Right, this piece seems more like an editorial to push an agenda (one that best serves that particular publication's advertisers, incidentally) under the guise of “there are many roads to Rome” than a legit piece of journalism. Expressing something as a 'possible alternative' is not as useful as examining what holds the highest probability of being a superior option. It is far more likely that Ritzenhein's past injury and poor performance issues had been a result of the capability of his previous coach than simply the mileage he has or would run under any coach. Of course, being in his position, Burfoot is hardly going to scrutinize and criticize a given high-profile athlete or coach and his or her credentials and methodologies. Lobbing bouquets and softballs is more the norm for the mainstream media — scrutinizing and criticizing (even honestly and constructively) is a good way to lose access to an individual or organization.
Do not gloss over the fact that letsrun.com is also rife with myopic fanboy bandwagons and that much of the drug talk that goes on there is partially in response to their thought-free adulation. There was a discussion of the aspects surrounding doping, anti-doping, and perceptions elsewhere here recently. Bolt's performances are certainly further down the “too good to be true” scale than Ritzenhein's and the US men's 5000m record has stagnated a bit. However, since there was no transparent progression to this point – scrambling to get to one equivalency calculator or another is not quite that – then it is not unfair to consider it suspect, especially other circumstances that surround it. It may not be a damning level of proof, but in this era unfortunately it is indeed enough for objective and informed minds to wonder about it rather than just applaudingly accept it at face value.