good question no obvious answer. i think a few us women have nabbed a few medals here and there or had a great performance on the road like drossin and runyan to make news. i think that the us men are used to running slow tactical races (like today's 1500) in the domestic meets, so when they go to europe and they crank up the pace they get disheartened running 3.35 and finishing 11th.
Yes, but there aren't going to be any emerging American distance runners playing football. Soccer may take some talent away, but I doubt any runner who has a chance to a world class distance runner is going to be the type of athlete to play football.
part of it may also be that the East African women haven't risen up - to the same extent - that the men have. Yes, you have Tegla, Tulu, Queen Catherine and other stars, but not the THRONGS that you do for the men. If and when that happens, times like 14:25-35, low 30s and 2:17-20 might be much more commonplace.
Women's running, both domestically and especially abroad, is much easier to dominate than men's running is, due to a number of factors. For example Khannouchi has a gaggle of male runners on his heels while behind Radcliffe there are no women in sight.
I'm sorry, but I don't know if I can believe Radcliffe is 100% clean. After suddenly dominating the scene, nothing in her previous career exploits would have suggested she could run 2:15. I have to say that compares directly to Michael Johnson's 19.32.
I believe most of the people in this sport are clean. It's the ones that all of a sudden start to dominate within one year that should probably have the most suspicion. Take Tim Montgomery, before 2001 season he was struggling to break 10, and his pr was about 9.96. Then in 2001 he is challenging Maurice and running 9.84. Then of course last year he breaks the world record. Radcliffe's rise has been at least, if not more, remarkable and quick.
Think back to when you were a young kid, and just starting to have some interest in sports. You'd be inspired by the feats of the leading athletes of the day, and want to emulate their feats.
Currently, distance runners in the US may get zip coverage from TV. I'm thinking about the 10K at USATF which, apparently, was a tremendous battle, and must have been a great race to watch--- and might have inspired some of today's youngsters. Yet, we saw absolutely none of that race on TV!
id have to agree with that. the said that alan culpepper burned up the last lap to catch and pass meb but we didnt c that. must have been a heck of finish since he won b 2 seconds.(hey at least they had the courtesy to show the times)
"I'm sorry, but I don't know if I can believe Radcliffe is 100% clean. After suddenly dominating the scene, nothing in her previous career exploits would have suggested she could run 2:15. I have to say that compares directly to Michael Johnson's 19.32."
I have to disagree, strongly. IF ANYONE at the top level of the sport is "clean" it is Radcliffe. She absolutely has NOT come from nowhere! I watched her win the 1992 World Junior X-C title in Boston and--having spent lots of time in England in 1993-96--have paid close attention to her career ever since. In England, for years, her first name practically came with "Poor" attached--"Poor Paula"--for having trained so hard, run so valiantly, and still getting 2nd, 4th, whatever. (She ran herself into the ground in the '95 World X-C race at Durham.) Injuries aside, her improvement has been relatively steady--even granted that 2:15 is a FABULOUS time. We may need to all agree on the meaning of "clean," but I repeat, if any top athlete in the sport is clean, it's her.