Nicole Michmerhuizen's 10K - Lap Short?

So if she is credited with a 16:55 for the second half of her 34:09, that means she was at 17:14 for halfway. And if you are claiming she ran a lap short (i.e. ran 16:55 for 4600m instead of 5000m for the second half) then that would have been an 18:23 second 5000m going by that pace.

So was she having an amazing day for the 10000m, or was she running visibly slower for the second half? Because clearly in one scenario (her running the correct distance), she would look the same, just picking it up a little bit, and in the second scenario (she ran a lap short), she would clearly look like she was struggling in the second half to go from 17:14 split to 18:23 pace

you may have a point, looking at her other results. but the 16:55 may not have been full out, a week after the 10k. the other results don't suggest low 34 10k, however.

Wow, the top two apparently "lapped" the entire field...

The Waterboy wrote:

So was she having an amazing day for the 10000m, or was she running visibly slower for the second half? Because clearly in one scenario (her running the correct distance), she would look the same, just picking it up a little bit, and in the second scenario (she ran a lap short), she would clearly look like she was struggling in the second half to go from 17:14 split to 18:23 pace

She always looks like she's dying of a heat stroke when she's running so it's hard to say.

jjjjjjj wrote:

you may have a point, looking at her other results. but the 16:55 may not have been full out, a week after the 10k. the other results don't suggest low 34 10k, however.

What is even the point of her running that 5k at all though? Seems kinda pointless...

another1stkiss wrote:

What is even the point of her running that 5k at all though? Seems kinda pointless...

racing experience?

choco-lardiac arrest wrote:

racing experience?

have you seen her run? every race for her is just a solo time trial... only "The Mom" spoiled it and kicked her down at indoor nats

10k MAN wrote:

d3 women are afraid to run more than 70 miles a week, thus they are terrible over the 1500. This is a joke time.

70? geez try 40

It appears no one even watched the women's 10k, not even the officials

Her PRs (well, college bests) going into her 10k:

800: 2:33.26

1500: 5:04.87

5000: 16:57.67 (lowered to 16:55.03 after the 10k)

10000: 36:21.37

Then she goes 34:09.96. This ranks her 7th all time D3 at the distance:

This looks a bit fishy. Here are results from the race in question:

and guess what she missed all her chip times too

34:10 for 10k is 5:07.5 pace per 1500. Her 1500 college best is less than 3 seconds faster.

Also she placed like 200+ in cross country nationals the last two years

Does anyone actually have a good source for where this 16:55 number keeps getting quoted

Last Chance meet at NCC, 16:55

Based on the bounce back in all subsequent 5K and 10K, it's 99.3% certain the first two ran a 960....and they know it.

9600*

trello wrote:

Wow, the top two apparently "lapped" the entire field...

It would've been cool if the third place runner had come back and won, had it been a marathon instead of a 10k.

pre841 wrote:

trello wrote:

Wow, the top two apparently "lapped" the entire field...

It would've been cool if the third place runner had come back and won, had it been a marathon instead of a 10k.

^^this. I would pay to watch a marathon on a track.