Shannon Rowbury Fires back at Jenny Simpson

Isntitobvious wrote:

Other than perhaps Mo and Galen, is there anyone more worthy of doping suspicion than Shannon (other than perhaps Trenier a few year back). Her late career trajectory is incredible and worthy of scrutiny. My guess is Jenny's tone is informed by concern/assumption/knowledge that Shannon is doping to beat her.

Have you looked at Rowbury's record? It is so much like Simpson's that if Rowbury is suspicious, then so is Simpson. (This has been pointed out several times here since Monaco. If you look, I'm sure you'll find the posts making this point.)

If you look at their pbs, they have pretty much the same times, except at the 5,000. Since Rowbury ran the 5,000 seriously a few years ago, that's no surprise.

A lot has been made of Rowbury suddenly running a bunch of pbs after going to NOP. That certainly sounds suspicious. However, if you look, you see that she didn't improve by that much. For example, in the 1500, she'd run 4:00 low several years ago. So until this weekend, her pb hadn't dropped that much.

Simpson has the same sort of progression. She ran a fast 1500 at Pre while still in college, and then slowed way down. Then suddenly, boom, she's consistently under 4:00.

FWIW, the USADA agrees with you. A quick peak at their records shows that Rowbury's been tested way more often than Simpson. Simpson has basically gotten a pass.

My view is simple. Given how fast they run, I wonder about both of them.

Rowbury only beat Simpson "by a second over the last 100 meters" because Simpson acted as an ideal rabbit for 1000 meters, from the 400m mark up until 1400m. Take Simpson out of the race and Rowbury is nowhere close to the American Record because she wasn't able to go with Hassan and nobody else was strong enough to set the pace Simpson did.

A draft like that is worth about 1/3 of a second every 100 meters, meaning Simpson "gifted" Rowbury 3 seconds during this race. Not surprisingly, she PRd by 3.20 seconds in this race.

Simpson on the other hand missed her PR by .08 seconds. If you turn the tables and give her the perfect rabbit, suddenly she's running in the 3:54s.

I believe Simpson understands this and knows Rowbury won't beat her in any championship style race. Rowbury probably understands this too, but is trying to convince herself otherwise.

Time trials like this are quite rare, which is why I think it's unlikely Rowbury will ever break 3:58 again.

On the other hand, if Simpson can get her current form back in Brussels, she'll take the record from Rowbury and neither of them will ever run faster than that new mark again.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Awesome. Also, Shannon has the World Relays gold. Jenny would never take part in something that wasn't 100% focused on herself.

Jenny is definitely the "heel" in this rivalry. Never has anything good to say about her competitors.

lol, good one.

Times are very similar wrote:

Isntitobvious wrote:

Other than perhaps Mo and Galen, is there anyone more worthy of doping suspicion than Shannon (other than perhaps Trenier a few year back). Her late career trajectory is incredible and worthy of scrutiny. My guess is Jenny's tone is informed by concern/assumption/knowledge that Shannon is doping to beat her.

Typical hypocritical response from the low class, uneducated Simpson fans

The personal bests between Shannon and Jenny from 800 - 3000m is less than 1 second

Given your logic, if one is dirty so is the other.

To be clear, I don't think either of them is dirty.

That is definitely not his logic.

He was pointing out trajectory, not times.

Who has a bigger ego? Simpson or Kara Goucher?

Remember 2009 NCAA XC? Sore loser perhaps?

http://running.competitor.com/2009/11/features/why-jenny-failed_6973

Classic 'roid rage from Rowbury. This might get good.

Your post is hardly "neutral"

It's so easy to get carried away in your dreamy scenario and project a 3:54 run from Jenny. Maybe she is capable of this, but she sure wasn't capable in Monaco.

In fact, the way that Shannon closed on both Jenny and Sifan in the last 100m makes me believe that Shannon could have run sub 3:56. She just needed to start her kick about .29 seconds sooner.

I know, you still think Jenny is far superior to Shannon

Shannon clearly stated in the interview that she does not think that Jenny is far superior and therefore Shannon does not need to "convince herself otherwise"

Shannon's AR run in Monaco just proved you and all of the other doubters 100% wrong.

In her interview, Rowbury built up her personal achievements as being the real best in the world, while simultaneously disgaraging the much better accomplishments of Qu Yunxia, Genzebe Dibaba, all the other women ahead of her including Paula Ivan, and makes no positive note of the long standing American record she broke.

