Hasay breaks her silence about Salazar and talks about her future

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think your use of times to compare here is very misleading considering. As far as Majors Kara only ran Boston and New York which are unpaced races and not as fast as Chicago where Jordan ran her PR. Kara was top 3 at both of those races and 3 min of the CR record at New York. So to say Jordan is a better runner by a mile is not accurate. If Kara had run on a fast course like Chicago in a paced setting in her prime her PR would probably be 2:22 or faster. Technically Jordan is faster than Shalene, but Shalene's win and runner up at New York are more impressive that Hasay's resume. Time is not the only factor for the marathon. At the end of her career, Hasay may have a better marathon resume but at this point, I think Kara and her are pretty equal.

False, she would NOT have run 2:22 or faster at Chicago, that's absolute nonsense. Look at her other marathons. Kara had plenty of chances and she never did it, yet after the race made excuse after excuse. You brought up Shalane, not me and your comparison is flawed. Jordan is much better marathoner than Kara. Kara was never running 2:22, that's laughable. Her whole career she never came close, not once. Look up the marathons, take a deep breath while doing so, and use your head. It should be easy for ya.

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think your use of times to compare here is very misleading considering. As far as Majors Kara only ran Boston and New York which are unpaced races and not as fast as Chicago where Jordan ran her PR. Kara was top 3 at both of those races and 3 min of the CR record at New York. So to say Jordan is a better runner by a mile is not accurate. If Kara had run on a fast course like Chicago in a paced setting in her prime her PR would probably be 2:22 or faster. Technically Jordan is faster than Shalene, but Shalene's win and runner up at New York are more impressive that Hasay's resume. Time is not the only factor for the marathon. At the end of her career, Hasay may have a better marathon resume but at this point, I think Kara and her are pretty equal.

False, she would NOT have run 2:22 or faster at Chicago, that's absolute nonsense. Look at her other marathons. Kara had plenty of chances and she never did it, yet after the race made excuse after excuse. You brought up Shalane, not me and your comparison is flawed. Jordan is much better marathoner than Kara. Kara was never running 2:22, that's laughable. Her whole career she never came close, not once. Look up the marathons, take a deep breath while doing so, and use your head. It should be easy for ya.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

False, she would NOT have run 2:22 or faster at Chicago, that's absolute nonsense. Look at her other marathons. Kara had plenty of chances and she never did it, yet after the race made excuse after excuse. You brought up Shalane, not me and your comparison is flawed. Jordan is much better marathoner than Kara. Kara was never running 2:22, that's laughable. Her whole career she never came close, not once. Look up the marathons, take a deep breath while doing so, and use your head. It should be easy for ya.

You clearly know nothing about the marathon and I do. Kara never ran a non championship marathon, which you might as well throw out time for, besides Boston or New York. A time of 2:24 to 2:25 on one of those courses for a women definitely indicates 2:22 ability at Chicago. Chicago is a much faster course except when Boston has a large tailwind. Boston and New York don't do rabbits where as a female in Chicago you can have male Pacers since the races start simultaneously(elite women start early at Boston and New York). Pacers make a huge difference. Look at what happened to the top male times in Chicago after they stopped having pacers. Saying Jordan is a mile better than Kara in a marathon is ridiculously stupid.

not my real name wrote:

I thought she spoke pretty clearly, ala centro, was open about her medical history (didn't hide behind "medical privacy"), answered with unambiguous statements, and seems like a straight shooter. Can't say I fault her if she never saw anything, sure seems like the NOP is tiered around a) Rupp (& maybe farah) and b) everyone else. I'm starting to understand why everyone has the same story, salazar seems tied to the golden one and almost ignores everyone else.

For those too lazy to read the article, she flat out said she's never seen Dr Brown (unlike a certain US 1500m runner), never had a transfusion, IV, or TUE. That last part surprised me, nowadays seems like everyone has a TUE, if she truly has never even had one, I think that speaks as strongly as anything. Very surprising considering the reputation NOP has for TUE's, but i don't think she's dumb enough to say it if someone could leak something to show otherwise, so I'm assuming it's true.

I don't really give a sh** whether she stays at NOP or leaves, I'll be rooting for her on sunday.

discus...

