Brits don't dope?

[Bumeington]

She was drafting?

Yes, I would say it's "worth" a 2:16:00 with a normal race situation where the pacemakers don't make it far into the second half of the race, still >2 minutes ahead of the next best non-paula time though so ultimately an irrelevant point

 

[Parker]

No I don´t. Just wondered that the lone PB in her young age is her "worst" PB, while the world class PBs came at her late 20s/early 30s. All alarm bells ring in deep red...

I will repeat it for you.
That lone PB was for the mile. Which is not an Olympic event. Outside of the US (and their love of imperial measurements) it is very rarely raced these days. (Seven of the all time top ten times are from the 80s) .Radcliffe only seems to have run it once since that PB.

 

[Benotti69]

Radcliffe ignoring questions put to her on twitter.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

But on the other hand she was never really someone to run to 'do a time'. Her two fastest times for 5000m are in championship races (European Cup and Commonwealths) rather than Golden League type races, which is unusual.

Both of those performances came after she took up the marathon so you're defeating your own argument there.

 

[Parker]

Yes, I would say it's "worth" a 2:16:00 with a normal race situation where the pacemakers don't make it far into the second half of the race, still >2 minutes ahead of the next best non-paula time though so ultimately an irrelevant point

It's also nearly two minutes faster than her own next best time as well.
Even when lost her official pacemakers, there were still other men for her to run with.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I will repeat it for you.
That lone PB was for the mile. Which is not an Olympic event. Outside of the US (and their love of imperial measurements) it is very rarely raced these days. (Seven of the all time top ten times are from the 80s) .Radcliffe only seems to have run it once since that PB.

Repeat as long as you want. I just wondered about the lone "bad" PB coming in her early career, while all others came late after humans peak years. You get that now?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

But on the other hand she was never really someone to run to 'do a time'. Her two fastest times for 5000m are in championship races (European Cup and Commonwealths) rather than Golden League type races, which is unusual.

Simply because she couldn´t keep up with those aiming for (great) times... And then after age 30 all of a sudden she is "going for times". Funny isn´t it?

 

[Parker]

Both of those performances came after she took up the marathon so you're defeating your own argument there.

Not really. Different training isn't it. Runners like her generally train to win races not set times. So marathon training will emphasise her sustainable pace at the cost of her (already poor) last lap speed. She won two fairly poor races by basically running a time trial.

 

[Parker]

Simply because she couldn´t keep up with those aiming for (great) times... And then after age 30 all of a sudden she is "going for times". Funny isn´t it?

She wasn't going for times in those 5000m races either.

 

[TheSpud]

Never gone sub 30 min for 10K yet 2:15 for marathon - red flag.

Sorry but how do yo get to that conclusion? A marathon is 42.2k, a time of 2:15 would be pretty much smack on 32 mins per 10k. I don't see the connection to the 'never done a sub 30 min 10k' fits in.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

She wasn't going for times in those 5000m races either.

That means she could have been even faster in her PBs she did at around age 30. Thanks for making that point, just proves her doping further.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

When are we going in the state of "bigger heart", "better traing", "higher cadence", "lazy opponents" mode?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Sorry but how do yo get to that conclusion? A marathon is 42.2k, a time of 2:15 would be pretty much smack on 32 mins per 10k. I don't see the connection to the 'never done a sub 30 min 10k' fits in.

Equivalent performances, at the short distances you would expect a faster time.

In fact the 2:15 marathon, equivalent performance is about 29:20 for a 10K.


(Sort of like in cycling you can push a higher w/KG for 20 mins than for an hour)



Ross Tucker has long been an advocate that the key indicator that a sub 2 hour mens marathon is on the cards is the 10 000m on the track hitting a sub 26 min. That WR has been stalled since 2005.

 

[Parker]

That means she could have been even faster in her PBs she did at around age 30. Thanks for making that point, just proves her doping further.

She maybe could have gone a little faster, yes.
If you're a top class distance runner and you want to 'do a time' you go to a big European meeting where the promoter lays on some pacemakers. You don't do it in a championship. And those sort of meetings were never really Radcliffe's scene. Her track PBs aren't really of much relevance.

