Sinead Diver Runs 2:21:34 In Valencia At 45 Years Old!! Becomes The Fastest Irish Woman In History

Ceepo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119996708#Comment_119996708

If we have learned anything from watching athletics and cycling over the past 20/25 years, it's that sometimes thing aren't as pure as we would like them to be. We have all at some point marvelled at x performance only later to find out it wasn't all down to hard training, shoes, technology or marginal gains. This should (and rightly so) make us at the very least question a standout performance. And let's face, that was a standout performance. Now of course this doesn't mean that the performance was 100% legit, but some people will always have questions. There's no doubt that shoe technology, sports nutrition and science has improved performance over the past 5/10 years, (especially the shoes) so I'm not sure we can judge that time against previous Irish or even international standards, but even allowing for that its still a heck of a run, and improvement from any athlete but especially from a 45 year old, even with a relative young training age.

People have quite rightly questioned Beriso performance that day. It was staggering, if not an unbelievable run. Kiptum as well. I seen him finishing 2nd in Loop den Haag half marathon in approximately 20 seconds faster time that he ran the last half of Valencia marathon.

Imo people still need to question those performances.

Murph_D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119992111#Comment_119992111

Yes, but…. If it IS that fast a course and say someone managed to run a sub-2 on it, with the women's winner also being pulled along to a new WR of say 2:11:40 (10 percent slower), then Sinead's time would still be quite an outlier, still only 7.5 percent slower than that theoretical new WR, despite being 45 and a non-professional athlete.

Either a great performance or a dodgy one.

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120000629#Comment_120000629

It was a great performance nobody doubts that. But there were great performances all around that day.

Lets just get some key absolute stats on Valencia before going relative:

-Valencia 22 had 7 females under 2:20. Berlin 22 (Kipchoge ran WR) had only 4 females under 2:20,

-4 of the top 12 female marathons of all time were run in Valencia 22.

-Both winners on debut marathons ran within a minute of the world record. The men's winner ran 30-40k in 28:04 (at a guess) the fastest 10k segment ever run (within a top marathon time) in history.

-Diver's run in this race made her the 122nd fastest ever marathon runner.

You seem to be picking particular percentages and using them to imply potential dodginess. You already admitted in earlier posts there is no convincing substantiation for stating that particular percentages (for time ratios between senior and masters elite runners) are outliers or otherwise.

Let's look at another of her performances, London 2019.

Diver's 2nd fastest time was in London 2019 where she race 2:24 which was 104% of world record holder Brigid Koskei's winning time that day.

In Valencia she ran 105% of the winners time who is a debut marathoner and not the world record holder not even the woman expected to win the race with Letesenbet GIDEY in the field (HM world record = 110% Diver HM speed).

Although her Valencia performance was arguably a better performance than London, I haven't heard clear evidence of a significant outlier never mind: "Sinead's 2:21 at 45 is either the greatest marathon of all time, by any athlete of any gender or any age or it's something else".

robinph

More likely someone put a cone in the wrong place when setting out the course if everyone's times are so unusually fast at one particular event, than it being everyone is suddenly cheating.

Or the likes of the unusual Boston results from years ago where they had a massive tail wind.

Don't know the details of her training or anything, but sounds like the outlier is Valencia rather than her specific run based on what people are saying here.

Itziger

Man, not only have I run Valencia 4 times, and my 2022 measured 42.74k ! But it is a Platinum World marathon course that I'm guessing has been verified to the highest standards. There's a kinda British inspired stereotype under the surface here, Oh it's them funny Spanish see, probably a short cheating course. No, that would be Manchester.

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001165#Comment_120001165

If you reckon Valencia is accurate fair enough. But the 'British inspired stereotype' comment is nonsense. If the poster you are replying to is British then your comment is well beyond the pale. No need for it.

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001104#Comment_120001104

I just think it's the fastest course in the world. Profile below. It's close to pancake flat and the very slight inclines/declines wouldn't make a difference. Consistently favourable conditions in past marathons/ half marathons. Also, from my experience most Spanish city roads have relatively modern fast tarmac surfaces smoothened perfectly by traffic (not patchworked like other cities). Berlin and Rotterdam for example are also flat, but the surfaces vary in quality. Rotterdam even has a right cobbely area. The last 10km in Rotterdam is lightening fast and I guess all of Valencia is like that. The last 8-9km of Valencia seems to be on a slight downhill. Have a feeling some of the other really big guns will target it next year (Gidey is a big gun).

