I actually think that the Stanfrod track is short

my bet is that the 200 is accurate, even though the 400 is short. StanFRAUD probably made sure that the 200 is more than half a lap so that this could throw off people paying attention. Stay woke

4:21miler wrote:

kid who went to the same high school as I do now had a college PR of 14:08 5k. Ran at Stanford first time and dropped a 13:49 his senior year. That kind of drop at that elite level? respect the kid to death but that seems to good to be true.

Same 6 seconds per mile faster kipchoge ran for the marathon. No wind resistance.

I don't think this issue gets enough attention. It would be an absolute detriment to the sport if it turned out that we cannot be sure how far an athlete actually runs when he/she completes a race. If there's actual concern, it should be investigated. There should be some accrediting body that measures tracks independently. Then we could be more sure

Whats a detriment to the sport is people like you who question its legitimacy. Dissent is not always the way to go

Just curious. If the 5K times are suspiciously fast, are the 10K times doubly fast? If 5K's are short/fast shouldn't the better 10Ks be in the 26's?

Buttttttt wrote:

Fan of the sport wrote:

Are the 200 and 400 meter races fast as well?

Wouldn't it be less noticeable since there are fewer laps in those races?

It is less noticeable but because you dont see the best Americans and Jamaicans carpinteros competing there.

Agree 100% that Stanfrod is short. So short that talk about times from Stanfrod is pure fiction.

Stanford, on the other hand,...

I have it on good authority that they hired IAAF guys to measure.

And we all know nobody could bribe an IAAF official.

Someone needs to wear a Garmin and run around the track. Garmins have detected wrong road race distances for years.

helpfulist wrote:

Someone needs to wear a Garmin and run around the track. Garmins have detected wrong road race distances for years.

10/10

Perfect conditions..... wrote:

4:21miler wrote:

kid who went to the same high school as I do now had a college PR of 14:08 5k. Ran at Stanford first time and dropped a 13:49 his senior year. That kind of drop at that elite level? respect the kid to death but that seems to good to be true.

Same 6 seconds per mile faster kipchoge ran for the marathon. No wind resistance.

But there is still wind resistance... isn't there? Unless, of course, the Stanford nerds came up with some sort of counterclockwise circular vortex. Shocked MIT didn't beat them to it

Well, I for one saw a guy with a giant fan who moved around the track on a unicycle and blew all of the runners. Not sure why your'e surprised???

I think that the acrediting body is a good idea, but yeah, id be worried about coruption. Probably wouldn't take much to get someone to look the other way on a small little thing, but 3 or 4 meters is all it takes to really take some time off.

Practiced there every day for 4 years. Track is not short.

Butterbeans wrote:

Why not go out and buy an engineer's wheel, a plane ticket to San Francisco, and measure it yourself?

Then, and only then, should you enlighten us on how this track is "short."

It would be a lot easier to fly into San Jose. Smaller airport and about the same distance if not shorter time.

Easier until you consider the extra time you have to spend working to pay for the plane ticket.

D. Onger wrote:

Practiced there every day for 4 years. Track is not short.

Onger, I don't doubt you but if you are doing track workouts daily for 4 years you are either not up on training philosophy or one tough SOB. Maybe both!

I think you are the very first person to think that the Stanford track may be short.

No one ever expressed that idea before.

your suppresing my dissent just because other people have raised the same concern? Uhh, hey star, you know who else supressed disent? Thats right, Hitler.