LetsRun sleuths, did Chelsea Clinton really run NYC Marathon in 3:59:09 today under a fake name?

I could be mistaken but I do not believe an ex-President's children maintain Secret Service protection after the president leaves office. The Ex-President and the First Lady get SS protection for life and can extend it for their adult children for college but I do not believe it extends beyond that. The Clinton family probably hire their own private security. The only reason why I could see the SS involved in this is because President Clinton himself was going to be at the finish line so he definitely gets significant protection while there considering the crowds. I'm sure her name was deleted for her (and her father's) protection.

Regardless, breaking four hours as a 41 year old woman is pretty solid. BQ for her age is 3:40.

9:07 pace for a marathon is insanely slow. Most people could walk a mile in 10-11 minutes. If she runs 8:30 pace for 4 miles and walks a 11 min mile, that averages out to 9 min pace over 5 miles.

yeah this isn't a difficult result at all I know plenty of coworkers, friends, family who are not at all serious runners and were able to train to run sub 4 hours or around there. I know it triggers letsrun boards when a lib does anything, but this is not some ludicrous time.

johnny walker blue wrote:

It’s funny how everyone on here talks about how running sub-3 requires no talent and not that many miles, but when someone runs 3:59 people are in shock and talk about how much effort she’d have to put into it. So she must have cheated! 🙄

Sure, she’s a 40 year old woman, so change that sub-3 to 3:15 or 3:20. Point stands. For what it’s worth, I do think sub-4 takes some work, but it’s not that crazy for a somewhat fit woman to go 3:59 if there is some effort put in.

This thread makes me realize how low standards are compared to when i first started running.

If it were 1985, you wouldn't even attempt a marathon if you couldn't break 4:00 because YES you actually have to train to cover 26 miles at 9:00 . But that wasn't your goal, you didn't run just to finish. You trained so that when you raced, it was the best you could possibly do. But back then, 4:00 would have put you in the bottom 10% of finishers.

So why is it so hard to believe that a 40 year old woman would actually train to run a marathon.

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^""""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:

The fact that she felt compelled to run under a fake name shows how f'ed up human nature truly is.

Meanwhile you and many of us post under a fake name.

Don't forget, she may have been inspired by her hobbyjogger dad Bill. Cut out the McD's and you have sub-4.

With all the hate the Clintons get, she absolutely should run with an alias and with security.

verkempt wrote:

I think it's lame she's paranoid enough to run under Anon though, unless there's a legit security issue.

Do you live under a rock?

There is a legit security issue, given how batsheet the alt right is.

Zev wrote:

I always race under an alias. Some of us have a reason or more for not wanting to be named in the "official" results.

Right, guy, you and Chelsea Clinton.

Grandiosity much?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

fake news now wrote:

9:07 pace for a marathon is insanely slow. Most people could walk a mile in 10-11 minutes. If she runs 8:30 pace for 4 miles and walks a 11 min mile, that averages out to 9 min pace over 5 miles.

Average walking pace for a person is 15-20 mins/mile. 10-11 min/mile is a jog, not a walk.

Showing up wrote:

This thread makes me realize how low standards are compared to when i first started running.

If it were 1985, you wouldn't even attempt a marathon if you couldn't break 4:00 because YES you actually have to train to cover 26 miles at 9:00 . But that wasn't your goal, you didn't run just to finish. You trained so that when you raced, it was the best you could possibly do. But back then, 4:00 would have put you in the bottom 10% of finishers.

So why is it so hard to believe that a 40 year old woman would actually train to run a marathon.

The average finishing time of the 1985 New York City marathon was 4:09.

More than half the finishers were over 4:00.

But please, go on.

WWRD wrote:

I'm as anti Dem/Prog as you will find. I think they are the scourge of the earth and should be fought at every turn. They are currently the greatest threat to freedom and are likely plunging us into a 2nd middle ages. There are my bonafides.

Who is they?

It's over wrote:

But back then, 4:00 would have put you in the bottom 10% of finishers.

The average finishing time of the 1985 New York City marathon was 4:09.

More than half the finishers were over 4:00.

But please, go on.

Yes. That's my point. Look at the results of a 1985 marathon.

BS wrote:

I fail to see why this is rubbing some people the wrong way, she certainly looks like she did some training in the photo and its not stretch to think a trained individual at her age could run under 4:00. The anon entry makes sense (look at the posts on here) - why make it easy for the idiots out there who might want to either harm her or draw attention to themselves - esp. when you think of the vitriol directed at her parents, heck - if one of Trump's family ran NYC I would expect them to do the exact same thing. Why take risks you don't have too? The fact she ran for a charity, like many others, and got to do her hometown marathon is a perfectly normal thing to want to do. I see only positives all around - good for her.

+1

This thread started off in classic LRC fashion. Middle aged white dude doesn't think a woman ran a marathon in the time that she did so they started a thread about it because they are comfortable enough to do it in that way on here. People then proceed to stalk race photos & get into politics.

Here's something: this thread, in the way it was brought up has no place here. A simple thread saying a politician went sub-4 at the NYC Marathon & responses saying "nice run" would have been fine.

Showing up wrote:

It's over wrote:

But back then, 4:00 would have put you in the bottom 10% of finishers.

The average finishing time of the 1985 New York City marathon was 4:09.

More than half the finishers were over 4:00.

But please, go on.

Yes. That's my point. Look at the results of a 1985 marathon.

I did. More than half the runners were over 4:00.

So what's your point, exactly?

This is a silly thread. I doubt Clinton cares about USTF status -- most hobby runners don't. Does a runner even have to be registered with USTAF to run the race? In the past, you did not. And the time is not so fast as to be suspicious.

I expect that a race director would acquiesce to a request to register under an alias if there is a credible risk that a runner could be harassed during the race.

I am amused that Clinton's reported time approximates the time earned by Paul "the liar" Ryan in his marathon, as opposed to the time he originally claimed.

Chelsea Clinton did not run the New York City Marathon. The runner who finished in 3:59:09 is Samantha Paul. Her bib number is 12908. Some of us are awake. Lol!

I agree with this.

And people $hitting on her time are probably 20-30s bros who think they will be healthy and strong forever. I used to be one of them. Later I blew my knee up. My running career is effectively over. I would love to be able to go out and run a 3:59 marathon now, and I used to be ~90 minutes faster than that! It's not as easy as it seems when you don't dedicate your life to running.

juvie wrote:

Sub 4 is a legit effort and would have required a serious training block. I wonder if she trained principally on a treadmill indoors or if she trained outdoors which would have entailed some secret service accompaniment

This, esp. for people with no HS or college XC background. I'm slow AF but took 15 years off after HS ended (2002) and just am now in the 3:20 bracket, but I did run in HS.

Sub-2 half, Sub-4 full is the golden standard for most beginning runners. While not fast by LRC standards, if you have run a little bit and are just getting into the sport, those are the benchmarks. I tell people if you want to run a sub-4 full, your half time should be closer to 1:48-1:53 for a buffer.

For intermediate runners, it's 3:00 for males and 3:30 for females (harshest BQ standards).

WWRD wrote:

I'm as anti Dem/Prog as you will find. I think they are the scourge of the earth and should be fought at every turn. They are currently the greatest threat to freedom and are likely plunging us into a 2nd middle ages. There are my bonafides.

If CC ran 3:59:09, all I can say is, nice run! I didn't think she had it in her. That's pretty decent for some 40 year old off the couch, and took some dedication. Good job Chelsea!

Good post. I lean right, but I have no ill will toward the Clintons. Bill was more moderate than many remember. I also respect Chelsea for putting in the dedication to run 26.2 miles.