In order for anyone to GET your point, you need to develop it. You started with a bald, provocative, assertion, without any real support, assuming that that would somehow sink in, and people would GET IT.
You asked us to take the statement for what it is. Any bald assertion, especially from an anonymous source, without supporting statements, is a statement which has no meaning in and of itself. It may represent an idea, but needs development for it to have any real meaning (not unlike athletes need development to become significant).
For example, I'm wondering, is there an accepted definition of "long run"? How long does it have to be, to be considered a long run? Only just now, you're idea seems to be 90 minutes. If my event is a 2 minute race, then 30 minutes seems like a long time comparatively. Therefore all of your 2x45 minutes examples believe that long runs are so ESSENTIAL, they do it twice a day! Do you see how not explaining the context can actually work against your stated purpose of everyone GETTING your point?
If your examples never ran more than 90 minutes a day in there lives, how do we know they are reaching their potential? How do we know they wouldn't run even faster by including 90 minutes runs at the right times, if they never did it. Maybe they are succeeding, but selling themselves short.
Maybe you can try again, for the 4th or 5th time, to clarify what you are actually trying to assert, and then any meaningful debate can start.
I'm going to say it one more time, just to see if any of you actually GET IT this last time, seeing as you (HREx10 and westcoast) seem to NOT get it yet:
LONG RUNS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE SUCCESS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.
If you still persist in arguing with me then you must be completely ignorant of some sub 3:30 and sub 1:44 people who never ran more than a 90 minute single run in their lives. They may have have done a ton of 2x45min days tho. (This is not about the 40 mile a week collecge guy.)