No, your running analogy is just not that concrete.
Also, analogies can be twisted into whatever you want them to be. So in my opinion, it's better to stick the the facts rather than pursue analogies.
Hans is rising, so 2700 might even be underrepresenting his skill.
At one point, Magnus was an IM who drew Kasparov. Someone ranked 700+ in the world drawing the best player.
Did that mean Magnus was cheating? Or did it mean he was a rising star?
Yep, that's right. He was a rising star.
This isn't nearly as extreme, as Hans is ranked in top 50 or so, beating the worlds 1st. A much smaller gap.
It is clear you were never involved in any sort of competitive endeavors.
Hans had been stagnant for several years. If you do not see a sudden improvement after years of stagnation as unusual, I don't know what to tell you. To say "he is rising" now, ignores the reality in favor of your own biases.
If you watch the Magnus documentary, you see why Magnus drew Kasparov. Magnus was 13, improving quickly, and Kasparov did not take the game seriously until he realized he wasn't playing some dumb kid, and it was a rapid game (so there wasn't any time to adjust to that reality). However, if you look at the expected results between their ratings at the time: Kasparov 2830, Magnus 2484: the expectation would be +80=17-3. There is a significantly higher probability of drawing than Magnus winning there. When you consider that Magnus was playing with White and they traded down into an opposite colored-bishop endgame with a symmetrical structure, it is a drastically different situation. You didn't see a young Magnus dominating the best players of the previous generation out of nowhere. There was a progression.
Hans was not even in the top 100 until recently. In fact, 18 months ago, he had been sitting around #1000 in the world - and had been there for about 3.5 years. Then, suddenly, he starts winning every other event he enters, including very impressive wins over very strong players (Shirov, Magnus, Mamedyarov, Aronian, etc.). Which takes me back to the running analogy: if you had someone who was a decent high school sprinter, and suddenly started crushing world record holders out of nowhere, would you just assume it was because he was working hard?
Statistical data according to who? Because it's definitely not Regan, the reigning authority of OTB cheating.
The statistical data is usually from people with 1/1000th the expertise and knowledge Regan has.
Again, if there is no evidence Hans cheated, no strange moves in his game against Magnus, etc...then the simplest explanation is he won fair and square.
The simplest explanation is not that he was using a device in a secured area for OTB chess.
The more you type, the more I wonder if you are the same person that tried making this argument on Chessable.
The issue is not the single game against Magnus. Also, the Sinquefield Cup was not "secured" until after Magnus withdrew - and interestingly enough, Hans' play degraded significantly following that.
But to your conclusion: You have a decent high school sprinter who disappears for 6 months and comes back and is suddenly crushing Ben Johnson and Usain Bolt in the 100m dash. Obviously, it is because he was training hard - after all, that is the "simplest" explanation, right?
I do not go to chessable.
I would say that if the high school sprinter passed steroid testing and any other anti cheat methods that it would be likely that he beat Usain Bolt fair and square.
I don't follow running sports like that, but I assume that is a very unlikely scenario and it's not a very good anaology.
The reason it's not a good analogy is because Hans is 2700 and Magnus is 2800. The difference isn't nearly as extreme.
It is clear that you don’t follow running sports.
But it's also irrelevant to my response.
The point is that Hans at 2700 and Magnus at 2800 isn't as large as people are making it seems, and Hans taking a single game of Magnus is hardly anything at all. It's not like he won a best of 14.
You don't follow chess closely, either.