CIM - Sacramento Updates / Results?

Not as cool as you.

Does anyone know if Suzanne Ryan made the the trials time?

That article should read "Drug Cheat Wioletta Kryza of Poland...."

I heard Brooke Wells finished third in her debut, 2:42. Nice running, Brooke.

dick wrote:

I heard Brooke Wells finished third in her debut, 2:42. Nice running, Brooke.

That is correct.

so,

were they any woman oly trials qualifiers besides wells?

The 2nd place woman, Nicole Cueno, is also a Trials qualifier with a 10 minute PR. I think a few more finished just under 2:47.

does anyone know names?

i think a few bay area women were going for the standard...and im interested to know who did it!

I heard the OR masters runner, Meghan Arbogast also met the OT standard, but I don't know her time.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHERE ARE THE RESULTS OF THIS EVENT?

The event website says that results will be posted on Sunday evening. They should be up in a couple hours. I'm anxiously waiting to hear whether a couple of my friends ran sub 2:47, too. The live web coverage wasn't all that great but the commentators mentioned that 8 or 9 women finished under 2:47.

This is another event that will no longer be used as a trials qualifier under the "Latimer Rules".

So far all I have is an eyewitness report saying "I think there were a couple of Impalas under 2:47" so take it with a grain of salt. If true, I'd imagine it's Betsy Keever and Caroline Annis.

What's with this Latimer Rule?

Explanation Needed wrote:

What's with this Latimer Rule?

Only record-eligible courses are valid for OTQ times. So no Boston times, no Tucson, no St. George, no CIM, etc.

I think the only PA women qualifiers were Brooke Wells (2:42), Michelle Gallagher (2:43), and Caroline Annis (2:45).

3rd was Charles Bedley of Toronto in 2.16. This is your missing canadian

This race has a 340 foot net drop and is billed as the "fastest course in the west". How much does this drop take off your time compared to a flat loop course? This would be more than a 6 minute PR for Charles. Would he have still PRed on a loop course?

Truthfully, I think a flat course would be faster for me (personally). The reason why is because the first half is VERY rolling. You have to be a good downhill runner to take enough advantage of those downs... to compensate for the ups. No matter what... the first half is not particularly fast. The second half, however, is PERFECT. A very gradual downhill. I think Charles just ran a great race today. It was more about him than the course (in my opinion).

kumbawhat wrote:

Truthfully, I think a flat course would be faster for me (personally). The reason why is because the first half is VERY rolling. You have to be a good downhill runner to take enough advantage of those downs... to compensate for the ups. No matter what... the first half is not particularly fast. The second half, however, is PERFECT. A very gradual downhill. I think Charles just ran a great race today. It was more about him than the course (in my opinion).

Truthfully... the course is good for at least 1 to 2 minutes advantage. Plus, there is a lot less likelyhood of crashing. I ran a time there that I could not have run without the net drop. No way.