Master Po wrote:Setting aside for a moment other thoughts on the matter, I would be very interested to see lap splits -- just curious to see how slow the lap(s) in question might have been, relative to the remainder of the race.
Splits are here. The 4th lap was only slightly slower than the 3rd. But Flanagan didn't take the lead until about 1590, there is no 5th lap split for the "chase pack." But it cannot be any slower than 82-83 at most. By 3200, the chase pack was only 3.4 sec behind Maier.
Conor Dary wrote:So the last thing they needed was an experienced runner like Flanagan to slow things down, especially since her presence was irrelevant. Who cares who wins the race in the Trials?
Conor Dary wrote:So the last thing they needed was an experienced runner like Flanagan to slow things down, especially since her presence was irrelevant. Who cares who wins the race in the Trials?
Watching the race again, Flanagan led the peloton from the 4th lap until after the 5000, which was in 16:15 or so. A time that pretty much wrecked any chance of getting the A standard.
Sure they could have passed her, but who knows how an intimidating presence it might have been for a bunch of young women to pass a veteran like Flanagan, who pretty much let the pace dawdle along. Frankly, the way they went around Shalane at 5k they might only then have realized how slow they were going.
Conor Dary wrote:Watching the race again, Flanagan led the peloton from the 4th lap until after the 5000, which was in 16:15 or so. A time that pretty much wrecked any chance of getting the A standard.
Sure they could have passed her, but who knows how an intimidating presence it might have been for a bunch of young women to pass a veteran like Flanagan, who pretty much let the pace dawdle along. Frankly, the way they went around Shalane at 5k they might only then have realized how slow they were going.
The field let the pace dawdle. You are right about one thing...they could have passed her....and when they went around her...led by someone who already had the standard....the pace wasn't picked up fast enough to have met the standard had that been the pace from the start. In other words....it looked like a lot of races do with a quicker end. Maybe Rogers didn't believe she had it in her.
Conor Dary wrote: Sure they could have passed her, but who knows how an intimidating presence it might have been for a bunch of young women to pass a veteran like Flanagan, who pretty much let the pace dawdle along. Frankly, the way they went around Shalane at 5k they might only then have realized how slow they were going.
1. If you find Flanagan an "intimidating" presence, then you don't deserve to be on the Olympic team.
2. There is a clock inside the track near the finish line, any runner can check during the race if they are on pace for the A standard.
3. Amy Begley needed the A standard at the trial in 2008, and the first half of the race was slow. But that did not stop her from getting the A standared and finish 3rd.
I really don't know what to make of this: So what if Flanagan worked to dictate the pace to benefit her teammate. I think her interest in working with her teammate was known before the race. Rupp & Ritz did the same thing, and no one is taking either of them to task on that thread. And, such things are not novel. If an athlete in such a race lets someone else dictate the pace, and it turns out that the pace works against that athlete's success, then that's the way it goes. What could someone who finished out of the top three say at the end: "I wanted to run faster and I was ready to run faster, but Shalane Flanagan wouldn't let me." Either you take on the pace you aim to run and win or lose with your plan, or you go with what someone else runs, and win or lose on the terms of their plans. None of this is easy, but it is relatively simple, in the actual event.
Master Po wrote:I really don't know what to make of this: So what if Flanagan worked to dictate the pace to benefit her teammate. I think her interest in working with her teammate was known before the race.
Rupp and Ritz did not do the same thing. They set a fast pace that benefited everyone who could stay along. And then there is Flanagan, a long time veteran, which can be an intimidating presence to young runners without much experience--I have had something similar happen to me--deliberating running a pace that was well below the A standard, and sabotaging the race for everyone except 3. And yes, you can say they could have passed her, but frankly, watching the race I don't think the gals realized they were running so slow, until they passed 5k in 16:15. Multiplying by 2, which seemed to be the best of their math skills, showed they were screwed. They then took off, but it was too late.
If she wanted to help her teammate then help her to a fast time and take off from the rest of the field.
Conor Dary wrote:Watching the race again, Flanagan led the peloton from the 4th lap until after the 5000
Didn't Maier lead much of this? No one was stopping people from running with her.
That is true. As I have said before, the Non-As were definitely a disorganized, mathphobic group, who apparently didn't know how slow they were going until they got to a point where they only had to multiply by 2 and didn't do themselves any favors.
Now if Flanagan found herself in the lead and then just ran along that is fine. But if her intention before the race was to deliberately slow it, I think that is wrong. Teammate or not.
It is one thing to try to help get your teammate a top 3 spot or an A standard. It is another to help get your teammate on by default.
Nearly every one of these women probably has a watch on their wrist and a coach in the stands or on a fence screaming pace. This is not about intimidation, this is the ingrained cowardly running tactics (I won't call them "race" tactics) that too many distance runners are taught throughout their careers; this is about chickens coming home to roost. Serve them right, they don't deserve to go to the Olympics. They have themselves and their coaches and the distance community to thank for it.
preston wrote:Nearly every one of these women probably has a watch on their wrist and a coach in the stands or on a fence screaming pace. This is not about intimidation, this is the ingrained cowardly running tactics (I won't call them "race" tactics) that too many distance runners are taught throughout their careers; this is about chickens coming home to roost. Serve them right, they don't deserve to go to the Olympics. They have themselves and their coaches and the distance community to thank for it.
