In reply to McHeath:
> Yes. If an athlete won the London Marathon in 1:52:00 three months after breaking bis leg, there'd be other comments than "awesome, inspiring, amazing!"
Assuming you mean that something doesn't add up with Killian's performance that's a pretty lazy and ignorant comment to make.
Lazy because it's easy to throw dirt at any good performance without a shred of evidence. Ultimately I've got no more idea than the next man whether Killian is clean but I've never seen any suggestion much less evidence to the contrary so innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Ignorant because it looks like you've arrived at your figure of his run being equivalent to a 1:52 London Marathon just by subtracting the same percentage of time from the current London best. It shows a real lack of knowledge about the events, people and history involved to think that's a fair comparison.
It is in fact a really stupid and entirely unenlightening comparison for a whole host of reasons I find I can't actually be bothered typing now.
Post edited at 16:45