fghrunner wrote:
Wow also a very impressive run by Sam roecker. She was great in high school on a very good team from Burnt Hills, NY and had a solid ncaa career at Providence though never qualifying for nationals on the track or being an all American in cross. I lost track of her after graduation and didn’t realize she was still running. Anyone know if this was a debut? Must at least have been a huge breakthrough if not to run 2:30!!
Not a debut but an 8 minute PR I believe. Huge huge day
Is Nell Rojas related to Ric? Bet so....
Great debut 'thon by Emma. Hopefully, she is a good warm weather runner and may be in the mix for the Atlanta OLY qualifier.
S.O.W.P.
However wrote:
Runn3 wrote:
Just confirmed, 1:30 lead with 10 miles to go for Bates. Did I mention she looks great:)
Sorry dude, she’s married
Just wait, close to 80% of first marriages fail.
The more likely option wrote:
NewtotheSouthSide wrote:
Ahhh LRC never lets me down in the slightest....my hard to believe position is that we can comment on her running without talking about her appearance which in turn makes me a SJW or something. I gladly accept that premise and that ya'll need to check yourselves.
Or maybe you are just another guy who got trolled and didn't realize it.
While a noble concept, let's get real.
First, as humans we are wired to be social and visual creatures. We are wired to notice symmetry in a person's looks, and we value that over those less symmetrical. (Me for instance ;(
Simply by talking about not talking about her appearance, you are talking about her appearance.
Linguistics, m'lad, linguistics.
Don't visualize a pink cow.
Unexpected race of the day goes to Mick Iacofano. He's getting better in a hurry.
You guys down there are funny. You get your jizz on for all things BQs and cream yourselves over OTQs. Then you take the glory for doing these "Qs" on a downhill point to point course.
Come on guys, these aren't PRs, and there is no way that anyone would have run the same time on a legit flat course under the exact conditions of today. What would you all say if Kipchoge came along and ran a 1:58 on this course??
In other news, unicorns do exist and a blessing of them flew over Sacramento earlier today creating perfect conditions where everyone was up for it and ran out of their skins.
Jeez, a 60-year old ran 2:42!
Last name, appropriately, is Young (Jeff)
YMMV wrote:
Jeez, a 60-year old ran 2:42!
Last name, appropriately, is Young (Jeff)
Actually, 2:41:35
Dingler wrote:
The "OTQ pack" going a bit too fast, 32:25ish at 10k (2:16:47 pace).
^^^^^^^^^^^
You called it. 108 runners at 5:15 pace through 10k. Only 53 OTQ finishers at 5:18 pace.
reeeesults wrote:
12
Travis Fuller
61
02:14:13
05:08
US
29
M
Elite Men
12
Where are you getting these? Athlinks has no splits for him after half and lists him as a DNF. Local Utah guy, so curious to know.
NoLuckCanuck wrote:
You guys down there are funny. You get your jizz on for all things BQs and cream yourselves over OTQs. Then you take the glory for doing these "Qs" on a downhill point to point course.
Come on guys, these aren't PRs, and there is no way that anyone would have run the same time on a legit flat course under the exact conditions of today. What would you all say if Kipchoge came along and ran a 1:58 on this course??
In other news, unicorns do exist and a blessing of them flew over Sacramento earlier today creating perfect conditions where everyone was up for it and ran out of their skins.
Kipchoge would run 2:00 high / 2:01 low here, just like he would at Dubai, presuming either race could afford to pay him to show up (they can't).
That is one of my runners from the Alaska Endurance Project up here in Anchorage. He just turned 60 and targeted this race specifically to go after the 60-64 year old age group record. Which he crushed by like a minute, but looking further into usatf record qualifying standards "drop-net elevation decrease from the start to finish expressed as a fraction of the race distance in meters per kilometer(negative values indicate net climb) . Courses with any amount of drop may be certified, but for record eligibility, drop must not exceed 1.0/m/km(USATF Rule 265.4(a)) SO WHY THE F have a USATF championship race on a course that records can not be achieved. DUMB!!
YMMV wrote:
Jeez, a 60-year old ran 2:42!
Last name, appropriately, is Young (Jeff)
NoLuckCanuck wrote:
You guys down there are funny. You get your jizz on for all things BQs and cream yourselves over OTQs. Then you take the glory for doing these "Qs" on a downhill point to point course.
Come on guys, these aren't PRs, and there is no way that anyone would have run the same time on a legit flat course under the exact conditions of today. What would you all say if Kipchoge came along and ran a 1:58 on this course??
