I think he is implying some kind of impropriety by Matt. He's just not willing to stick his neck out far enough to make a logical claim beyond the 3:16 not passing his eye test. Plenty of people have given reasons to back the validity of the 3:16, but Sage gives none to disprove it's validity.
I mean what were the valid reasons? That he focused soley on that race that year and knew the course like the back of his hand? It still begs the question, why he could never even come close to that time ever again? If there was something perfect about that day, the weather, condition of the course etc... why no one else ran a good time? Just him, only Matt had a magical day that day and all that knowledge of the course and specific training he did wasn't enough to even run a 3:20 something? Seems pretty suss.
So are you suggesting that of all the times Carpenter ran PP he decided to dope for just that one race and then went back to running his non-doped tines?
I am complete outsider, I don't know a lot about this race or the people being discussed but I just have to say that I think its pretty pathetic how people are attacking Sage. It honestly seems to me that Sage has brought up some very relevant data points and idk maybe that just makes some old timers uncomfortable because they idolize this guy. Its actually pretty sad and pathetic.
Sage never attacked the guy or made any unreasonable or offensive remarks. You guys are acting like babies about this. So what if he thinks theres something off about that CR?
You are just pretending to be a total outsider.
If something was off about Matt Carpenter's CR than talk about it and not dancing around that topic. Basically Sage Canaday is accusing Matt Carpenter of cheating in 2005 without providing any evidence. Not sure how he will come up with that evidence 18 years later.
Sage lied already about his Marathon PR, I no longer believe anything he says.
No, I am legit a total outsider. Unlike the snowflakes in here I am just a guy who has no connection to this race or any vested interest in any of the parties being discussed.
And who is dancing around the topic? What evidence could he have? Theres no GPS etc... so theres literally only the things he's pointed out to go on. It just boils down to it being a suss result. But who the hell knows how it happened? Maybe he had a bike stashed somewhere, knew how to cut the course to shave off a bunch of time etc.. Theres lots of possibilities. Sure, it could be legit, but somethings that seem to good to be true are in fact not true.
I mean what were the valid reasons? That he focused soley on that race that year and knew the course like the back of his hand? It still begs the question, why he could never even come close to that time ever again? If there was something perfect about that day, the weather, condition of the course etc... why no one else ran a good time? Just him, only Matt had a magical day that day and all that knowledge of the course and specific training he did wasn't enough to even run a 3:20 something? Seems pretty suss.
So are you suggesting that of all the times Carpenter ran PP he decided to dope for just that one race and then went back to running his non-doped tines?
Who said anything about doping? Its quite possible he stashed a bike on the course for example. There are more possible ways he could have cheated than not cheated, its not like its a big road marathon with thousands of spectators and people out on the course.
This morning LRC's favorite Mountain Runner/Shoetuber made a triumphant return to YouTube, in the form of a Community Post--an ode to delayed onset muscle soreness. It's nice to see Seth back!
So are you suggesting that of all the times Carpenter ran PP he decided to dope for just that one race and then went back to running his non-doped tines?
Who said anything about doping? It’s quite possible he stashed a bike on the course for example. There are more possible ways he could have cheated than not cheated, it’s not like it’s a big road marathon with thousands of spectators and people out on the course.
Now you guys are just getting ridiculous. There were other runners not even to Barr Camp on the way up by the time he finished. He would have been passing them the whole way down. There are aid stations and SAR crews every few miles. No, there aren’t thousands of people out on the course like a road marathon, but there were still enough that somebody would have noticed if he was riding a bike or significantly cutting the course.
And on the way up? Where he ram faster than ever even for his ascent only efforts? Oh that’s right nobody was in front of him or anywhere within sight.
There are more possible ways he could have cheated than not cheated
Oh boy you are a special kind of stupid lol. This is true of every race that has ever taken place. Keep slurping Sage lol
Keep slurping Matt lol
Of course its true, that is the exact point. Getting up in arms because people are pointing our an outlier performance in an era when it was even MORE true than it is today, that the result is not verifiable in almost any way whatsoever, is really the special kind of stupid here.