FinnC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001165#Comment_120001165

What’s wrong with Manchester? Only asking as I’m running it next April

Unknownability

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001498#Comment_120001498

It was short in 13,14 & 15.

Murph_D

I'm not going to entertain the idea of a short course at Valencia, that's just ridiculous.

Demfad said:

You seem to be picking particular percentages and using them to imply potential dodginess.

You'll remember the earlier post about 10-13% outside WR as the expected zone for 45 year old athletes. I have since verified Beck's numbers for 5k, 10k, HM and M. His claim is valid. So Sinead's 2:21 vs a sub-2 male performance is a substantial outlier based on that. Pure and simple - not her fault or anyone else's. It's just the numbers.

7.5% is, I suggest, beyond the realm where the idea of slow or soft 45 records cloud the picture (sorry for bolding that, I hope you understand why). You mentioned a fast course, so I just adjusted the numbers to account for a sub-2 male marathon performance, which most people would agree would be extraordinary even on a fast course like Valencia.

By the way, I only think Sinead's time is remarkable in terms of F45 - obviously it's not particularly fast in general terms, although still faster than the previous Australian and Irish marathon records, regardless of age. Extraordinary.

robinph

The point about a cone being in the wrong place was merely regarding that its likely something about the course rather than the runner when there are so many people running fast times.

You'll be unlikely to ever get the (male) world record set there even if it is the fastest course because money is the primary motivation for where the fastest runners go. But you will get an unusual number of faster women's times if there are way more than usual men running at the same time around the same pace.

That is still something about the course rather than the runner being the reason for the unusual results.

Jarhead_Tendler

If this lady was Chinese, Russian or Kenyan we would all be joining the dots and coming to the most logical conclusion.

Murph_D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001402#Comment_120001402

Loads of pancake flat marathons. Don't think Valencia is significantly flatter than say Chicago or Berlin.

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001598#Comment_120001598

As demonstrated in an earlier post both the Masters records used to get the 10%-13% are extremely soft. (Generally masters records are for obvious reasons, these particularly so). Beck has successfully copied these times from the source website to his own. That's all you have validated. Obviously, that does not make any of his extrapolations or claims about Sinead Diver valid.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001999#Comment_120001999

If you have a quick re-read of my post you quoted, you'll note I didn't claim that Valencia was "significantly flatter than say Chicago or Berlin": rather I listed it's flatness as one of a number of characteristics that combined seemed to lead to fast times in absolute and proportional terms on that course compared to others.

robinph

Article on the fastest GB female marathon runners, which covers that a good proportion of them started running seriously late on and that their decline in times as they age doesn't follow the same curve as those who were running as kids.

https://nicoleontherun.com/top-10-british-female-marathon-runners-of-all-time/

6run28

Thats an interesting link - the average age of best marathon time is 32 and average best time is 2:25. Sinead Divers 2:21 at 45 would suggest her ceiling at peak female marathon age 30-32 could have made her potentially the greatest female marathon runner of all time. The graph below the comment 'However there is no doubt that we get slower over the marathon as we age.' I think re-enforces the point that no matter when you start running, once you pass 40 you lose speed. It would be great to see what she could have run 15 years ago, but its still an incredible time.

robinph

I think re-enforces the point that no matter when you start running, once you pass 40 you lose speed.

Even if you start running seriously at 35, would you not still be improving at 45?

What if you only start running at 45? Could you not then potentially be capable of setting awesome times for V60 categories?

I set by far my best marathon time several years into my 40s. The main impediment to my continued improvement of that time is family life, not age. Whilst age grades are a very dodgy measure, my percentages for those have kept standard or improved by a couple of percent since my actual PB for certain distances, and if I was actually able to train even mildly more than I currently can I think I could still get close to my times from about 10 years ago for most distances.

Whilst I've been a runner since forever, my training age is still very young as I've never been known to put too much effort into training.