In other news, unicorns do exist and a blessing of them flew over Sacramento earlier today creating perfect conditions where everyone was up for it and ran out of their skins.
FALSE.
You are showing your ignorance. It would be FASTER if it were flat. It is fast because of weather and few turns to make you run tangents. It has 681 feet of uphill. Learn some science troll.
10krunner wrote:
That is one of my runners from the Alaska Endurance Project up here in Anchorage. He just turned 60 and targeted this race specifically to go after the 60-64 year old age group record. Which he crushed by like a minute, but looking further into usatf record qualifying standards "drop-net elevation decrease from the start to finish expressed as a fraction of the race distance in meters per kilometer(negative values indicate net climb) . Courses with any amount of drop may be certified, but for record eligibility, drop must not exceed 1.0/m/km(USATF Rule 265.4(a))
SO WHY THE F have a USATF championship race on a course that records can not be achieved. DUMB!!
YMMV wrote:
Jeez, a 60-year old ran 2:42!
Last name, appropriately, is Young (Jeff)
Congrats to Jeff for running such a fast time. I raced against him a few times in Anchorage some years back, and once thought I'd set a state 55-59 record in the half with a 1:19, but in the same race seemingly outta nowhere he did 1:16.
Anyway, the USATF rules are pretty clear in black and white. Sorry about that, if you guys didn't know the rules and that CIM isn't record eligible. Sign up for London or Rotterdam in the spring.
PrZ wrote:
Someone hit me with some results or live results. Surprised nobody’s posted any yet. You guys need to step it up ?
I had everything but had to stop as I had registered and it read a new registered person can only post 20 times in 72 hours. Then I tried posting without a registered name, nope. Sorry, but that's why I stopped posting results. Letsrun wouldn't let me.
Ha ha uncoordinated flatlander wrote:
Wish I was there. wrote:
Brogan Austin coming off his impressive win at the Indy Monumental Half of 62:39. Kiya ran 64:15 last year there and followed it up with his sub 2:13 performance, so Brogan should be close to sub 2:10 on this ski slope course.
An egregious 105 people qualify for the Olympic trials.
Ha where are you from? Kansas? Nebraska? Have to laugh at Jerrys like you. I bet you are a climate change denying Trump voter as well. Ha ha!
The average intermediate ski slope is over 25%. CIM is at 0.22 %. God you are stupid. I feel sorry for you.
Ha ha uncoordinated flatlander wrote:
Wish I was there. wrote:
Brogan Austin coming off his impressive win at the Indy Monumental Half of 62:39. Kiya ran 64:15 last year there and followed it up with his sub 2:13 performance, so Brogan should be close to sub 2:10 on this ski slope course.
An egregious 105 people qualify for the Olympic trials.
Ha where are you from? Kansas? Nebraska? Have to laugh at Jerrys like you. I bet you are a climate change denying Trump voter as well. Ha ha!
The average intermediate ski slope is over 25%. CIM is at 0.22 %. God you are stupid. I feel sorry for you.
Ummm...., he was spot on with both calls. Let me apologize for you.
Coyote Montane wrote:
10krunner wrote:
That is one of my runners from the Alaska Endurance Project up here in Anchorage. He just turned 60 and targeted this race specifically to go after the 60-64 year old age group record. Which he crushed by like a minute, but looking further into usatf record qualifying standards "drop-net elevation decrease from the start to finish expressed as a fraction of the race distance in meters per kilometer(negative values indicate net climb) . Courses with any amount of drop may be certified, but for record eligibility, drop must not exceed 1.0/m/km(USATF Rule 265.4(a))
SO WHY THE F have a USATF championship race on a course that records can not be achieved. DUMB!!
Congrats to Jeff for running such a fast time. I raced against him a few times in Anchorage some years back, and once thought I'd set a state 55-59 record in the half with a 1:19, but in the same race seemingly outta nowhere he did 1:16.
Anyway, the USATF rules are pretty clear in black and white. Sorry about that, if you guys didn't know the rules and that CIM isn't record eligible. Sign up for London or Rotterdam in the spring.
That was a great run by Jeff Young. But yeah the rules are clear and well-known to people going after those records. I talked to Brian Pilcher at Chicago in 2016 when he set the current (and official) 60-64 record of 2:42:42, and he chose Chicago specifically because it is fast but undoubtedly record eligible.
Thanks everyone for the comments.
Its all good but really feel its very silly to have a USATF "championship" race on a course not eligible for records. lol