went to the dark side? For almost every doper, there is an obvious enormous drop in performance (usually preceded by some type of plateau) at some point. If you are clean, and then you dope, it's expected you get a big bump in performance.

I don't know if she is a doper. I question the performance because it appears to me that it is effectively a world-ranked performance, for that age, that has come from a runner without significant pedigree, who also continues to improve spectacularly while aging. That makes me sceptical. But simply denying the effects of aging on senior athletes, as some here do, doesn't dispel those doubts.

You have also made an assumption about doping, that it is preceded by slumps in performance. That isn't necessarily the case. Doping may simply improve upon an established level or performance plateau. The improvement can be gradual or sudden, depending on what is being used. But the gains can certainly be impressive, and turn a relatively mediocre performer into a world-beater. Witness Rashid Ramzi. However, there are often dramatic slumps when the athlete stops doping.

You still won't answer the question on Jack Foster etc.

Armstronglivs wrote:

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

He already had to go back to a paper from 1996 to support his point, that used masters records tables from 1991.

You do realise that the research you deride offers the more generous prediction of aging; that most other commentaries seem to incline to age degradation greater than that? Do you have a figure that you regard as acceptable or are you simply subscribing to the popular mantra here that "everyone is different" and so no standard applies?

.2% if the athlete keeps doing all the right things in training

You need to do a study on only athletes who try, not just folks of a certain age just out there competing.

Masters records can surely be broken, no?

EliteM wrote:

Armstrong, in addition can you provide any research that some type of doping at age 41 improves marathon performance below 2:30 in the marathon for women? Thank you.

Russian runners who were doping used combinations of steroids, testosterone and amphetamines. These all significantly boosted endurance. Of course, as we have seen with the unfortunately numerous busts in Kenya, EPO has figured quite a lot in marathon runners testing positive. Some of their top runners have been using it, as you will know. However, the range of choice of ped's today is considerable; according to a French-made documentary series that was screened recently on Aljazeera, there are "hundreds of undetectable products now available on the doping black market", which it also said amounted to "billions of Euros" annually.

Every sport is affected by it; there is no reason why an endurance sport like the marathon would be exempt - and we see that it isn't. And every level of athlete could gain advantage from using, not just elites. There has been a huge upsurge in prescriptions for testosterone amongst baby boomers in the US; they aren't taking it as a placebo.

Golden Master era wrote:

You still won't answer the question on Jack Foster etc.

I don't have a view on every runner under the sun. I don't know about Foster; it was a long-time ago. But anything is possible.