Rowbury technically sets the 3k AMERICAN RECORD!!!!!

And wasn't one of Slaney's fast times a WR at the time too?

3000 METERS

8:25.83 Mary Slaney (Athletics West) 09/07/85

8:29.69 --Slaney 08/25/85

8:29.71 --Slaney 07/07/82

8:31.08+ Regina Jacobs (Mizuno) 08/12/99

8:32.91 --Slaney 07/20/85

8:33.25i Shalane Flanagan (Nike) 01/27/07

Ok, she ran the time but it's not considered official.

9:11.97x Regina Jacobs (Mizuno) 12Aug99 Los Gatos

yes i believe the record stood until the chinese made their marks.

I don't understand- where did your result come from?

concord wrote:

Ok, she ran the time but it's not considered official.

9:11.97x Regina Jacobs (Mizuno) 12Aug99 Los Gatos

Jacobs time was certainly impressive, but it is unofficial because it was enroute to a 2 mile and set at an all-comers mixed race with men and women.

And Marion Jones was pretty fast as well (invited to be an alternate on the 4x100 olympic relay team in HS). As I recall, didn't she get busted for drugs in HS and have Johnny Cochran defend her?

Being a prodigy does not mean you won't dope later in life. If anything, it means you are more likely to dope. It can be hard for prodigies to accept that as they age, others catch up to them. Those you used to dominate when you were 12, 13, 14, 15 at 22, 23, 24, 25 can beat you. The easy solution is to dope and get that edge back.

Holdonthere wrote:

Actually, this thread brings up an interesting point, maybe when an athlete is busted for PEDs, then any records they set previously should be stripped from the national and international lists, regardless of when they were set.

Of course, that's the reasonable approach. The current assumption (by IAAF, WADA, IOC, ...) is that a negative test is a proof of no PED use. That's obviously not true (as frequently demonstrated by indirect doping convictions of athletes who "never tested positive"), but stripping old records when cheats are finally caught would be admitting that the current testing system is pretty much useless.

concord wrote:

Jacobs time was certainly impressive, but it is unofficial because it was enroute to a 2 mile and set at an all-comers mixed race with men and women.

According to teh Brojos, not only is it not official, but it is a "conversion" time, not an enroute time. I can't give that any credit.

Wow... so we have a converted time, set in mixed competition, by a convicted drug cheat....nothing dodgy about that- let's list it to the hunderedth of a second!

T&FNews is doing a little doping of their own, unfortunately it's not the type which enhances performance.

I'm not sure what it was "converted" from. But she used male pacers so it clearly should not show up on any of the lists.

And her body changed between when she was 14 and when she was part of that Athletics West ship of doping rats in Eugene.

It was "converted" from an open two-mile race (in 9:11).

concord wrote:

I'm not sure what it was "converted" from. But she used male pacers so it clearly should not show up on any of the lists.

Yeah, I realized that but not thinking before I post today.

maybe they should put TAR in front of her times in the record books. technical AR. that way get people confused and interested in what the heck tAR means. maybe that'll lead them to letsrun yadayadayada. 6 degrees of seperation thing. get more people interested in running.

concord wrote:

I'm not sure what it was "converted" from. But she used male pacers so it clearly should not show up on any of the lists.

So did Paula in her marathon world record. Just ask Wejo.

Goose and Gander wrote:

concord wrote:

I'm not sure what it was "converted" from. But she used male pacers so it clearly should not show up on any of the lists.

So did Paula in her marathon world record. Just ask Wejo.

Huh, wait... but that's different because...........

nice to see Shannon lighting up the boards again! Sweet! this makes-up(big time) for not getting her pr's in the other events!

You are also making the assumption that if you test positive that you are guilty of drug use. That isn't true either.

Querfeldein wrote:

Holdonthere wrote:

Actually, this thread brings up an interesting point, maybe when an athlete is busted for PEDs, then any records they set previously should be stripped from the national and international lists, regardless of when they were set.

Of course, that's the reasonable approach. The current assumption (by IAAF, WADA, IOC, ...) is that a negative test is a proof of no PED use. That's obviously not true (as frequently demonstrated by indirect doping convictions of athletes who "never tested positive"), but stripping old records when cheats are finally caught would be admitting that the current testing system is pretty much useless.