Re: the liklihood/probability of Sun's double: not very far at all behind her in both races was Zhou Chunxiu, who after a 2:21:11 marathon bounced back for a 31:09.03 in the 10,000m. As the runner-up in both, presumably she was tested as well. Judging from the quick announcement on Sun, we can also presume that Zhou's tests didn't come back positive. All things being equal, I suppose one can make the argument that Zhou showed that such a double is certainly possible.
Bob R wrote:Re: the liklihood/probability of Sun's double: not very far at all behind her in both races was Zhou Chunxiu, who after a 2:21:11 marathon bounced back for a 31:09.03 in the 10,000m. As the runner-up in both, presumably she was tested as well. Judging from the quick announcement on Sun, we can also presume that Zhou's tests didn't come back positive. All things being equal, I suppose one can make the argument that Zhou showed that such a double is certainly possible.
Good point. i dont know the anwser. its truely amazing if "real"
if someone can run a 2:21 and be fresh enough the next day to run a little over 31:00 it suggest a p.r. in each event on its own, allout, much, much faster. does it not? i would argue 2:17 at least. ZHOU came in secound. suggesting should could not go any faster. so if we agree she ran a allout marathon, no. 1 why wasnt she faster than 2:21? and no.2 she should easily be able to run 29:30 if she's running 31:00 after a allout marathon.
slowcoach wrote:Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?
Sometimes, perhaps I might. But I can't see where I'm being objective on this thread.
Jon, that's what they've been saying all along!
Lol, obviously, I meant to say 'subjective' there!
But Steve – can you tell me where, on this thread, have I been subjective re: Paula? As I keep reiterating, all I've said is that, based on the things she has stated, I strongly doubt she would be capable of a 31min 10km the day after a fast marathon. Now show me – where is the subjectivity there? And seeing as no-one is disagreeing about that fact, then yes, let's move on.
Re: the book, as I explained a couple posts ago, it's a simple concept – someone who has read Paula's book would be more informed than someone who hasn't. Where's the stupidity there?
slowcoach wrote:Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?
Sometimes, perhaps I might. But I can't see where I'm being objective on this thread.
Jon, that's what they've been saying all along!
Lol, obviously, I meant to say 'subjective' there!
But Steve – can you tell me where, on this thread, have I been subjective re: Paula? As I keep reiterating, all I've said is that, based on the things she has stated, I strongly doubt she would be capable of a 31min 10km the day after a fast marathon. Now show me – where is the subjectivity there? And seeing as no-one is disagreeing about that fact, then yes, let's move on.
Re: the book, as I explained a couple posts ago, it's a simple concept – someone who has read Paula's book would be more informed than someone who hasn't. Where's the stupidity there?
Jon, we've moved on from that now, but it was you quoting reading her bio in answer to me saying you couldnt be subjective that was stupid. Geddit? No? So let's move on then!
Andrea_T wrote:Jon, we've moved on from that now, but it was you quoting reading her bio in answer to me saying you couldnt be subjective that was stupid. Geddit? No? So let's move on then!
My mention of her bio was not in response to the subjectivity debate – it was in relation to knowing what she has said in the past. It was YOU who picked me up wrong, and have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid.
But of course you don't go out of your way to attack me...
Jon wrote:My mention of her bio was not in response to the subjectivity debate – it was in relation to knowing what she has said in the past. It was YOU who picked me up wrong, and have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid.
Er, excuse me? The conversation went as follows:
Andrea_T wrote:
you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'.
Jon wrote: Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover?
You specifically brought up reading her book in answer to me saying you were not subjective. Read the posts and get it right son.
Jon wrote:My mention of her bio was not in response to the subjectivity debate – it was in relation to knowing what she has said in the past. It was YOU who picked me up wrong, and have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid.
Er, excuse me? The conversation went as follows: Andrea_T wrote: you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'. Jon wrote: Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover?
You specifically brought up reading her book in answer to me saying you were not subjective. Read the posts and get it right son.
I suggest you move on from this.
Not that we need more people to weigh in here, but Jon's intepretation is not invalid. He is saying that an alternative to the issue of whether he is objective or not is that if they read the bio they would be more informed and then they would be in a better position to ascertain a number of things about Paula. The only flaw I can see in this is if you thing that the bio is purely propaganda and has nothing to do with whether it accurately portrays her history (propaganda being a much higher bar tahn subjective, as in every "fact" is questionable because it is all a fairy tale).