MrMacPhisto

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001920#Comment_120001920

Interestingly enough, a WR at Valencia would have pocketed the winner 325,000 euro.

From what I read, so I could be wrong, Kipchgoge pocketed around 130,000 dollars for the win and WR in Berlin.

robinph

There is likely more in sponsorship and appearance fees for turning up to the majors though which will be what keeps them coming back to those rather than the second tier events.

MrMacPhisto

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120005202#Comment_120005202

I don't doubt that at all. Im sure the main man has very generous contracts with his sponsors and the world marathon people.

However, the prize purse is very attractive, especially given the arguments in this thread of perfect weather and lightning fast tarmac :D

Murph_D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120002444#Comment_120002444

Actually I used Kiptoo's 2:11 at Madrid this year (presumably the pending M45 WR), not the softer Lagat time that Beck talks about (still the official WR). That's a 8.6% differential from Kipchoge's WR, which seems reasonably solid to me. If you compare Sinead's time to that, it's only 7.9% slower. That's a very low gender difference - exceeded in the 5k to M range only by Sinead's own HM 1:09 F45 record, which is itself 9.8% slower than the overall female WR, and a mere 6.1% slower than the M45 HM WR (Yegon's 1:05:01 from 2006). (Just throwing in those gender differences, something Beck doesn't really dwell on, for the hell of it - can't have a discussion without good data!)

Should have been clearer about all that, apologies. When I say I verified his numbers, I mean I looked up 5k, 10k, HM and M records and M/F45 records and compared them. It shows a range more like 8-13% for men, and 9.8-14.5% for women (prior to Sinead's recent marathon). Yep some of these times seem soft, but certainly not all of them.

6run28

Of course if you start running at 35 you can improve. But your body is at its peak potential at a younger age than 45, natural aging will be factor whether you were running or not. With all things being equal the same training at 30 and at 45 would result in a faster run at 30.

average_runner

He was to get 200,000 for winning the major alone but the majors change their purse either just before or after it.

Valencia now becoming very attractive but its timing in the calendar is still not great

marathon2022

The one thing I noticed watching this runner is the shape she is in, she doesn't have a gram extra on her. Also she seems very motivated in proving people wrong about running to an elite standard during her 40s.

babacool

What I find “funny” is (not only here but also other threads), it’s usually “oh that person can’t be clean. This person is cheating. How could they?” Just because someone produces a great time (PB that’s called. Think most of us head those every now and then) it must be down to cheating.

and then there are those who say “oh why is it always they are cheating and such. Can we not just appreciate a great result?” (Think someone else raised that earlier on… most are either a or b but never pink).

my take is “who cares if done clean or not. She suffered either way as she pushed to her limits. And nowadays times are irrelevant anyways as you just never know if it is pure performance or shoe assistance or doping or tail wind (can also be a massive factor on a round course. One section that’s open you have tailwind and when you turn houses etc could provide shelter for the headwind) or whatnot”. Let’s face it, how many of us non elite runners have taken paracetamol before a marathon? Or nose spray? Or some other salt tablets etc without checking if there is anything in it that could be on the forbidden fruit list? yet no one sees an issue with that even if we run a PB! We just celebrate and pass it on to the next runner “hi, last time when I ran my 3:47 marathon I took 3 pills before the race and had 5 bottles of a special water mix handed to me at non waterstations. It’s all good…”.

but if an elite does that (ie water handed out at non designated stations) “oh this must be something illegal”

So maybe she has found something that has helped her (like a really good beetroot shot) or maybe she got carried (literally) by a fast group of runners when no one looked or she really just had an awesome race… who cares. Let’s enjoy that Australien Marathon running is on the map!

Murph_D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120032050#Comment_120032050

Well I don’t do any of that, including the paracetamol. I am not sure if painkillers are cheating or not, I just think it’s a bad idea and anyway don’t think it would help me personally even if it IS legal (I’d very rarely take painkillers anyway in any situation).

But you’re an adult and can do what you like. But if it’s dodgy I won’t be telling you ‘well done’. 😉

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120032131#Comment_120032131

No one said I do. Find it extremely risky as it may mask something more serious and then boom you collapse by overdoing it.

