Breaking: Nike admits that its sub-2 hr attempt won't come on a legitimate course and won't count for a WR

rojo wrote:

What part of "the run won’t be world record-eligible on a sanctioned course" do you not understand?

If you are running the course on a non-records eligible course, then you are receiving assistance - either by wind, elevation drop , etc.

A course has to start and finish in the same area to be record eligible.

It can't be point to point.

So if you run 26.2 miles straight ahead and it is uphill with wind in your face and run sub two it would not be eligible for a record, even though no assistance was received.

Star wrote:

rojo wrote:

What part of "the run won’t be world record-eligible on a sanctioned course" do you not understand?

If you are running the course on a non-records eligible course, then you are receiving assistance - either by wind, elevation drop , etc.

A course has to start and finish in the same area to be record eligible.

It can't be point to point.

So if you run 26.2 miles straight ahead and it is uphill with wind in your face and run sub two it would not be eligible for a record, even though no assistance was received.

Maybe RoJo meant to say "you potentially could benefit from wind, drop in elevation etc". I think you are being pedantic.

RoJo has stated that Nike have reported that the course for the two hour attempt will not be an IAAF certified course eligible for IAAF world records. The course can still be a full marathon measured correctly.

This absolutely means that in order to break the two hour mark Nike could absolutely take advantage of a point to point course with a favourable wind behind and a course that is slightly downhill.

I don't understand why everyone is having such a reaction to this news. Unless Nike has some magic powers to just decide that Kipchoge will run 3 minutes quicker than his 2:03 attempt at London then what did anyone expect?

rojo wrote:

If you are running the course on a non-records eligible course, then you are receiving assistance - either by wind, elevation drop , etc.

There are degrees of assistance. You should read the quote of the day on the front page of your own website, from Canova, who lists possibilities like receiving fluids more frequently than once every 5K. That might invalidate a record attempt, but would still be an interesting proof of concept (interesting to some people, at least, even if repulsive to you).

The fact that you keep insisting that non-record eligible means it will be downhill and wind-aided is simply wrong. It won't be either of those things.

zd35x wrote:

rojo wrote:

If you are running the course on a non-records eligible course, then you are receiving assistance - either by wind, elevation drop , etc.

There are degrees of assistance. You should read the quote of the day on the front page of your own website, from Canova, who lists possibilities like receiving fluids more frequently than once every 5K. That might invalidate a record attempt, but would still be an interesting proof of concept (interesting to some people, at least, even if repulsive to you).

The fact that you keep insisting that non-record eligible means it will be downhill and wind-aided is simply wrong. It won't be either of those things.

Ok so you can assure us of those facts? It won't be downhill or wind aided?

Everyone is ripping into RoJo for stating it might, and he has pulled a quote that can be interpreted to support that hypothesis, where is yours?

rojo wrote:Hell Robert Young / Mike Rossi might have a shot at it if they could drive 25 miles in about 1:53. They might be able to run the final 1.2 in sub 7.

Whoa! Rossi could run a marathon in less than an hour and still have time to change in the McDonald's bathroom and play one chicken dance.

I have faith that it will not be wind aided or downhill. They said they want to be able to pick the day and time and location to be sure that conditions are absolutely perfect and that results in them running a time trial and not a race. My guess is that they will pick somewhere point to point that is dead nuts flat, 0 wind, and the perfect temperature. They said they first want to prove that the human body is capable and after that they plan to do it in a race

I remember reading somewhere that Seb Coe (or Ovett) set an unofficial world record racing 800m downhill. Apparently he did it for some sort of mental benefit it provided and to get his legs used to the sustained rapid turnover. I don't know if my memory of the article is correct or not, so what I'm recollecting might just be BS? Anyhow - if true - I'm sure Seb wouldn't have minded getting paid by Nike to run it with some crews recording the event.

Anyhow - I have no problem with Nike paying guys to run under 2 hours on ill-legitimate course. Its capitalism. Also, it will be fun to watch them try. Plus, no one is harmed, as it will not take away from the luster of winning a major marathon or setting a legit world record on a legit course.

BullSlacker wrote:

Maybe RoJo meant to say "you potentially could benefit from wind, drop in elevation etc". I think you are being pedantic.

...

Nike could absolutely take advantage of a point to point course with a favourable wind behind and a course that is slightly downhill.

Meant to say?

He said what he said.

"If you are running the course on a non-records eligible course, then you are receiving assistance"

That is an incorrect statement.

You described the Boston course in that second part.

We know you can't officially break the record at Boston but it isn't nefarious to attempt a fast time there.

I hate Nike as much as the next guy, but I think there's something interesting to the premise.

Let's assume the following (all big assumptions, I know):

The course will be flat as a pancake (not downhill).

The course will finish where it began or generally close to the same point (a circuit).

The runner will be paced by a bicycle that does not shield him from the wind (he won't be drafting an electric car or anything like that, and the bicycle should be next to the runner or at least several meters ahead of him at all times).

The athlete will make himself subject to normal drug testing procedures.

Given all of that, how much money would you bet on the outcome and would you take the over or the under on a 2:00 finish time?

Even in that fairly ideal scenario, I would bet $100 on the over.

The term "Certified" and "Sanction" is often used incorrectly when referring to a road race.

