Keira D'amato is Suspicious

SpeedQuest wrote:

Spot on Savage...

her marathon progression… yeah at age 36 after racing 5 marathons in the previous 2 years/season and running no faster than 2:34. Sure, Drop 12minutes to 2:22. Then run a fall marathon at chicago and fall back 6min and comeback 3 months later and PR by almost 3 minutes. ok!

i guess all those other marathons were just 10 years of tempo runs to pop the big one at age 37! yup - totally legit... Also, shame on all of us that we didn't call it out sooner, but seeing that she wasn't winning chicago or oly trials or breaking the american record it wasn't quite rubbed in our face... Break the record and shatter all your bests at age 37 - well as the nike commercial says, "It's gotta be the shoes!"

That's exactly how I feel, kind of foolish in retrospect for not giving this much thought earlier, but when you set the AR in the marathon suddenly it becomes a lot more real. Sure there were some threads from a year or two ago with a few doubts, but this really should have garnered more attention at the time, at least when the 10 mile AR was set.

To be honest, she was just completely off my radar. I didn't pay any attention to The Marathon Project, because it was for all the runners that didn't make the Olympic team. Keira finished 15th at the Olympic Trials and I forgot about her, simply thinking that it was a nice story that somebody returning to running after time off could finish that high. Now that she has run the American record, she is certainly on my radar, and her progression stinks to high heaven.

conversion calculator wrote:

That's exactly how I feel, kind of foolish in retrospect for not giving this much thought earlier, but when you set the AR in the marathon suddenly it becomes a lot more real. Sure there were some threads from a year or two ago with a few doubts, but this really should have garnered more attention at the time, at least when the 10 mile AR was set.

Some of you really don’t understand how training for and racing the marathon works.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

conversion calculator wrote:

That's exactly how I feel, kind of foolish in retrospect for not giving this much thought earlier, but when you set the AR in the marathon suddenly it becomes a lot more real. Sure there were some threads from a year or two ago with a few doubts, but this really should have garnered more attention at the time, at least when the 10 mile AR was set.

Some of you really don’t understand how training for and racing the marathon works.

This is an understatement. Many here are using performance improvement as a basis for suspicion of doping, without understanding how, or even if, doping and elite marathon performance are related.

rekrunner wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Some of you really don’t understand how training for and racing the marathon works.

This is an understatement. Many here are using performance improvement as a basis for suspicion of doping, without understanding how, or even if, doping and elite marathon performance are related.

Might as well break down how it works then. Happy to take my masters in sports medicine to review your take.

What should I be using instead my farmers almanac? I only check that quarterly.

But seriously, it’s about her rate of progression than the time in an off year with little testing. I expect 8-10 minutes to be cut off by runners just starting out who have higher rooms of improvement in their aerobic capacity.

Fitness is not limitless and everyone has a ceiling. Your agreement lies on the fact she was serverly undertrained based on her potential leading up this off year where she had a break through compared to all other elite records that have small subtle gains or favorable race day conditions to hit the record.

I’m not saying she’s dirty, she hasn’t done enough to prove the record is clean.

Funny if other runners are running total bs training and do not progress, somebody else does all the right things and progresses...... oh the shame, must be doped.

To me watching all those videos on Sweat Elite, most the things coaches or athletes do seems to be total bull, like andy buchart, wtf are you doing in those warm ups..... of course exaggeration but this is LR bull so who cares.....

rekrunner wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Some of you really don’t understand how training for and racing the marathon works.

This is an understatement. Many here are using performance improvement as a basis for suspicion of doping, without understanding how, or even if, doping and elite marathon performance are related.

lol

If your position is “prove the record is clean,” then I don’t think you’ll ever be satisfied with a response. Who are you, Steven Crowder?

She ran 70 minutes for the half in January 2020, that equates to about a 2:26 marathon. She was not her marathon potential by any stretch when she ran 2:34 at the OT a month later.

She did have small subtle gains IN TRAINING! Someone with a masters in sports medicine should know that your body doesn’t just adapt to training loads on race day. So in March, April, July, September of 2020, she was making gains in fitness. She didn’t race as much, because marathoners tend to only run 2-3 marathons a year.

She dropped her half time by just over a minute (small gain from 1:10 low to 1:08 high), and then brought her marathon in line with her half PR (small gain from 2:26 fitness based on her half to 2:22 high.) Again, this is over 12 months! Marathoners don’t have to race marathons so often.

Then another 13 months later, she runs the AR. To reiterate, she was making small gains all throughout that time because that’s how training works.

So 25 months to go from a 70 half to a 2:19 is perfectly reasonable. Shalane Flanagan’s half PR is only 1:08. Would you have called her suspicious if she broke 2:20?

Have you seen other gains once an individual drops under 2:30 or 2.20 for a marathon? They don’t drop 5-10 minutes each time.

That 1:10 is typically equivalent to a 2:30 marathon on the half doubled plus ten minutes.

Taking the collective point of what we know about professional runners, Nike endorsed athlete's, signs of performance enhancing drug use (lean, cut muscle masses) and gigantic jumps in training particularly at faster times that once expects a smaller rate of return over time (regardless of how many times one races) , the evidence to me weights it against the fact this is a clean record.

To add to that, remember, all marathon courses are not created equal, Atlanta Trials course compared to Houston is not quite apples to apples. Recall that the Trials course was NOT easy, and to add to that, Keira was trying to hang with the lead pack as long as she could. There can be no question that she was in way better than 2:34 shape that day.

rekrunner wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Some of you really don’t understand how training for and racing the marathon works.

This is an understatement. Many here are using performance improvement as a basis for suspicion of doping, without understanding how, or even if, doping and elite marathon performance are related.

