Tommy2nuts..you are Nuts..you go away douchebag. You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about the race last year. they said they were going to drug test, the week of said they weren't and the cheats showed up. no Harouffi b/c of a "leg injury" yeah right. the guy only shows to the non-tested events..hmmm. Go away to you sir unless you have a clue.
harroufi ran the london marathon which test for drugs and was passed the half marathon at 1:01:37 and was with the leaders at 30km, and he faded to 2:28. he probably really was hurting to lose 23 minutes to the guys he was running with in 12km.
Avocados Number wrote:
It's ironic that Boulder -- worldly, liberal, multicultural Boulder -- has turned a wonderfully inclusive footrace into a jingoistic, nationalistic event.
Shorter, Castro, and Bosley(s) do not represent Boulder, at least not very well.
Check out this pic from the women's elite race
that at least is a step in the right direction and it's how it was ca. 1979-97 or so.The criterium course was probably tougher than the original course, but not 2.5 min. Could Deena Kastor in her prime run 30:00 for 10K at altitude? Anyway, if they're going to have a nations format, then allow up to 7 on a team, and allow for at large elites to run as well.
dfnggg9 wrote:
To be more clear, the citizens and elites have run the same course since last year. It's the same course the citizens field has run for many years now.
Massage Guy is dead-on right. They announced testing and followed through. It will weed out at least some of the cheaters...and coincidentally, cause a few of the top names top suddenly decide this race doesn't fit their schedule. Thanks, Massage Guy, for speaking what everyone else is thinking. Get real...
Kastor and Flanagan backed out after initially committing, too. Hmm.......
So 80s wrote:
Anyway, if they're going to have a nations format, then allow up to 7 on a team, and allow for at large elites to run as well.
It would still almost certainly be stacked in a way that would favor the Americans. I mean, look at the results this year. How hard is it to find three Kenyans who can break thirty minutes? The Kenyans aren't being given the same financial incentives as the Americans are being given to show up for the race.
In the old days, the financial incentives made for a terrific race. As far as I am aware, nobody was given an appearance fee. Instead, you got paid for place and time, with the men getting paid for every second under 32 minutes regardless of place. The per-second payments got higher as the times got faster, so you might get paid three dollars for every second under 32 minutes, but one thousand dollars (I'm not sure that was the amount, but it was surprisingly high) for every second under 29 minutes. You ended up getting a lot of runners in very good condition who had an incentive to run as fast as they could.
The fact that they've had to invent Team Colorado and Team British Commonwealth for this race points to the fact that the format is flawed beyond any rehabilitation or repair. Stop trying to pump life into this dead corpse, Bolder, and get back to a much more compelling format.
In response to Avocado's Number and his comment about not being able to find 3 Kenyans who can break 30 min:
Okari - one of the best road racers in the last decade
Terer - ran a half in 1:01 a few weeks ago (unfortunately he got sick and was one of the two pros passed out on the stadium floor, because he toughed it out so his team could be eligible for placing)
Korir - I think John Korir replaced Charles Munyeki on the Kenyan team, and he is arguably the most successful road racer in the last 5-10 years.
These three Kenyans are awesome runners. The first mile was taken out in 4:07-4:09, and a lot of runners would suffer from that, even some of the best in the world.
The Commonwealth and Colorado teams have been around 3-4 years. The creation of these teams has nothing to do with the race being flawed. Who do you think the local supporters can relate most to? Local runners. The Colorado team was never intended to win the team race, but offer a chance for three local elites to run in front of a home crowd. The Commonwealth team is usually made of guys like Letherby and Aish, great runners who train and live in Colorado. Yuda is also local to Boulder, he was in great shape this year (obviously) and the organizers couldn't find any Aussies, Kiwis, etc. to be on his team. So at the last minute, two local runners offered to help out by being on John's team. Did either of these teams hurt the race? The Colorado team ran decent and finished in the middle of the pack. John Yuda contributed to the race, as he was the only one capable of staying with Regassa and Tola, and he hung on to 3rd. The two locals on the Commonwealth team certainly didn't get in anyone's way!