Rowbury's remarks and attitude show an extremely bad attitude, which I'm sure has inhibited her own personal progress through the years.

corrector of things wrote:

That is definitely not his logic.

He was pointing out trajectory, not times.

It isn't about his logic, it's about his facts.

As several people pointed out above, if you actually look at the times she ran, you see that Rowbury's trajectory is not as dramatic as the headline "The Summer of Personal Bests" makes it seem. That she set a bunch of PBs soon after going to NOP is only suspicious if her PBs dropped by a lot. They didn't. Her times have been pretty consistent for a while.

As was also pointed out, Rowbury's trajectory is much like Simpsons. So, once again, if Rowbury is suspicious, so is Simpson.

If you want to add to the discussion, show us numbers -- times and dates.

Doping NOPers wrote:

Every NOPer is a doper.

Ignorant Tool!!!

neutral fact of the day wrote:

A draft like that is worth about 1/3 of a second every 100 meters...

This sounds plausible, but I wonder if it is true. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Or is this just one of those things that "everybody knows"?

I really am curious. Not trying to be a db, at least not this time!

Take Shannon out of the race, and Jenny does not get close to her PR. Jenny definitely knew that Shannon was on her shoulder and had the motivation to run as hard as she could. Without that incentive she runs 3:59.

neutral fact of the day wrote:

Rowbury only beat Simpson "by a second over the last 100 meters" because Simpson acted as an ideal rabbit for 1000 meters, from the 400m mark up until 1400m. Take Simpson out of the race and Rowbury is nowhere close to the American Record because she wasn't able to go with Hassan and nobody else was strong enough to set the pace Simpson did.

.

theories wrote:

neutral fact of the day wrote:

Rowbury only beat Simpson "by a second over the last 100 meters" because Simpson acted as an ideal rabbit for 1000 meters, from the 400m mark up until 1400m. Take Simpson out of the race and Rowbury is nowhere close to the American Record because she wasn't able to go with Hassan and nobody else was strong enough to set the pace Simpson did.

.

Take Shannon out of the race, and Jenny does not get close to her PR. Jenny definitely knew that Shannon was on her shoulder and had the motivation to run as hard as she could. Without that incentive she runs 3:59.

You're talking nonsense.

Shannon had no effect on Jenny, positive or negative. Jenny by contrast pulled Shannon to an American record.

nothing wrote:

According to what Shannon said, Jenny had beaten her in 2013 when she focused on the 5k

This was pretty misleading of her. She only focused on the 5k at Worlds because she couldn't qualify for the 1500 that year!

This last comment is absolutely silly conjecture. It COULD be true...But there is no way to "KNOW" that information. and Simpson needs to "get her form back"? After running within .08 of her own PB?? Is it not just as possible that Simpson will never run faster than her current PB? Your comments here are simply silly. At best they are unfounded. [b[

Looking at T&FN's world rankings (a bit subjective, but always in the ballpark) here's how they have rated since 2008, about the time they broke into the world scene.

Row Row Row berry your boat (1500 m unless specified):

2008 - 6th

2009 - 3rd

2010 - 7th

2011 - Not ranked

2012 - 5th (6th at OG)

2013 - 8th

2014 - 4th (and 9th in 5000 m)

J Barringer-Simpson (and not related to Homer)

2008 - 10th (steeple)

2009 - 6th (steeple)

2010 - not ranked

2011 - 3rd (World Champ)

2012 - 10th

2013 - 2nd (World Champ)

2014 - 1st

Both have had outstanding careers. Simpson has two world medals and three top 3 rankings. Placed 9th in the 3000 m SC in 2008. Rowbury has no world or Olympic medals and one top 3 ranking. 6th in Olympics in 2012. Through 2014 edge to Simpson.

For 2015 if the season ended today, you'd have to rank Rowbury ahead of Simpson. But barely. She ran a brilliant race and hoovered her way off the heels of Simpson to that AR. More power to her. Let's see what happens in the next couple of months.

Wolf Spritzer wrote:

For 2015 if the season ended today, you'd have to rank Rowbury ahead of Simpson. But barely. .

well maybe - depends how you value time vs. place.

Jenny S has won two diamond league 1500s this year - rowbury...hasn't.

message board rat wrote:

Shannon had no effect on Jenny, positive or negative. Jenny by contrast pulled Shannon to an American record.

She pulled her from behind her.

Oh yes that's right wrote:

message board rat wrote:

Shannon had no effect on Jenny, positive or negative. Jenny by contrast pulled Shannon to an American record.

She pulled her from behind her.

Correct. It's called rabbiting.