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a29407958/jordan-hasay-breaks-her-silence-on-salazar/

minde15 wrote:

Ggggg wrote:

You don’t run 32 minutes for 10k and 1:07 for half and 2:20 for the marathon. She made a suspicious significant improvement around 2016-17, and hasn’t run 10k or 5k since then, but if she had you would have seen a result closer to 30 minutes, because that’s what a 1:07 and 2:20 runs. Comprende?

If you are a pure marathoner you definitely can have those times, especially if you decide to focus less and less on the 10k as you get better in the half and full. Yes it is not in the norm, but that is because most people are better suited at shorter distances and move up.

For instance, when I was in high school my best vdot was around the 69/70 range but there is no way that I could run those equivalent times in the half and the full when I was in high school. Now as someone in my 30s, I can run the half and full times for that vdot but have a harder time hitting the 5k and definitely cant hit the mile or two mile times anymore (though I did a couple years ago). My prs are 421/923/1459/3121/68:12/2:22:25

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Where do we draw the line? These athletes have perfectly normal thyroid functions/values, vitamin D levels, etc. By pushing them over and giving them more than needed we extend their abilities to run, recover and their performance.

I never said anything against Hasay, she might be clean but is still taking more things than other elites are. Salazar was taking the enhancement of performance by using drugs to the highest level possible, without the drugs his athletes would become just another version of himself if they kept up their huge training load.

Things that differentiate many Salazar athletes from others:

- yes, many take vitamin D, calcium, fish oil (omega 3), magnesium, iron, etc. but Salazar does not just use them to balance deficiencies, or give a slight boost, he is actively trying to reach the highest level possible for maximum performance

- he is using stuff that is much lesser known, like calcitonine, beta-alanine, aminos, l-carnitine (nutramet). all performance-enhancing

- he is abusing thyroid medications to gain performance boosts - these meds were supposed to help people with hashimoto's, no thyroid or a severely underfunctioning on to be able to function normally, not to enable highly-functional people with no thyroid problems to train even harder

Hasay is off the hook for 3) - but the combination of 1) and 2) still contains many things that only few elites will use to this extent, and while not in direct breach of doping violations DO give them advantages over those who don't.

So unless you are saying to level the field we should be putting athletes who don't want to abuse meds like Muir, Willis etc on all of this stuff NOP athletes DO have an advantage that is not just related to more and harder training.

Just think about bodyweight - most female runners would be easily getting stress fractures or underperform at the BMI of Koko or Hassan, but the combination of these meds, and especially the calcitonine toothpaste allow them to perform well at their weights.

Montesquieu wrote:

Hasay joined the Oregon Project in the summer of 2013. Shortly after joining she ran the "B" standard of 31:46 for 10,000. In 2014, with a year at NOP she ran 31:39 (she also ran a 4:07 1500 PR that summer); in 2015, with two years at NOP she ran 32:46; and in 2016, with three full years under her belt at NOP she ran 31:58. In the 5,000 her times for the same years were 15:50, 15:28, 15:45, 15:32.

Now, with a similar time frame of three years, look at many of the women at the Bowerman Track Club--Shelby, Schweizer, Frerichs (add Kincaid to the list). Incredible improvements from college. I mention this not to indict them: great coaching sometimes yields great results. Yet Hasay . . .

So, to Hasay's critics I ask, how does one explain her mediocre track performances, not for one year, not for two years, but for three full years? If it is through performance enhancing drugs that she now succeeds, why didn't she perform better earlier? Shouldn't this give one pause before unqualifiedly accusing her?

Iain wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

Hasay joined the Oregon Project in the summer of 2013. Shortly after joining she ran the "B" standard of 31:46 for 10,000. In 2014, with a year at NOP she ran 31:39 (she also ran a 4:07 1500 PR that summer); in 2015, with two years at NOP she ran 32:46; and in 2016, with three full years under her belt at NOP she ran 31:58. In the 5,000 her times for the same years were 15:50, 15:28, 15:45, 15:32.

Now, with a similar time frame of three years, look at many of the women at the Bowerman Track Club--Shelby, Schweizer, Frerichs (add Kincaid to the list). Incredible improvements from college. I mention this not to indict them: great coaching sometimes yields great results. Yet Hasay . . .

So, to Hasay's critics I ask, how does one explain her mediocre track performances, not for one year, not for two years, but for three full years? If it is through performance enhancing drugs that she now succeeds, why didn't she perform better earlier? Shouldn't this give one pause before unqualifiedly accusing her?

Four pages of crap; this and one other post are the only ones worth reading. Thank you Montesquieu