The inspirational part of the story is that he got clean. The genetic running ability is just incidental, he was born with the ability to do the athletic equivalent of a parlor trick. I'd ignore that part.
Great story. The thing is, Ammons has basically switched from an unhealthy addiction to a healthy addiction. If he got an injury and couldn't run there might be problems.
Great story. The thing is, Ammons has basically switched from an unhealthy addiction to a healthy addiction. If he got an injury and couldn't run there might be problems.
You mean like Dick Beardsley?
It is difficult to understand the hatred pointed toward an individual that few posters, if any, know personally who has learned to enjoy the same healthy and sporting activity. Equally disturbing is the hatred towards fellow posters. Regardless of the position one takes regarding addiction, recovery, remorse, and acceptance, kindness toward others is missing in this thread. It may be the vilest ever on these "yellow pages."
The inspirational part of the story is that he got clean. The genetic running ability is just incidental, he was born with the ability to do the athletic equivalent of a parlor trick. I'd ignore that part.
The guy is not that talented from what I can see. He has some ability but not at the elite level. His non marathon times are not impressive. He has the super shoes and he has endurance, but some of you don’t realize that a 2:16 ain’t what it used to be. A few women can beat him.
Well if you are willing to take heroin I imagine EPO would be on the table. But either way he has done well, super shoes or not.
I will add this. This guy could very well be clean. None of his performances are so impressive as to be suspicious. He has some talent but nothing extraordinary. He appears to be a grinder who can run a decent marathon, that is all.
Well if you are willing to take heroin I imagine EPO would be on the table. But either way he has done well, super shoes or not.
I will add this. This guy could very well be clean. None of his performances are so impressive as to be suspicious. He has some talent but nothing extraordinary. He appears to be a grinder who can run a decent marathon, that is all.
I would never suspect he isn’t clean. The time is closer to a 2:17 than a 2:16. He ran it on a very fast course. He works hard and has talent. It’s not like he popped a 2:10. A 2:16:48 isn’t an unworldly time, so my bet is 4 years of hard work and a decent amount of talent. Good for him!
The guy did run a 4:50 mile as a high school freshman (and I doubt he did much training) and did football instead of XC. So he for sure had a ton of natural talent. Had he stuck with running early on, it's likely he'd have been a top runner in his state and a D1 caliber runner in college.
I don't know about the rapid improvement now, but the potential to eventually be a 2:16 marathoner was definitely there.
I will add this. This guy could very well be clean. None of his performances are so impressive as to be suspicious. He has some talent but nothing extraordinary. He appears to be a grinder who can run a decent marathon, that is all.
I would never suspect he isn’t clean. The time is closer to a 2:17 than a 2:16. He ran it on a very fast course. He works hard and has talent. It’s not like he popped a 2:10. A 2:16:48 isn’t an unworldly time, so my bet is 4 years of hard work and a decent amount of talent. Good for him!
Give me a break that 2:16:48 isn't a great time because "the time is closer to 2:17 than 2:16." I get that your self-esteem benefits from casually tossing numbers around like they are no big deal to you, but 2:16 is impressive to all but a few people in the world who are truly running for the money.
I would never suspect he isn’t clean. The time is closer to a 2:17 than a 2:16. He ran it on a very fast course. He works hard and has talent. It’s not like he popped a 2:10. A 2:16:48 isn’t an unworldly time, so my bet is 4 years of hard work and a decent amount of talent. Good for him!
Give me a break that 2:16:48 isn't a great time because "the time is closer to 2:17 than 2:16." I get that your self-esteem benefits from casually tossing numbers around like they are no big deal to you, but 2:16 is impressive to all but a few people in the world who are truly running for the money.
Yes, and if it was a female running that time, then they'd be in that small group whose names we can't quite remember.
I would never suspect he isn’t clean. The time is closer to a 2:17 than a 2:16. He ran it on a very fast course. He works hard and has talent. It’s not like he popped a 2:10. A 2:16:48 isn’t an unworldly time, so my bet is 4 years of hard work and a decent amount of talent. Good for him!
Give me a break that 2:16:48 isn't a great time because "the time is closer to 2:17 than 2:16." I get that your self-esteem benefits from casually tossing numbers around like they are no big deal to you, but 2:16 is impressive to all but a few people in the world who are truly running for the money.
He is talented and works hard. I am saying there is no reason to believe he is doping. Yes 2:16s are fast in comparison, but it is by no means elite standards, so I am just saying I think his hard work paid off, the human body is capable of that time without doping like people are saying. It has nothing to do with my self esteem. I am simply standing up for the guy and that he worked hard.