Anyway, I am often critical of Sage and enjoy pointing out his 100 mile performance failures FYI so no, I am not some kind of Sage fan boy. I am just also not some naive idiot that thinks ANYONE's results should never be questioned.
I will stand by what I write because I post under my real name.
I don't think you even realize what a stupid reason that is for standing by what you write. It would be far more impressive to see you actually change your mind as you acquire more knowledge, improve your analytical skills, and become more objective about the world.
You've said a lot of the same stupid stuff over the years (though I noticed that, after Matt's Ascent record was broken, you seemed to suddenly switch over to attacking his overall Marathon time rather than his Ascent split, especially after you finally learned (or remembered) that Matt's Ascent record was set as a Marathon split. Almost every year, you show up like the same guy in the same ugly Halloween costume to disrupt the party with the same stupid and incoherent story about some weird thing you heard about when you were a child. I've generally held my tongue throughout this prattle, even though much of you've said has been either staggeringly ignorant, extremely misleading, cherry-picked to death, or just plain false. I had the impression that you and your fans (and maybe your friends -- I assume you have them) would simply shout over anyone who dared to disagree or correct you. And even though Matt says that he doesn't care what you or anyone else writes about any of this on a message board, I do, especially when a lot of it is coming from someone who has acquired -- justifiably or not -- a certain level of credibility among a fairly large group of followers.
I don't pay much attention to finish times in the Pikes Peak Marathon. To me, the descent portion is like most other extreme sports -- you just don't risk it if you're really good at something else. The Ascent is a different story. It's the only mountain race I've ever run, and it's one of the very few mountain races that seem to have occasionally attracted top road, track, and cross-country runners (although they've become almost nonexistent in the Ascent in recent decades). My general observation, from many years back, has been that a runner with some talent and no significant training or racing experience in mountains should be able to run between about 2:10 and 2:15, a runner with some talent and significant training and racing experience should be able to run about five minutes faster, and the sky's the limit for someone with real talent, experience, and focus. When Matt ran 2:01:++, I was somewhat surprised, in part because it was a significant jump in time, but also because he'd had a couple of shaky years after his debacle in the 1990 national marathon championships, and I wasn't at all sure he would come back from that. But he did, extremely well, and for over twenty more years. And I can't remember a single moment that I doubted the legitimacy of his times. These relatively recent doubts about the legitimacy of Matt's times seem to have arisen from at least one member of a much newer generation of marginally talented participants in a tiny part of the running community. Since that person has now specifically asked the question, I -- speaking only for myself -- would prefer not to hear from him anymore. I don't find him interesting or credible, and I think he should work out whatever problems he may have in some other way. And leave the custard guy out of it.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
I will stand by what I write because I post under my real name.
I don't think you even realize what a stupid reason that is for standing by what you write. It would be far more impressive to see you actually change your mind as you acquire more knowledge, improve your analytical skills, and become more objective about the world.
You've said a lot of the same stupid stuff over the years (though I noticed that, after Matt's Ascent record was broken, you seemed to suddenly switch over to attacking his overall Marathon time rather than his Ascent split, especially after you finally learned (or remembered) that Matt's Ascent record was set as a Marathon split. Almost every year, you show up like the same guy in the same ugly Halloween costume to disrupt the party with the same stupid and incoherent story about some weird thing you heard about when you were a child. I've generally held my tongue throughout this prattle, even though much of you've said has been either staggeringly ignorant, extremely misleading, cherry-picked to death, or just plain false. I had the impression that you and your fans (and maybe your friends -- I assume you have them) would simply shout over anyone who dared to disagree or correct you. And even though Matt says that he doesn't care what you or anyone else writes about any of this on a message board, I do, especially when a lot of it is coming from someone who has acquired -- justifiably or not -- a certain level of credibility among a fairly large group of followers.