Obviously, the depth of this race can be improved. An article came out today in the Daily Camera that mentions an idea that might help.
But to say the runners in the pro field are not strong in general is just ignorant, especially when it comes from those who compare the race to that in the 80-90's. All the historical results are online at the race website. I have looked at them and for the life of me, can't find a year that indicates the runners back then could compete with the best runners in Monday's race. Regassa, Tola and Yuda would 9 times out of 10 beat those runners from the "glory days" (outside of Machuka, who won Jr. WXC twice and helped Tergat win a couple XC titles).
Yes, the depth is not there, because there were only 27 men in the Pro Race, and not all of them were professional runners for the reasons I mentioned above.
Kenya - three of the best US-based road racers
Ethiopia - outside of Geb and Kebede and the track stars, they are arguably the three best road racers right now. Remember that their worst runner on Monday ran 28:37 last year in the same event.
Mexico - besides Juan Luis Barrios, the best the country has.
Ecuador and Peru - just awesome that these SA pros get the opportunity to race in Boulder (much thanks to Silvio Guerro) and they run great/consistently at altitude.
USA - Carney, Fasil and Bolota are some of the best Americans right now, all in 28:00 shape on the track. Plus Carney and Fasil are both Kimbia athletes (Tom Ratcliffe represented, along with Yuda and the 3 Kenyans)
Colorado - Hartman, Ed and Cabada, who can argue that these are three of the best Colorado-based Americans?
Morroco - Harroufi is hurt, as mentioned in other posts. Bouramdame ran in Ottawa on Sat. night, and it is probably tough to get Gharib.
I guess the point of this information, is that there is no special agenda or deviousness to the BB race organizers in creating the current format or what teams/athletes they get! I am sure it is not easy for Don Janicki to get all of the countries' three best runners to come to Boulder for this race. He does fortunately get a lot of the best, and for those who get to watch guys go out in 4:07 through the mile and 8:30 for 2 miles, I am sure they can appreciate it. It is no longer a field like in the 80/90's where you have 25-50 runners running between 29-31 minutes ... which is awesome, but different than seeing guys like Regassa, Tola and Yuda (or Harroufi, Berka and Korir last year) really going after crazy times and the course record. They put caution to the wind. I remember when the leaders went through the first mile in under 4:20 last year, and we all thought it was crazy. 4:07-4:09 this year, absurd!
Machuka's record was thought untouchable, one of the best road 10K performances in history (although it was Shorter who said it). It seems the current crop of the world's best are able to go after it.
The team competition is certainly a different format, but it is by no means uncompetitive or unhealthy by any measure.
perspective wrote:
Yes, the depth is not there, because there were only 27 men in the Pro Race, and not all of them were professional runners for the reasons I mentioned above.
That's because the field is pointlessly restricted with the fuggin nonsensical team format! Throw the pros into the A wave instead of begging locals to be thrown to the wolves in the middle of the day. With zero appearance money, they aren't ever going to get a better field at the very front. I couldn't care less whether they can get 1, 3, or 18 of any country's best runners and I doubt there could be more than a handful of fans along the course who give a crap, either.
perspective wrote:
The two locals on the Commonwealth team certainly didn't get in anyone's way!
Let me guess which one was you.
It's ridiculous to say, as you do, that "there is no special agenda . . . in creating the current format or what teams/athletes they get." Of course there is. The current format was not the result of some sort of arbitrary decision to change the race format. And the current monetary incentives did not just coincidentally happen to favor American runners.
You may love the current format. I don't. And I think it makes Boulder look remarkably provincial.
As for the quality of the field this year: There may have been a whole bunch of great runners out there, but only two or three of them performed anywhere near the level of international-class runners. Why is that? Perhaps the field wasn't as strong as you think. Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that an excellent Kenyan or Tanzanian runner can run a fine race and get paid next to nothing, while an American can run two minutes slower and still get a very nice paycheck.