Also distance runners tend to peak around 30ish, not their early 20s as you seem to think.

 

[thehog]

Yes, I would say it's "worth" a 2:16:00 with a normal race situation where the pacemakers don't make it far into the second half of the race, still >2 minutes ahead of the next best non-paula time though so ultimately an irrelevant point

And for the hand washing?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Equivalent performances, at the short distances you would expect a faster time.

In fact the 2:15 marathon, equivalent performance is about 29:20 for a 10K.


(Sort of like in cycling you can push a higher w/KG for 20 mins than for an hour)



Ross Tucker has long been an advocate that the key indicator that a sub 2 hour mens marathon is on the cards is the 10 000m on the track hitting a sub 26 min. That WR has been stalled since 2005.

But as "Parker" said, PR never went for good times at the shorter distances. She only trained for winning those 5000/10000 races.

Ok, serious... thanks for that info. I wondered which 10.000 time would be needed to run a 2:15 marathon...

 

[thehog]

dude just spilled my cappuchino all over the place. Not funny!

true story. I think we're pretty much done speculating about the big name. The other two british athletes on the list are still anybody's guess, I guess(?)

We need the intrepid reporting skills of David Walsh, this could be his scoop?!

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

She maybe could have gone a little faster, yes.
If you're a top class distance runner and you want to 'do a time' you go to a big European meeting where the promoter lays on some pacemakers. You don't do it in a championship. And those sort of meetings were never really Radcliffe's scene. Her track PBs aren't really of much relevance.

Also distance runners tend to peak around 30ish, not their early 20s as you seem to think.

Thanks for the infos. Now that also explains why cyclists peak in their mid 30s or 40s. Didn´t knew that before... Now it becomes all clear to me.

 

[Parker]

But as "Parker" said, PR never went for good times at the shorter distances. She only trained for winning those 5000/10000 races.

For someone who thinks that the mile is still a relevant event, you would be well advised to consider turning the attitude down a notch and try to learn something.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

But as "Parker" said, PR never went for good times at the shorter distances. She only trained for winning those 5000/10000 races.

Ok, serious... thanks for that info. I wondered which 10.000 time would be needed to run a 2:15 marathon...

Funny that, from what I remember of Radcliffe on the track, she normally used to set the pace and try and run as fast a time trial as possible to burn off the faster sprinters. Strange how she managed to do that without running a time.

 

[Parker]

Thanks for the infos. Now that also explains why cyclists peak in their mid 30s or 40s. Didn´t knew that before... Now it becomes all clear to me.

Yeah, because they're the same sports aren't they. All those marathon runners doing 70 race days a year.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Funny that, from what I remember of Radcliffe on the track, she normally used to set the pace and try and run as fast a time trial as possible to burn off the faster sprinters. Strange how she managed to do that without running a time.

LOL. Strange indeed.

 

[SundayRider]

Equivalent performances, at the short distances you would expect a faster time.

In fact the 2:15 marathon, equivalent performance is about 29:20 for a 10K.


(Sort of like in cycling you can push a higher w/KG for 20 mins than for an hour)



Ross Tucker has long been an advocate that the key indicator that a sub 2 hour mens marathon is on the cards is the 10 000m on the track hitting a sub 26 min. That WR has been stalled since 2005.

This. Running is very linear - the projected times nearly always line up - for amateurs as well. It is even more linear than cycling because there is no drafting, big spikes in effort etc.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

For someone who thinks that the mile is still a relevant event, you would be well advised to consider turning the attitude down a notch and try to learn something.

When did I say the mile is a relevant event?
Again: I wondered that her worst PB came when young, while the world class times came when older.

 

[the sceptic]

When are we going in the state of "bigger heart", "better traing", "higher cadence", "lazy opponents" mode?

Anyone can look clean if you try hard enough.

I almost thought something happened when I saw 100 new posts but then it's just a bunch of fanboy nonsense