I don't pay much attention to finish times in the Pikes Peak Marathon. To me, the descent portion is like most other extreme sports -- you just don't risk it if you're really good at something else. The Ascent is a different story. It's the only mountain race I've ever run, and it's one of the very few mountain races that seem to have occasionally attracted top road, track, and cross-country runners (although they've become almost nonexistent in the Ascent in recent decades). My general observation, from many years back, has been that a runner with some talent and no significant training or racing experience in mountains should be able to run between about 2:10 and 2:15, a runner with some talent and significant training and racing experience should be able to run about five minutes faster, and the sky's the limit for someone with real talent, experience, and focus. When Matt ran 2:01:++, I was somewhat surprised, in part because it was a significant jump in time, but also because he'd had a couple of shaky years after his debacle in the 1990 national marathon championships, and I wasn't at all sure he would come back from that. But he did, extremely well, and for over twenty more years. And I can't remember a single moment that I doubted the legitimacy of his times. These relatively recent doubts about the legitimacy of Matt's times seem to have arisen from at least one member of a much newer generation of marginally talented participants in a tiny part of the running community. Since that person has now specifically asked the question, I -- sparkly only for myself -- would prefer not to hear from him anymore. I don't find him interesting or credible, and I think he should work out whatever problems he may have in some other way. And leave the custard guy out of it.
This is like a really long way of saying you are extremely proud to know Matt personally and nothing more. Like cool story, bro. For real. We are envious, of course.
And on the way up? Where he ram faster than ever even for his ascent only efforts? Oh that’s right nobody was in front of him or anywhere within sight.
A lot of the top sections of the course are steep with stairs and not even rideable. Matt could ascend a lot faster on foot than with a bike.
I will stand by what I write because I post under my real name.
I don't think you even realize what a stupid reason that is for standing by what you write. It would be far more impressive to see you actually change your mind as you acquire more knowledge, improve your analytical skills, and become more objective about the world.
You've said a lot of the same stupid stuff over the years (though I noticed that, after Matt's Ascent record was broken, you seemed to suddenly switch over to attacking his overall Marathon time rather than his Ascent split, especially after you finally learned (or remembered) that Matt's Ascent record was set as a Marathon split. Almost every year, you show up like the same guy in the same ugly Halloween costume to disrupt the party with the same stupid and incoherent story about some weird thing you heard about when you were a child. I've generally held my tongue throughout this prattle, even though much of you've said has been either staggeringly ignorant, extremely misleading, cherry-picked to death, or just plain false. I had the impression that you and your fans (and maybe your friends -- I assume you have them) would simply shout over anyone who dared to disagree or correct you. And even though Matt says that he doesn't care what you or anyone else writes about any of this on a message board, I do, especially when a lot of it is coming from someone who has acquired -- justifiably or not -- a certain level of credibility among a fairly large group of followers.
I don't pay much attention to finish times in the Pikes Peak Marathon. To me, the descent portion is like most other extreme sports -- you just don't risk it if you're really good at something else. The Ascent is a different story. It's the only mountain race I've ever run, and it's one of the very few mountain races that seem to have occasionally attracted top road, track, and cross-country runners (although they've become almost nonexistent in the Ascent in recent decades). My general observation, from many years back, has been that a runner with some talent and no significant training or racing experience in mountains should be able to run between about 2:10 and 2:15, a runner with some talent and significant training and racing experience should be able to run about five minutes faster, and the sky's the limit for someone with real talent, experience, and focus. When Matt ran 2:01:++, I was somewhat surprised, in part because it was a significant jump in time, but also because he'd had a couple of shaky years after his debacle in the 1990 national marathon championships, and I wasn't at all sure he would come back from that. But he did, extremely well, and for over twenty more years. And I can't remember a single moment that I doubted the legitimacy of his times. These relatively recent doubts about the legitimacy of Matt's times seem to have arisen from at least one member of a much newer generation of marginally talented participants in a tiny part of the running community. Since that person has now specifically asked the question, I -- speaking only for myself -- would prefer not to hear from him anymore. I don't find him interesting or credible, and I think he should work out whatever problems he may have in some other way. And leave the custard guy out of it.