You can count on 7-sided to bring his nastiness to a thread.
conor: I read your posts carefully & generally agree w you, but not here. Flanagan ran a race to benefit her & her teammate. Rupp & Ritz ran a race that benefited them. Details differ in some ways (but 1st half of mens 10k not particularly fast). General point is similar: those who set the terms of the race did so w strategies to benefit themselves. It's up to others to respond (as Teg did) to the strategies of those who set the tempo. We wouldn't say that Rupp & Ritz (& Teg) "sabotaged" others by running 13:29 second half, but that strategy ended the OG hopes for a bunch of guys, bc they couldn't do what the leaders did. Flanagan had a strategy & executed it. Others couldn't respond or establish their own strategies for success. If Flanagan eased up while Uhl tied her shoe, then other runners missed an opportunity to try to re-set the terms of the race by picking up the pace. & if that's what Flanagan did for Uhl, basically the unspoken part of that strategy was that Flanagan was confident that neither she nor Uhl had much to worry about w the competition. They were right. But perhaps some others could/should have gone for an assertive "A"-level pace. Would it have worked? Probably not, bc in the end -- those in front were probably superior by any strategy. But to forego one's own attempt to run the A standard by letting someone else who didn't have to worry about A set the terms -- that's the responsibility of each runner to figure out & accept. They have wide ranges of experience, but they've all spent a lot of time circling tracks & tracking splits.
"Sabotage" seems a strong evaluative term for Flanagan's strategy. But I recognize that reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret these things. I have read your thoughts on this & appreciate them; just sharing mine. Don't want to argue, as I think you & I will disagree on this, which is OK.
I don't think there is any reason to suggest on the thread any wrongdoing in any manner by Flanagan. She ran the race she wanted and every other lady in that race had the option of doing whatever suited them. The fact is, with the exception of the girl from Cal, none of them had the nerve to try anything different. They may also have simply not been able to do anything different on that day. Not many of these ladies may have been capable of breaking the A on race day. Rogers set a PR by 45 seconds or so it is unlikely she would have had the confidence to push the pace. Flanagan ran her race and everyone else ran theirs and we have what we have. No blame needs to be placed anywhere.
Master Po wrote: "Sabotage" seems a strong evaluative term for Flanagan's strategy. But I recognize that reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret these things. I have read your thoughts on this & appreciate them; just sharing mine. Don't want to argue, as I think you & I will disagree on this, which is OK.
Thanks for comment. I read and appreciate your comments too. Sabotage may be too strong a word. Actually when I watched the race live, I didn't think anything of what was going on, except, why are they going so slow? It was only when her teammate's comments were posted here that I thought, well, that doesn't seem right. But that is just my opinion.
I do want to make it clear that I admire Flanagan as an athlete. I knew her parents in Boulder. We even ran together on a 100 mile relay, a hundred runners, a mile each, with the Boulder Road Runners, back in the early 80's. And Cheryl Flanagan was 5 months pregnant with, I presume, Shalane. So we go way back.
preston wrote:Nearly every one of these women probably has a watch on their wrist and a coach in the stands or on a fence screaming pace. This is not about intimidation, this is the ingrained cowardly running tactics (I won't call them "race" tactics) that too many distance runners are taught throughout their careers; this is about chickens coming home to roost. Serve them right, they don't deserve to go to the Olympics. They have themselves and their coaches and the distance community to thank for it.
You can count on 7-sided to bring his nastiness to a thread.
Conor dearest, my commments are not nasty, yours are. Is everyone else who disagrees with you nasty as well? Because you seem to be fighting an uphill battle against Flanagan with the other posters.
preston wrote:Nearly every one of these women probably has a watch on their wrist and a coach in the stands or on a fence screaming pace. This is not about intimidation, this is the ingrained cowardly running tactics (I won't call them "race" tactics) that too many distance runners are taught throughout their careers; this is about chickens coming home to roost. Serve them right, they don't deserve to go to the Olympics. They have themselves and their coaches and the distance community to thank for it.
You can count on 7-sided to bring his nastiness to a thread.
Conor dearest, my commments are not nasty, yours are. Is everyone else who disagrees with you nasty as well? Because you seem to be fighting an uphill battle against Flanagan with the other posters.
Conor, give it up, and put the camera down.
7-sided, who had a double lifetime ban. How did you get back here?
thx conor -- appreciate your experience. And -- agreeing w your other post above -- I also have no real interest in castigating the "also-rans" for what they did (though I do kind of wish for their own sake that some of them had gambled for the A a bit -- it would have made a more interesting race, and who knows -- nothing ventured nothing gained, esp in the OT -- not a typical championship race). I spent my entire so-called running career in situations like theirs (but obviously at a much more modest level, to put it mildly) -- get in the pack, hang on, hope for the best, occasionally try to benefit from something odd that happened, but knowing all the time that whatever the strategy, the superior athletes were going to send me off the back of the pack at some point regardless of what I did.