"Certified" refers to the accuracy of the course. "Sanction" ( in the USA) refers to the fact that the competition is approved by the sports governing body (USATF).

Therefore a course can not be Sanctioned - only Certified.

For a course to be "record eligible" it must meet the following criteria:

1. Measured accurately (Certified)

2. The straight line distance from the start to the finish can not exceed 50% of the total distance. This means that a marathon's start and finish can not be greater then 21.097 km apart. Interesting note is that the New York City Marathon course is record eligible with a separation = 47.2%. Boston = 91%

3. The "drop" can not exceed 1 meter/kilometer. This is the overall drop from the start to the finish. The New York Marathon start elevation = 30 meters with a finish = 25 meters resulting in a "drop"= 0.12m/k. Boston = 3.23 m/km.

If a record is set on a course, a "verification" measurement is required by an IAAF Level "A" measurer. The course can also be "pre-verified" prior to the race. The performance is "validated" by having the original course measurer or his/her appointee observe that the race was run as measured.

rojo wrote:

If you are going to do it on an illegitimate course, why stop there? Steroids and EPO won't invalidate a non-world record attempt either.

Hell Robert Young / Mike Rossi might have a shot at it if they could drive 25 miles in about 1:53. They might be able to run the final 1.2 in sub 7.

-Rojo

Does anyone besides me think it's ironic that in their press release they marketed by mention that Bill Bowerman, Nike’s co-founder and legendary track coach, once said, “The real purpose of running isn't to win a race, it’s to test the limits of the human heart."

How is doing it on a gimmicky course testing the limits of anything? We already know a human can easily travel 26.2 miles in under 2 hours. It's not hard at all on a bike, roller skates, etc.

Bill is rolling over in his grave.

I like seeing the USA succeed as much as the next guy, but can't you see this is all a huge plan to help Galen win a spring marathon. Nike has taken out 3 big hitters and brought them into this ridiculous attempt so Galen can have an easy and uncontested spring marathon.

Conditions for marathons have been constantly improved even though not deliberately.

Roads and shoes have improved, hydration used to be non-existent.

Why would being below sea level with greater hydration availability suddenly count as not legitimate?

If water tables were allowed to be 4km apart would that be OK?

Star wrote:

BullSlacker wrote:

Maybe RoJo meant to say "you potentially could benefit from wind, drop in elevation etc". I think you are being pedantic.

...

Nike could absolutely take advantage of a point to point course with a favourable wind behind and a course that is slightly downhill.

Meant to say?

He said what he said.

"If you are running the course on a non-records eligible course, then you are receiving assistance"

That is an incorrect statement.

You described the Boston course in that second part.

We know you can't officially break the record at Boston but it isn't nefarious to attempt a fast time there.

Ok so that is my confirmation that you are being pedantic. You can set fast times at Boston i.e Hall.

Regardless, you could choose a course that has the attributes I mentioned, that is not Boston, and run faster than otherwise would be possible. Why on Earth have you started to try and refute that by bringing up Boston as a crude counter example?

If Nike wanted this to be legit they wouldn't have stated what they have stated and could absolutely get a fully IAAF ceritfied course.

The other illegal aids put forward such as more frequent drinks - I don't think will drop 3 minutes on a marathon. And Renato's idea about the runners being pacemaked the whole way by a motorcycle or something is even more farcical than a downhill course.

You guys are looking at this all wrong, this is no different than when Bannister went for sub 4:00. He needed ideal conditions (on the day he ran 3:59, he was already refusing to run because it was windy, then decided it was ok to give it a go because the wind died down at race time) and he used 2 pacers. It wasn't about beating the competition, it was a dual meet that he wasn't even part of, that he jumped into in order to run sub 4. It was simply to prove he/anyone could run sub 4. What's the big deal?? It didn't mean Bannister was the best miler in the world, just proved that the body was capable to run that time.

I am not picking on rojo's details.

I am saying he made a false statement and calling him out for it.

Let's see what the actual details of the course are and then make the complaints.

He claims it will be an assisted race without evidence.

If it is a straight, flat course with no wind, that would not be an assisted race, yet it wouldn't be eligible for record purposes.

If it's run down a mountain side, then that would be an assisted race.

Perhaps Kipchoge doesn't have the balls or is too nice to say "no" to Nike. He really wants to do this? He's like Rupp, who can't say no to anything Salazar asks of him. Rupp would run 100 miles tomorrow if Salazar told him to.

Dingler wrote:

rojo wrote:

If you are going to do it on an illegitimate course, why stop there? Steroids and EPO won't invalidate a non-world record attempt either.

I'd actually be more interested to see it on a legit course, but where PEDs were allowed. That would finally settle the debate about how much they actually help elite athletes.

Really? The IAAF takes bribes to not sanction positives and you don't have enough evidence? Paula Radcliffe? The Kenyan marathon factory?

Star wrote:

I am not picking on rojo's details.

I am saying he made a false statement and calling him out for it.

Let's see what the actual details of the course are and then make the complaints.

He claims it will be an assisted race without evidence.

If it is a straight, flat course with no wind, that would not be an assisted race, yet it wouldn't be eligible for record purposes.

If it's run down a mountain side, then that would be an assisted race.

Well we will see what Nike comes up with. Be interesting nonetheless. They have certainly left the door open for all possibilities including using an assisted course.