Shannon Rowbury, New USA mile record!!!

Attn: Ruth Wysocki(voice of reason). Please explain how far away 4:00 to 3:57 is and how easy it is to get there.

No Limit, Are you on drugs? I can't understand what the f... you're your writing about. Sober up man.

I don't get it...

Birth control pills give you testosterone???? wtf... (btw, it also says that she held the 1000m world record in 2:27. huh?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Decker#Controversy

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I can assure you that all of my running was drug free. It's nice to know that I am not included on the accused list, and it pleases me that my reputation was clean. Personally, I don't think Shannon, or any of John Cook's crew, are dirty. The times they are running aren't out of the question given the level of hard work. Anyway, if Shannon were dirty, I think her 800 time would be a lot faster.

As for getting from 4:00 to 3:57, if I knew the answer to that, I would have done it! One of the difficulties in running that fast is getting into a race that will lead you to it. I know that, in my case, the Grand Prix circuit helped screw up those opportunities. In years where the 1500 was not a GP event, there were very few "good" 1500's to run. After the Olympics in 1984, many races were more tactical, and I beat all of those ahead of me in the Games, but the times just weren't there.

It probably seems funny to others that there is discrepency between the 1500 and mile amongst most women. Perhaps that's because the women run it so rarely. Psychologically (for me anyway), it's like a whole different race, and I don't have an explanation for that. I really didn't like running the mile, and much preferred the 1500.

Go ahead bash Americans wrote:Are you arguing National Records are pointless or that the mile is pointless. It's hard to sound like an idiot on two topics at once, but you've managed it!

A national record in a rarely-run event is meaningless. I don't care about the Canadian women's 25k record. Maybe you do.

I wouldn't call it meaningless, but when, for example, the 1500 meter record is obviously superior to the mile record, it becomes obvious which one has more meaning. A record in an Olympic-run distance will always have more significance.

delmar wrote:

Mexico good place to hide while they do their "stuff" & much harder to be found by wada.

anat0my wrote:

park city is a lot colder than mexico. cook's group is comprised only of females, so there's a much greater danger of someone freezing her tits off.

I know! What with the dozens of non-stop flights every day from a host of US cities to Mexico City and elsewhere, how on earth can testers be espected to make their way south of the border???

I agree, I agree.

I agree with this except for one exception... and that is the mile - call me old school or whatever you like but I believe that a mile record has significance attached to it regardless. Much more so than say the 1000, or 2000

I've been away from racing for quite a few years now, but the women really don't care about the mile like the men do. I totally agree with you about the 1000 & 2000. I believe the mile record is significant for the men - hence the reason that so many major meets contest it, but you'd be lucky to find 1 decent mile race internationally for women outdoors each season.

Ruth Wysocki wrote:

A national record in a rarely-run event is meaningless. I don't care about the Canadian women's 25k record. Maybe you do.

I wouldn't call it meaningless, but when, for example, the 1500 meter record is obviously superior to the mile record, it becomes obvious which one has more meaning. A record in an Olympic-run distance will always have more significance.

Ruth:

It is my impression that you were a 1500/800 runner, in which case the mile is at the "extensive" margin, and is pushing you at the edge of your racing 'territory'. With runners that are 1500/3000 runners, I would think that the two would have the opposite relationship, but probably with a narrower differential. Does this make sense in terms of the athletes that you have known well?

26mi235 wrote:

Ruth:

It is my impression that you were a 1500/800 runner, in which case the mile is at the "extensive" margin, and is pushing you at the edge of your racing 'territory'. With runners that are 1500/3000 runners, I would think that the two would have the opposite relationship, but probably with a narrower differential. Does this make sense in terms of the athletes that you have known well?

I think for me it was just a mental thing, and many of my cohorts may have seen it the same way. I do believe a lot of it had to do with the fact that we women so rarely ran the mile. It may be as simple as, if we ran it more, we would have been more comfortable with it. I liked that the 1500 started at the end of a straightaway, whereas the mile started right before a turn. Also, I think I thought of the 1500 as 3 laps "plus" rather than 4 laps "minus." So even though they are close in distance, I was thinking 3 laps instead of 4. I'm not saying that any of it makes rational sense, but just that I really liked running 1500 a lot better than running a mile, and I definitely wasn't alone.

A funny related story: One year at Mt Sac Relays, the meet directors decided that both the men and women would run the mile rather than the 1500. The women went first. As we approached the start, the officials realized that there was no mile starting line on the track and no mark for it on the curb. As they began to try to figure it out, all of the women in the field jumped on it and convinced the officials that, since we knew where the 1500 start was, we shouldn't hold up the meet, but should just run the 1500. Not a one of the women wanted to run the mile! We just started moving in that direction and they let us run 1500 meters. If I remember correctly, they did figure it out in time for the men to run the mile.

nice story

thanks

and you are right about the mile and 1500 for the different genders.

Ruth, maybe another reason the 1500 is liked more by women is ....because the breaking 4 minutes or getting close is easier to understand running a mile in 4:22?

guygonemad wrote:

Ruth, maybe another reason the 1500 is liked more by women is ....because the breaking 4 minutes or getting close is easier to understand running a mile in 4:22?

Absolutely!

Thanks to Ruth for posting such positive comments and feedback on this website. Your insight and experiences are very much appreciated and interesting to hear.