Andrea_T wrote:The conversation went as follows: Andrea_T wrote: you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'. Jon wrote: Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover?
You specifically brought up reading her book in answer to me saying you were not subjective. Read the posts and get it right son.
I suggest you move on from this.
EXACTLY – see the "also" in my post. Makes all the difference, as it adds another separate point.
All Jon is really saying is that Paula says her body is beat up after running a marathon. We can imply from that that she would have difficulty running a world class3K the next day.
Whether Jon is objective or subjective about Paula is irrelevant- though I see no subjectivity on his part.
If we can't take the athlete's word about how they feel whose are we suppose to believe? The rest of the nitpicking is just ridiculous.
i'm late to the earlier discussion but i have found that in competition-intensity runs beyond 800m, i perform much better with minimal arm movement, straight trunk, hips tucked under, and a kind of relaxed mechanical leg turnover with minimal 'up and down' motion. in fact, when first beginning to run mile-and-up distances, my times went down considerably due to these changes after having rather stalled previously -- i do believe there is something to the saving of energy from unnecessary arm movements. Especially for someone like myself who is rather large of build in the arms/upper torso (at 6' 190) , where the weight is significant (unlike say, your average Kenyan).
In the sprints, I found arm strength and 'pumping' of the arms to assist in the racing, to the point of being a necessity to attain maximum speeds.
i am not surprised that a completely relaxed arm style may work for the mechanics of some runners, however awkward it may look..
basehead617 wrote:i'm late to the earlier discussion . . .
There is something I like about that turn of phrase.
As for your discussion about arm movement, I have always been under the assumption that, for distance runners, pretty much whatever feels relaxed and natural is best. Assuming that the dead-arms-hanging-down look feels natural and relaxed, all the power to you (and her). But it looks baaaaad . . .
if you want to replace your usual light jog with a 26 miles at 5:25 per mile before a big 10,000 race you apparently need a little help. yeah, ok i got it!
interesting that tergat ran 5 mins. slower than his best in the marathon but complained he was sore. shouldnt he be able to run a min. slower than his best for 10,000 the day after? come on tergat show us a 27:29
Is someone willing to compile a list of excuses provided by athletes who tested positive - beginning with Dieter Baumann (who subsequently offered a reward for info on who tainted his toothpaste)?
Why would we not believe it? Do you have any additional information, or do you just think all Chinese are liars? Since you are many thousands of miles away from China and have offered only a sarcastic rhetorical question, I guess we should assume the latter.
gh wrote:Important to note that the IAAF suspended Naroz. anyway, despite her ex-husband's "confession."
and then they re-instated her under the unusual circumsatances rule.
And quite right too! Does anyone really think we should ban people who have drugs put into their body against their knowledge?
Remember that the burden of proof is on the athlete to show that the drugs entered their system without their knowledge and the authorities are not naive - it's not enough to simply not ask what is in a pill or drink, for example - we are talking about people who have had food and drink maliciously spiked!
I am bemused as to how people who so distrust athletes can ever enjoy the sport.
Kobayashi wrote:do you just think all Chinese are liars?
I think that is a bit broad. How about "do you think all athletes who get a positive drugs test are liars?".
This is true in academics too. I have caught students cheating red handed but they go into their "I deny it, I deny it, I deny it, your word against mine", mode. Not to mention that they ALWAYS have an excuse. They learn it from professional athletes and professional politicians. It is todays culture. Big buisness will become even more corrupt in the future if this is what i am seeing in the class room. Same for sports.
Of course they all deny it and the majority are banned anyway. We are talking about a very few who not just deny it but offer a specific excuse, which they must then *proove* to the authorities.
Thus, to disbelieve Sun Yingjie here is to claim that *all* those involved - her, the guy who confessed and a bunch of officials - are part of a conspiracy. There is no reason to suppose this from thousands of miles away except racism.
Kobayashi wrote:I am bemused as to how people who so distrust athletes can ever enjoy the sport.
And this is going to be a big problem in the future. In the last issue of T&FN there was a long time subscriber who wrote about the reasons he was not going to renew his subscription. Basically it was because he no longer enjoyed the sport since he did not know who was clean and could not enjoy the great performances anymore. This is a big problem for tracks popularity.