Conor, your attempts to brow beat everyone else in the thread with your opinion shows that you're the one being nasty in this thread.
odelltrclan is trying to tell you that. Master Po is trying to tell you that. Dutra5 is trying to tell you that. Bruce Kritzler is trying to tell you that. TN1965 is trying to tell you that.
And, when I say the same thing that they've said -not even addressing you directly- I'm being nasty because you have your eye on some girl behind flanagan that you like better?
Conor Dary wrote:Count on 7-sided to send a thread to the cesspool. I guess you still haven't learned.
Conor, again, it is your behavior that is derailing this thread. I'm trying to show you the error of your ways even though I know you can never accept it or admit it.
Master Po wrote:thx conor -- appreciate your experience. And -- agreeing w your other post above -- I also have no real interest in castigating the "also-rans" for what they did (though I do kind of wish for their own sake that some of them had gambled for the A a bit -- it would have made a more interesting race, and who knows -- nothing ventured nothing gained, esp in the OT -- not a typical championship race). I spent my entire so-called running career in situations like theirs (but obviously at a much more modest level, to put it mildly) -- get in the pack, hang on, hope for the best, occasionally try to benefit from something odd that happened, but knowing all the time that whatever the strategy, the superior athletes were going to send me off the back of the pack at some point regardless of what I did.
Your running career sounds alot like mine. Hanging on for dear life. Though mostly in road races. Again, I appreciate your comments and thoughts on this subject.
I hesitate to step further into this, but preston -- there is a big difference between the way conor & I are discussing (& happen to disagree in this case) this topic & the way you are. You & I may have the same assessment of the event, but I don't want to be associated with the way you engage in the discussion.
Master Po wrote:I hesitate to step further into this, but preston -- there is a big difference between the way conor & I are discussing (& happen to disagree in this case) this topic & the way you are. You & I may have the same assessment of the event, but I don't want to be associated with the way you engage in the discussion.
not exactly a hesitation; it reads like a leap to his defense - surely it has to do with our past disagreements. I didn't think you would carry a grudge and try to pass it off as it being reasonable but you did, and that's alright. The issue here is that Flanagan did nothing wrong and whether my comments were "nasty" and to whom. That's it.
I think someone is so used to the term from watching cycling they decided to take it to the runners in a track meet. I don't think there are any official definitions outside of its use in cycling, but we know what the user is referring to, even if it should NOT relate to track events.
no one wrote:spilling notwithstanding , that was a serious question
I figured it was. And yes, it is a cycling term, but I think useful, since it implies the main pack of runners. Not a leader or 2, or stragglers off the back.
Conor Dary wrote: Rupp and Ritz did not do the same thing. They set a fast pace that benefited everyone who could stay along. And then there is Flanagan, a long time veteran, which can be an intimidating presence to young runners without much experience--I have had something similar happen to me--deliberating running a pace that was well below the A standard, and sabotaging the race for everyone except 3. And yes, you can say they could have passed her, but frankly, watching the race I don't think the gals realized they were running so slow, until they passed 5k in 16:15.
If that's the case, how would they ever known if they were on pace or not
Multiplying by 2, which seemed to be the best of their math skills, showed they were screwed. They then took off, but it was too late.
Hastings took off. Not those chasing the standard.
preston wrote:Nearly every one of these women probably has a watch on their wrist and a coach in the stands or on a fence screaming pace. This is not about intimidation, this is the ingrained cowardly running tactics (I won't call them "race" tactics) that too many distance runners are taught throughout their careers; this is about chickens coming home to roost. Serve them right, they don't deserve to go to the Olympics. They have themselves and their coaches and the distance community to thank for it.
You can count on 7-sided to bring his nastiness to a thread.
Thanks for clearing something up which I was wondering.
thanks for clarifying. I had heard it used (frequently) in cycling but only recently in running and recognized the utility - just never heard it used in track/running until awhile ago (awhile = ???)
My thoughts here are that Rogers was going with Maier when she got tripped. Part of the reason she was tripped was that the pack had been squashed by the 7 second reduction in pace that was visited on the field. She got up caught back up with the pack, but didn't have the confidence to get to where she would have been if she had not been tripped. I wish I could tell you how the story would have ended if Lisa had tied her shoes better. But Rogers could have run the A standard if she had made it around Flanagan and out of the pack with Maier.
Marquis wrote:My thoughts here are that Rogers was going with Maier when she got tripped. Part of the reason she was tripped was that the pack had been squashed by the 7 second reduction in pace that was visited on the field. She got up caught back up with the pack, but didn't have the confidence to get to where she would have been if she had not been tripped. I wish I could tell you how the story would have ended if Lisa had tied her shoes better. But Rogers could have run the A standard if she had made it around Flanagan and out of the pack with Maier.
I'm watching the race replay and it didn't happen this way at all. Flanagan was in the lead with Thomas right behind her and Hastings on her right shoulder. Maier was behind Thomas on the rail in 4th with Rogers next to her in 5th on the outside of lane 1 and Cherobon-Bawcom coming up behind her in lane 2. Rogers got tripped because Maier cut her off as she jumped out to lane 2. If anything Maier should have been DQed...
, that was a serious question