Though I did take nose spray before a half in 2018 and ran a PB (beaten since without nose spray 😉) but didn’t check if there is anything in it that might be on the illegal list. Same with food. All the stuff I eat and think it’s all ok, who knows if there aren’t any ingredients in there that could be on the list (think elite athletes have to be really careful and check everything twice).

my point is, I’m certain many of us have had something that is considered performance enhancing and if tested we would get a ban. Not because we did it intentionally but just didn’t know better. But we celebrate nonetheless.

and if someone takes paracetamol or some other medication and runs a PB we congratulate and not question it. There are so many who improve over the course of a year from let’s say a 4hr marathon to a sub3 and we celebrate. There are so many who run a sub3 in their first ever marathon and we celebrate. No one asks first “ok, what did you eat? What medication did you take? Show me your 20 test results!”

so why are we doing so for those runners? A 2:21 for her is probably the same as a 3:15 for you (not certain what your PB is. So please don’t take any offence here) or a 2:28 for me. Yet I’m certain if I ever get there (and I will) I won’t have done anything illegal (that I’m aware of) and no one will ask me for my training records, medical records, nutrition list etc. (I would probably feel honoured though if someone does 😁). So why questioning her result or any other elite runner? just celebrate a good race. A decent result. A PB. The only people who should really “worry” about her being clean or not are those runners who may have missed out on prize money if she wasn’t and her sponsors (unless they helped with it). Everyone else… simply enjoy watching the progress 🙂

Lazare

My main takeaway from this thread is that I need to chase my BQ at Valencia.

Ceepo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120032222#Comment_120032222

With all due respect, I'm not even sure where to begin with this post.

I doubt may would have taking something that would be considered performance enhancing without knowing it. Most of the things that are banned are hard to get without some research except maybe some medication. Even then you probably wouldn't take it it the quantity that is need to gain any real advantage. That's not to say you can't, more it's harder than most would think.

Yes many runners will improve over the course of a year or more, if someone who runs 4 hr and take a paracetamol they wouldn't run 3 hrs. If they take a paracetamol it's not going to improve them. If they do take something illegal and they improve for 4 hrs to 3 hrs then they are just a numpty. Yes they're cheating but not gaining anything from it only maybe some bragging and kudos from a few people. You can't compare this to someone who takes something illegal and then wins prize money, or bigger sponsor deals, appearance fees, or breaks a national record.

As for the shoes, there maybe some argument for this a few years ago when they were only available to someone athletes, now every top athlete has the opportunity to wear them. Of course this has improved times, times have improved for everyone (although to various degrees)

A 2.21 for her or any other elite woman is still considered world class even with carbon shoes, a 3.15 is achieveable for a huge amount of runners even master runners while 2.28 is considered faster it's only a good club runner standard for males, if someone needs peds to run 2.28, or takes peds and only runs 2.28 (male) they are just pityful.

Athletes who have a demonstrate progressive results sequence are less likely to be "questioned" and while she has, her age profile will certainly raises orange flags around that performance. Again that's not to say its not a ligit performance, but as I said in a previous post, history has shown us to doubt some unbelievable performance.

The reason why there needs to be a list of of banned substances is to protect athlete's health, or we would be back to athletes dying in their sleep again. Races can be just as entertaining without peds.

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120032470#Comment_120032470

Look, you focus on “paracetamol” and shoes. I mentioned those as an example. I have no clue of what can and can’t be taken. What amount it would give you a benefit and how many days prior to a race etc. that’s not the point. and the shoe discussion isn’t one anymore. So no real point on focusing on that!

And sure my first reaction had been “probably not clean” but shortly after “who cares, great result. Hope she can repeat it”. and let’s not start another discussion on people are forced to cheat and we need to protect them etc. if a grown up person (let’s assume she did cheat and I’m not saying she did) who doesnt really need that to support her family decides to cheat, so it be. It doesn’t cost me anything. It doesn’t do any harm to myself or others that I know. And this thread isn’t about “should certain substances be banned to protect others”. This one is about “wow what a great result”. So let’s celebrate the great result.

(btw thanks for the motivation and confirmation. Good to know that 2:28 is nowadays only good club runner standard. Don’t know many at my age who can run that but good to know as I consider myself above average. Means I should get there easily 😁)