Olympic Triathlon Champion runs 28:32 for 10k at Stanford

I was timing our swimmer at St. Pete yesterday and his swim time included the run up the beach, six seconds beyond what he was out of the water. (They then ran 1/4-1/2 M to the bike transition area for the exchange in the relay--and for the tri competitors, that meant a solid half mile from water to the bike start on foot). So, I think that they always count the swim time by the time you cross a mat a little ways out of the water and then there is T1 to the time you cross the mat with the bike and can start riding.

Tridude wrote:

kny wrote:

1. Yes, the Olympics triathlon was 10K.

Yes, a 9,600m 10K.

Why do you say that? I have no doubt that many ITU races have short runs, but not the Olympics. It was certified. You can view the route in google that shows it as >6.21 miles. So, why the continued, unsubstantiated, and incorrect claim that the Olympics had a run 1/4 mile short?

They shortened the track by 10% for his race.

I agree.

The 10k track at standford must have been short.

Tri Coach wrote:

Yes.

He ran 29:07 in the Olympics, that's only 2% better.

Pretty decent considering he probably was not peaking for this race

break it up wrote:

I bet this guy could train for 11 weeks and run 2:14 or better for a marathon. There must be more money in tris than I thought

He won $20,000 at last week's race in San Diego. Alistair has probably won six figures in annual prize money in each of the last four or five years, plus there is sponsorship and Great Britain Triathlon funding.

hcs wrote:

I agree.

The 10k track at standford must have been short.

Dude, Everybody knows the Stanford track is only 386 metres. Why do you think everybody runs fast times on that thing?

Have you ever seen anybody actually measure it?

Agreed, Brownlee's 10k run at Stanford was fantastic. Don't forget that Ryan Hall ran something like 28-2XX a few years ago. My guess is that the training methods used for top triathletes today is fantastically advanced and optimized for top aerobic performance. Meanwhile the training that most of us runners are doing remains back in the dark ages with crappy intense interval workouts etc. We have a huge amount to learn.

How hilly was it?

The weekend's 28:32 and 29:07 at the Olympics at the end of the tri are great performances for a tri guy.

But what else are we supposed to say?

On other boards I have seen this has been brought up by tri guys and hobby joggers. Do we bow and kiss the ground? Will that satisfy them? What to they want?

Brownlee's time was 1 second off Bobby Mack, who was in the first heat. Mack was 19th, 4th USA in the recent World Cross. Tri Guy deserves to have been put in the fast heat. LoLo gets more respect from the bobsled community.

squeakypieces wrote:

It was the Olympics - you think they just mismeasured the course? There's no way the pool was 50 meters long; people swam too fast! ;-) I suspect if there's ever going to be an accurate course, it's at the Olympics.

...

Well, you DO remember the gymnastics fiasco in Sydney 2000, right? :)

amazing time considering his form is terrible. How about trying to run with a slight forward lean

Euro runner wrote:

Agreed, Brownlee's 10k run at Stanford was fantastic. Don't forget that Ryan Hall ran something like 28-2XX a few years ago. My guess is that the training methods used for top triathletes today is fantastically advanced and optimized for top aerobic performance. Meanwhile the training that most of us runners are doing remains back in the dark ages with crappy intense interval workouts etc. We have a huge amount to learn.

Agree. Even an 'average' elite triathlete puts in more aerobic hours than the average elite runner. When you get a naturally good runner like Brownlee with optimal tri-training you get a 28:32 10,000. If he switched to running only he might run 27:50 - good enough to make a Brit team but not good enough to make a living.

Tridude wrote:

kny wrote:

1. Yes, the Olympics triathlon was 10K.

Yes, a 9,600m 10K.