They are. We understand that.

All of that can more easily be explained by doping. Yup.

As another thread pointed out - this was a 3.49 runner who has progressed to 2.19. What was she before - a wheelchair athlete?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

conversion calculator wrote:

That's exactly how I feel, kind of foolish in retrospect for not giving this much thought earlier, but when you set the AR in the marathon suddenly it becomes a lot more real. Sure there were some threads from a year or two ago with a few doubts, but this really should have garnered more attention at the time, at least when the 10 mile AR was set.

Some of you really don’t understand how training for and racing the marathon works.

Some of you really don't understand how doping has transformed running and every other sport.

Armstronglivs wrote:

As another thread pointed out - this was a 3.49 runner who has progressed to 2.19. What was she before - a wheelchair athlete?

Please. She was not a 3:49 runner. That was 2013 when she was completely out of shape with a little bit of jogging to prepare. Not even a remotely serious race and you know it. Your bias on this is glaringly obvious

Keira D'amato

10/28/12 Marine Corps Marathon - 3:20:24 - age 28

7/14/13 Missoula Marathon - 3:49:49 - age 28

3/19/17 Shamrock Marathon - 3:14:54 - age 32

11/11/17 Richmond Marathon - 2:47:00 - age 33

4/16/18 Boston Marathon - 2:56:44 - age 33

6/16/18 Grandma's Marathon - 2:44:03 - age 33

11/10/18 Richmond Marathon - 2:40:56 - age 34

9/29/19 Berlin Marathon - 2:34:55 - age 34

2/29/20 Olympic Trials Marathon (Atlanta) - 2:34:23 - age 35

12/20/20 Marathon Project - 2:22:56 - age 36

10/10/21 Chicago Marathon - 2:28:22 - age 36

1/16/22 Houston Marathon - 2:19:12 - age 37

Ok... 6/16/18 - Grandma's age 33, which was 2mths after the difficult boston. let's say this race wasn't her "true Potential" she then 5months later runs 2:40. Then at Berlin 2:34:55 age 34... At some point you've hit your potential... She then runs that again at the trials 2:34:23 where she can't hang with the best Americans and finishes 15th...

*But magically SHE DROPS 12 MINUTES at her next performance.... Then at Chicago runs 2:28:22... And then Comes right back and DROPS THE NEW AMERICAN RECORD....

Come on LENNY! Are you telling me that she was SOOOOO VASTLY undertrained and poorly coached for BERLIN (World Major) and (TRIALS) that she hadn't hit her potential.

SUDDENLY She happens upon the Miracle - a 2:22 and then at a Flat Fast Major (Chicago) runs 2:28... Then comes back and starts shattering AMERICAN RECORDS ABOUND! Not with years of top level performances and competitions - Nope, she wasn't beating the pro's at all but one day, just magically reached that Magic Potential!

We HAVE SEEN THIS STORY Before! OH My - 9.79!!!!! Outclassed Runner not in the same league shatters Record...

So Lenny - you can't have it both ways... You can't go for Years of only performing at 2:34 and not being able to hang with the top dawgs... And, then MAGICALLY RUN FASTER THAN ANY OTHER US WOMAN HAS EVER RUN at age 37.... Especially when you can't beat any of them !

unless..... You're using the secret Sauce...

Just Not paying attention to the obvious: circa 2003 - Eddy Hellebuyck shows up to the US 5k road championship and runs faster than 5k olympian Jonathan Riley... You telling me even if riley took a month off he wouldn't naturally beat him at 5k. BETTER YET... REGINA JACOBS - Shattering PRs at 37 and topping the US Rankings... And she was a full scale Pro for years who suddenly runs better than Ever!!! Cathal Lombard it was his new plyo routines, right?.... Lance, it wasn't all about the Bike after all!

why is it that with all the science we have and know, we choose to bury our head in the sand and believe in fairy tales....

Quick order me some Burritos and Super-shoes!

So I think you really have to take into consideration the conditions of the race. First, nearly everyone PRed in Houston so... fast course duh.

Second, a 2:34 at the Marathon Trials was actually very impressive. Considering all the times were slow. I actually was there (not competing but watching as I was still in college then) in Atlanta and that weather, conditions, and wind were AWFUL! Hills + wind to knock you on your ass. To me, you're not a real runner if you aren't considering race conditions. The 3:49 to me says as well that Keira was maybe even doing it for fun or maybe ran with her husband for that marathon--you just don't know what her reasoning behind that marathon was.

Your evidence that "she's not run 2:19 before" is non-evidence. I mean, didn't Jordan Hasay open her half marathon with a crazy time? Where is her head on a pike? Where you see someone running many marathons and not running 2:19, I see 10 years of a former All-American Cross Country (Div 1) athlete getting. used to/comfortable with the distance. She's been gaining momentum for some time and has impressive 5k and 10k PRs, this Marathon seems like it was just the perfect storm of good conditions, coaching, and timing.

Grassrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

As another thread pointed out - this was a 3.49 runner who has progressed to 2.19. What was she before - a wheelchair athlete?

Please. She was not a 3:49 runner. That was 2013 when she was completely out of shape with a little bit of jogging to prepare. Not even a remotely serious race and you know it. Your bias on this is glaringly obvious

The absurdity of this argument is that even you would reach a point where you could not accept the credibility of her achievement. She was once a 3.49 runner - she was only "out of shape" by arguing backwards from her later efforts that she must have been unfit when it could just as easily be argued that she was a mediocre talent who doped. What if she runs 2.15 or faster? That is only a 4 minute improvement - which is nothing for someone who has lopped off an hour-and-a-half.

I love that phrase - "a perfect storm". It always explains everything. But usually the correct explanation is more straightforward.