Dara Torres-Amazing

Local Masters Swimming Committees Thanks for clarifying. I was going to say Loco Canadian Master Swimmers.

Men 25-29 200 Back 1:53.60 Chris Stevenson 1/1/94 Men 30-34 200 Back 1:54.10 Chris Stevenson 5/21/95 Men 35-39 200 Back 1:55.48 Chris Stevenson 4/1/00 Men 40-44 200 Back 1:53.99 Chris Stevenson 3/9/07 Face it: 40 is the new 20! This is very impressive Chris! Well done!

what is this 2 second drop people are talking about she went 25.9 at masters worlds in 2006 then she got down to 24.5 that's 1.3 or 1.4 from one year to the next wasn't her prior lifetime best 24.7 then she went 24.5 so it's really a 0.2 - 0.3 improvement on her lifetime best time I have the results and it says 26.67 in the 35-39 50 free. But now I went back and saw she went faster on a relay leadoff, 25.98.

Likewise, which is why I find performance enhancing drugs a more plausible explanation than what Lindsay has proposed. No, that's not the proper application of Occam's razor (ignoring the stuff about space-age instrument suits!). Unless you believe that her reported training methods are a complete lie, then it is either (a) her training alone or (b) training plus PEDs. If you think training alone is an adequate explanation of her times, then Occan's razor dictates we accept that. Doesn't mean it is always correct. Of course, I have no idea how much of her reported training she was already doing PRIOR to the drops she made. Jonathan has talked about meridional stretching but I thought I had heard that she was doing that much earlier, for example. Reasonable people can differ about whether the performances are plausable or not. I can see why people are skeptical -- it is a pretty amazing thing -- but, PERSONALLY, I can accept the "official" explanation until anything new comes along. Will I be completely shocked if it turns out she is doping? Saddened yes, shocked no. I lost my virginity on that score with the Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis fiascos.

I agree with Paul here. I swam at the same time as Dara in So Cal swimming and in college. I was an Olympic Trial Qualifier but not quite as good as Dara (different events). I have stayed very fit over the years and have never let myself get out of shape. Now, I've had three kids as opposed to her one. I haven't trained quite as hard as she has in the last few years (not to mention I don't have the same resources or time to put toward training like that). But, I don't think I could reach AND EXCEED my college times at this age even if I DID have the time, resources and motivation. To beat a 50 time by 2 seconds at 40+ when your original 50 was exceedingly fast to begin with...that just seems too good to be true. She may be totally clean. But I think skepticism is not out of line. HUGE difference between a masters swimmer who had decent times in high-school being faster post-40 and a former DI National Champion and Olympic Team member getting faster at 40+. Skepticism is a natural reaction, one that DT herself anticipated. Based on your description (OT qualifier, etc), you and I probably swam at similar levels in HS/College. I've kept fit and do not think it possible to come anywhere near to my college times in an event like the 200 fly. But if I quit my job and did nothing else, given modern theories of training and technical suits, I could see matching my college speed in the 50 fly and maybe coming close in the 100. (Heck, adding 1-2 hours more sleep every night would go a long way...!) I dropped 1 second in 50 LCM back between Masters Worlds and a year later, with no change in fitness, only a fairly drastic change in training. (I don't consider myself a sprinter, but my time at Worlds was good enough for 2nd.) Given that DT had recently given birth and was ***-feeding at the time, and then, as I understand it, essentially switched to being a full-time athlete...it certainly seems more than possible to drop 2 seconds in a 50 without adding doping to the equation. And I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor.

...I can accept the "official" explanation until anything new comes along. That's the crux of it right there. Viewing her results in the context of her age, what we know about human physiology and the aging process, and (perhaps most importantly) the long list of athletes whose remarkable achievements have been tainted by the use of performance enhancing drugs, I have difficulty accepting the official explanation. I wish this were not the case.

Pffft - It seems there is a group of posters here that are ready to jump on any band wagon. Even if there is no proof. It seems that even people who are intelligent have accepted an awful lot of stuff that is not necessarily true. I stiil want proof positive. My brother Tom was 9 years older then I was. They put him through a ringer of tests when he was 46 years old the only result I can give you is that he had the cardio system of a 14 year old as well as the metabulism of a 14 year old. I know he never took anything except proper food intake when he was older.

what is this 2 second drop people are talking about she went 25.9 at masters worlds in 2006 then she got down to 24.5 that's 1.3 or 1.4 from one year to the next wasn't her prior lifetime best 24.7 then she went 24.5 so it's really a 0.2 - 0.3 improvement on her lifetime best time Skepticism is a natural reaction, one that DT herself anticipated. Based on your description (OT qualifier, etc), you and I probably swam at similar levels in HS/College. I've kept fit and do not think it possible to come anywhere near to my college times in an event like the 200 fly. But if I quit my job and did nothing else, given modern theories of training and technical suits, I could see matching my college speed in the 50 fly and maybe coming close in the 100. (Heck, adding 1-2 hours more sleep every night would go a long way...!) I dropped 1 second in 50 LCM back between Masters Worlds and a year later, with no change in fitness, only a fairly drastic change in training. (I don't consider myself a sprinter, but my time at Worlds was good enough for 2nd.) Given that DT had recently given birth and was ***-feeding at the time, and then, as I understand it, essentially switched to being a full-time athlete...it certainly seems more than possible to drop 2 seconds in a 50 without adding doping to the equation. And I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor.

It seems that even people who are intelligent have accepted an awful lot of stuff that is not necessarily true. You're absolutely right. But even though I don't agree with them, I still respect their opinion. I think we need to settle this over a pitcher of margaritas at Chuy's in Austin.

...A person could dope all they want, but that does not give them technical effeciency, especially in the water. Torres program is very in-depth, and very swimming specific. Her meridian strength program recruits a different kind of muscle, muscle that is better adapted to the requirements of swimming; stretching under pressure, precisely what you need in the water. Drugs will never give someone that, it must be earned through years of training.... I'm inclined to agree - sprinting probably requires even more technical expertise than distance racing. I completely respect sprinters, having seen how quickly my stroke falls apart when I try to go even a little bit faster. Quote: "It's very difficult for my body to recover after workouts now that I'm older, so we have to keep them short, which means they're extremely difficult and intense. It sucks. I can't sit here and say that it's been easy making this comeback. It hasn't. I mean, there are days when I feel like I'm swimming with a piano on my back and I'm going to sink." This matches up with a previous thread on masters athletes and training, the finding that short intense efforts maintain fitness better than long slow distance and that the body produces it's own natural HGH when older athletes train this way.