Give me a break that 2:16:48 isn't a great time because "the time is closer to 2:17 than 2:16." I get that your self-esteem benefits from casually tossing numbers around like they are no big deal to you, but 2:16 is impressive to all but a few people in the world who are truly running for the money.
He is talented and works hard. I am saying there is no reason to believe he is doping. Yes 2:16s are fast in comparison, but it is by no means elite standards, so I am just saying I think his hard work paid off, the human body is capable of that time without doping like people are saying. It has nothing to do with my self esteem. I am simply standing up for the guy and that he worked hard.
Do you have any examples of other men that were able to run 2:16 within 4 years of starting running seriously? PROBABLY NOT.
It's unlikely that even Grant Fisher would have been able to run that in his senior year of college after 8 years of running (he had only run 13:29 his senior year and had never run a track 10k).
Mitch smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for several years, that will 100% permanently damage your lungs. Even if over a long period of time the lungs might clear up a little bit, 4-5 years is not enough time to see a significant improvement of lung performance.
He is talented and works hard. I am saying there is no reason to believe he is doping. Yes 2:16s are fast in comparison, but it is by no means elite standards, so I am just saying I think his hard work paid off, the human body is capable of that time without doping like people are saying. It has nothing to do with my self esteem. I am simply standing up for the guy and that he worked hard.
Do you have any examples of other men that were able to run 2:16 within 4 years of starting running seriously? PROBABLY NOT.
It's unlikely that even Grant Fisher would have been able to run that in his senior year of college after 8 years of running (he had only run 13:29 his senior year and had never run a track 10k).
Mitch smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for several years, that will 100% permanently damage your lungs. Even if over a long period of time the lungs might clear up a little bit, 4-5 years is not enough time to see a significant improvement of lung performance.
There are many people who could run 2:16 within 4 years of starting serious training, myself included. And many of us could run faster than he has at shorter distances within one or two years of serious training.
Do you have any examples of other men that were able to run 2:16 within 4 years of starting running seriously? PROBABLY NOT.
It's unlikely that even Grant Fisher would have been able to run that in his senior year of college after 8 years of running (he had only run 13:29 his senior year and had never run a track 10k).
Mitch smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for several years, that will 100% permanently damage your lungs. Even if over a long period of time the lungs might clear up a little bit, 4-5 years is not enough time to see a significant improvement of lung performance.
There are many people who could run 2:16 within 4 years of starting serious training, myself included. And many of us could run faster than he has at shorter distances within one or two years of serious training.
if many could, then why has NOBODY else (clean) ever had such an improvement from literally nothing to OT qualifier?
There are many people who could run 2:16 within 4 years of starting serious training, myself included. And many of us could run faster than he has at shorter distances within one or two years of serious training.
if many could, then why has NOBODY else (clean) ever had such an improvement from literally nothing to OT qualifier?
Some likely have but they were usually younger. I was running 29 minutes for 10000m within 3 years of training. There are many more talented than myself.
I am sure there have been a lot of people to do similar feats of the years. You would never have heard about Mitch if he hadn’t used drugs. You don’t hear about the 2:16 guy ever. Mitch is an anomaly as far as genetics go. He probably healed up quicker than most and had a lot of talent. Guaranteed there is somebody that is running in the 2024 OTs with similar training, but they didn’t use drugs so you won’t ever hear their story.
Do you have any examples of other men that were able to run 2:16 within 4 years of starting running seriously? PROBABLY NOT.
It's unlikely that even Grant Fisher would have been able to run that in his senior year of college after 8 years of running (he had only run 13:29 his senior year and had never run a track 10k).
Mitch smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for several years, that will 100% permanently damage your lungs. Even if over a long period of time the lungs might clear up a little bit, 4-5 years is not enough time to see a significant improvement of lung performance.
There are many people who could run 2:16 within 4 years of starting serious training, myself included. And many of us could run faster than he has at shorter distances within one or two years of serious training.
"Starting serious training" is such an hillarious modifier. You were only doing mere 50 mile weeks for 10 years before seriously training for four years, or something like that? Exactly the same, bud.
I am sure there have been a lot of people to do similar feats of the years. You would never have heard about Mitch if he hadn’t used drugs. You don’t hear about the 2:16 guy ever. Mitch is an anomaly as far as genetics go. He probably healed up quicker than most and had a lot of talent. Guaranteed there is somebody that is running in the 2024 OTs with similar training, but they didn’t use drugs so you won’t ever hear their story.
And there are many books that never will be made into films. Weird how that works.