yeah, this is suspicious plain and simple.
yeah, this is suspicious plain and simple.
There Will Always Be Questions wrote:
An example is Tegenkamps blood centrifuging treatment, which is now illegal and at the time was highly questionable. I hope they are clean in Portland but people should be
That's false. The treatment is legal if performed on tendons.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/wada-cracks-down-on-blood-treatment-20091123-iyih.htmlDeshawn Kemp wrote:
"We just got the lab test results and determined that it was too risky to participate in World XC. Our masking agents did not work as expected."
You clearly do not understand that these people are both ethical and highly religious.
And, you'll note some weeks back Ritz went on record with his foot problem.
Salazar is a rare coach, one who has learned from his own youthful mistakes of training and racing through injuries. His own coach, Dellinger, would have let the athlete make the decision...which is why numerous Dellinger athletes had chronic injury struggles...that and the over training that was so common in that day.
It'd be cool if this made any kind of news in Kenya or Ethiopia. ie, does anybody say 'good news! Did you hear that American guy who was 3rd in the half-marathon isn't running? One less guy we have to worry about.'
Somehow I doubt it though.
Do I think Salazar is a good coach? It seems the results his athletes have shown seems perhaps more consistent and better than chance alone might suggest. Is he a "rare" coach. That is debatable and should be based on some accepted criteria for deciding. There are numerous coaches, like Alberto, who I would say have great athletes, who perform at a frequency better than chance alone would suggest, including Dellinger; however to say someone is "rare" in my opinion would suggest something quite different. It seems that person would bring something new to the sport that revolutionizes it in some way. e.g. Lydiard was a rare coach. I don't necessarily have reason to believe one way or the other with certitude about the "unethical behavior" that gets discussed and conjectured here, despite what my biases tell me. ( I learned a while ago not to believe them anyway.) I have to say though, that the ethical and highly religious statement you made is unbelievably naive and to some degree (sorry to offend) laughable. If your argument had universal validity, we could say all those " highly religious" priests never did violate those young boys. Either way, people are what they are, very, very flawed, cross, swoosh and all. As far as Ritz is concerned, time will tell if he made a good decision to match his interests with Salazar. Thing is, he gave up on a system that had him consistently improving year over year. I think Ritz is greedy( greedy for results, not necessarily money, but that too) , as he should be, but that greed doesn't always allow for good reason. His more, better, grass is greener attitude has in my opinion put him at a huge disadvantage and is quite risky in my opinion. I say this because as he is at the latter stages of his career, to open the doors to a new system(good or not good)has implications beyond the science and methodology. The nuances of a long term relationship with a coach has in it implicit psychological patterns that go beyond the workouts, the methods and system itself( those are also important). A relationship between people has intangible qualities that really can't be measured but only from the overall progress or decay the athlete is showing. I would think if Ritz was at a plateau and felt he wasn't making further progress the risk of a change to a good coach, like Alberto makes sense; however Ritz was still on a positive trajectory with his performances with development with his prior coach Brad Hudson. Year over year, this was the case. To change with this fact and at the zenith of his career is rather questionable, but understandable in my view. Who knows?
Get Smarter wrote:
Deshawn Kemp wrote:"We just got the lab test results and determined that it was too risky to participate in World XC. Our masking agents did not work as expected."
You clearly do not understand that these people are both ethical and highly religious.
And, you'll note some weeks back Ritz went on record with his foot problem.
Salazar is a rare coach, one who has learned from his own youthful mistakes of training and racing through injuries. His own coach, Dellinger, would have let the athlete make the decision...which is why numerous Dellinger athletes had chronic injury struggles...that and the over training that was so common in that day.
Bummed to see him bowing out, but hopefully it'll give him time to recover and come back strong for the 10k record he's really hoping for this spring/summer.
"You clearly do not understand that these people are both ethical and highly religious."
So were the catholic priests who molested all those poor kids. Get a f'in clue
YES, EXACTLY!!Get Smarter wrote:
Deshawn Kemp wrote:"We just got the lab test results and determined that it was too risky to participate in World XC. Our masking agents did not work as expected."
You clearly do not understand that these people are both ethical and highly religious.
Once again we see that everyone talks about what they are going to do in the 10k, but Meb's American record is still untouched.
I'd think more highly of Ritz on the podium at WXC than with an AR that will just be broken by Rupp or Derrick or Fernandez or Verzbicas in a handful years.