TL; DR this guy comes on every time Matt Carpenter is discussed and fervently defends him. People can talk about the “custard guy” whenever they want. You and Sage are alike as Sage always manages to find a thread talking about himself. You both have gigantic egos.
Ok. It was simply an example, an example which has happened in other races so not like its unheard of. Point is it could be various ways. For someone that knew the course like the back of their hand, yeah not hard to imagine that such a person would know a way or two to shave some big chunks of time off.
There was only like 1800 signed up for the Ascent and 800 for the Marathon. While I did the Ascent, you would still see people go off course to take a leak or just to catch their breathe. Someone struggling going up in the Marathon wouldn't have any clue someone cut the course coming down.
This is like a really long way of saying you are extremely proud to know Matt personally and nothing more. Like cool story, bro. For real. We are envious, of course.
I'm not extremely proud to know Matt personally. In fact, I think that's kind of a weird thought for you to have. To me, Matt was just a friendly (if sometimes gratingly arrogant) competitor who happened to end up in my neighborhood. He went in one direction -- focusing on being really good in a part of the sport that I didn't pay any significant attention to -- and I went in a very different direction -- focusing on being really good in the often difficult but extremely fulfilling area of appellate law. I kept a finger in the sport of running, off and on, and still do, but choosing to go all-in with running as so many others seem to do would almost certainly have been a terrible, terrible mistake for me. I'm now at a point in my life when I'm happy to stop by and see that Matt seems to be doing well at life outside of running. I continue to follow the sport a bit, but I find it less and less interesting, and -- though the runners I've met generally seem very pleasant -- there's a somewhat creepy and obsessive aspect of the focus on racing times and running bucket lists that seems to have grown over the years and magnified by social media and technological gadgetry. I still run, however. That, I hope, will continue for a long time.
I will stand by what I write because I post under my real name.
Almost every year, you show up like the same guy in the same ugly Halloween costume to disrupt the party with the same stupid and incoherent story about some weird thing you heard about when you were a child. I've generally held my tongue throughout this prattle, even though much of you've said has been either staggeringly ignorant, extremely misleading, cherry-picked to death, or just plain false. I had the impression that you and your fans (and maybe your friends -- I assume you have them) would simply shout over anyone who dared to disagree or correct you.
You're coming across as quite unhinged, just so you know. I don't always agree with Sage's approach, certainly not the semi-bullying of Seth in the past. But on this topic, I think it's fair of him to point out that the record time is a big outlier; because it is. Doesn't mean Matt cheated, but in competitive sport it's always sensible to flag near-miraculous performances.
This is like a really long way of saying you are extremely proud to know Matt personally and nothing more. Like cool story, bro. For real. We are envious, of course.
I'm not extremely proud to know Matt personally. In fact, I think that's kind of a weird thought for you to have. To me, Matt was just a friendly (if sometimes gratingly arrogant) competitor who happened to end up in my neighborhood. He went in one direction -- focusing on being really good in a part of the sport that I didn't pay any significant attention to -- and I went in a very different direction -- focusing on being really good in the often difficult but extremely fulfilling area of appellate law. I kept a finger in the sport of running, off and on, and still do, but choosing to go all-in with running as so many others seem to do would almost certainly have been a terrible, terrible mistake for me. I'm now at a point in my life when I'm happy to stop by and see that Matt seems to be doing well at life outside of running. I continue to follow the sport a bit, but I find it less and less interesting, and -- though the runners I've met generally seem very pleasant -- there's a somewhat creepy and obsessive aspect of the focus on racing times and running bucket lists that seems to have grown over the years and magnified by social media and technological gadgetry. I still run, however. That, I hope, will continue for a long time.
Maybe it is a weird thought for me to have. Maybe you are just mentally ill. I guess theres not too many other plausible explanations for a person such as you describe yourself to be on this message board posting such rants.
Leave it to a boomer lawyer to post dozens of paragraphs about someone they don't particularly care about, with the only arguments boiling down to "Mr. custard seemed to be a stand up guy" and "you are irritating, stop posting"