He could always try barefoot running: natural, flat grass. Always cures any foot woes for me (plus it's got the research to back it up).
smarter now wrote:
Do I think Salazar is a good coach? It seems the results his athletes have shown seems perhaps more consistent and better than chance alone might suggest.
Is he a "rare" coach. That is debatable and should be based on some accepted criteria for deciding.
There are numerous coaches, like Alberto, who I would say have great athletes, who perform at a frequency better than chance alone would suggest, including Dellinger; however to say someone is "rare" in my opinion would suggest something quite different. It seems that person would bring something new to the sport that revolutionizes it in some way. e.g. Lydiard was a rare coach.
I don't necessarily have reason to believe one way or the other with certitude about the "unethical behavior" that gets discussed and conjectured here, despite what my biases tell me. ( I learned a while ago not to believe them anyway.) I have to say though, that the ethical and highly religious statement you made is unbelievably naive and to some degree (sorry to offend) laughable. If your argument had universal validity, we could say all those " highly religious" priests never did violate those young boys. Either way, people are what they are, very, very flawed, cross, swoosh and all.
As far as Ritz is concerned, time will tell if he made a good decision to match his interests with Salazar. Thing is, he gave up on a system that had him consistently improving year over year.
I think Ritz is greedy( greedy for results, not necessarily money, but that too) , as he should be, but that greed doesn't always allow for good reason. His more, better, grass is greener attitude has in my opinion put him at a huge disadvantage and is quite risky in my opinion. I say this because as he is at the latter stages of his career, to open the doors to a new system(good or not good)has implications beyond the science and methodology.
The nuances of a long term relationship with a coach has in it implicit psychological patterns that go beyond the workouts, the methods and system itself( those are also important). A relationship between people has intangible qualities that really can't be measured but only from the overall progress or decay the athlete is showing.
I would think if Ritz was at a plateau and felt he wasn't making further progress the risk of a change to a good coach, like Alberto makes sense; however Ritz was still on a positive trajectory with his performances with development with his prior coach Brad Hudson. Year over year, this was the case. To change with this fact and at the zenith of his career is rather questionable, but understandable in my view.
Who knows?
Who knows is correct. Some of the attribution of last year's phenomenal track results have to go to monumental marathon base he laid under Hudson; some of it to Salazar with his modern-day tools, altitude houses, alter-G treadmills, and his keen sharpening skills. I still think Ritz would be a much faster marathoner if he didn't do such absurd things as going through the first 5k in 14:37 or whatever it was at London. Fuel management has always been his issue at the end of the longer race. That said, his sweet spot does appear to reside somewhere between 5k and the half.
He's a guy, like most distance runners who want to sustain career longevity and maximize results, who would benefit from laying a huge base with its concomitant longer threshold runs and running that ONE marathon per year (as opposed to the two or three that many elites do); then letting that base set him up for a nice cross/track season, depending on how well he times it. Proved effective last year. I think Gotcher's going to get the same type of results this year on the track for the same reason if he stays healthy.
No need to be running 120-150 mile weeks year-round, unless you want staleness or a curtailed career (some 5'2", 100 lb exceptions notwithstanding).
XC is just not the most important aspect of competitive running.
Track and marathon are more important - the Olympic events.
He is apparently able to run world XC.
If this were the Olympics he would run.
We saw him limp through the 2004 Olympic Trials 10,000.
A picture of four Olympians, all having attended the same school? Hard to duplicate that feat. Nice work.
For 2010 the entire year hinges on the month of March - World XC & World Indoors....month of March is when athletes should be peaking. Anything else is immaterial.
Non-WC Year in Track wrote:
I'd think more highly of Ritz on the podium at WXC than with an AR that will just be broken by Rupp or Derrick or Fernandez or Verzbicas in a handful years.
Why do you dweebs keep bringing up Verzbicas in this discussion? He isn't even a citizen! He isn't eligible for US records at this point!
Non-WC Year in Track wrote:
I'd think more highly of Ritz on the podium at WXC than with an AR that will just be broken by Rupp or Derrick or Fernandez or Verzbicas in a handful years.
Worst post ever. Verzbicas?
It's important enough that Bekele, Tergat, Salazar, and Virgin have run it. Ritz is no Geb, if he wants to be competitive on track then he should also be competitive in xc.
X-Runner wrote:
XC is just not the most important aspect of competitive running.
Track and marathon are more important - the Olympic events.
He is apparently able to run world XC.
If this were the Olympics he would run.
We saw him limp through the 2004 Olympic Trials 10,000.
