Is Cayla Hatton update?

Justthefactsplease wrote:

This is one of those threads that gives this message board a terrible reputation. Most of these posters are blathering on in anonymity about things they don’t understand. Almost nothing posted here is accurate. Hatton does not have an eating disorder (look at her photos). She did not over-train in high school (if anything, she was under-trained…read her interviews). She has not left Stanford (she is, in fact, an honors student). And, she has not quit the sport. So, let’s give this talented young lady some space to grow.

So where is she this season? Has she raced? Is she injured?

...the post about the stress fracture was accurate as far as I know.

Justthefactsplease wrote:

This is one of those threads that gives this message board a terrible reputation. Most of these posters are blathering on in anonymity about things they don’t understand. Almost nothing posted here is accurate. Hatton does not have an eating disorder (look at her photos). She did not over-train in high school (if anything, she was under-trained…read her interviews). She has not left Stanford (she is, in fact, an honors student). And, she has not quit the sport. So, let’s give this talented young lady some space to grow.

"Honors student" is meaningless as a freshman at Stanford. Honors are determined by completion of an undergraduate thesis.

What system? And how does this focused attention screw the system? And what does that have to do with titles and scholarships? And don't you think it's a bit early to say she won't finish her collegiate career?

Take Ashley Brosovan for example. You've probably have never heard of her but she won Footlocker in 2007. She took a scholarship to Duke and for four years, was never healthy enough to even put on the shirt. There are so many other examples.

The damage it does is that it forces the "regular" runners to adopt unsustainable means to compete at the national level. You either have to drop 20 pounds or run 100+ miles a week to compete at NXN or Footlocker.

I'm not asking these kids to win at the collegiate level but if you trained at a level that you can't even finish college then you have to give it all back. It's a fair system. All you have to do is finish.

Please no trolling in this thread

There's some truth to this complaint. There's a girl from our home state who was running 75 miles a week in summer to train for high school xc. Had a national level career in high school xc and in track (3200 and 5K), but hasn't raced more than a few times in college. She took all the state honors, her face was plastered on milesplit, and then it ended.

People have a right to do what they want with their bodies, and to go to whatever extraordinary means they want to succeed. We told our daughter not to worry about it, that such an intense level of training too early would lead to injury (and it did), and we told her college coaches don't like to see so much mileage. They'd prefer someone who was slightly slower but still had somewhere to go with mileage. Frankly, since this girl got injured toward the end of senior year in high school, we wondered what her recruiting success would be.

Lo and behold, she got taken with scholarship by a top program and a coach who is very-well respected on this board. In my opinion, that set a bad precedent for girls in our state. The next few years we saw a crop of kids running really fast times, entering college meets rather than high school invitationals, and all that. Some of them also got very, very nice recruitment offers and some of them are also spending their college years in the training room.

This problem isn't ending until college coaches say no thanks, which they aren't doing yet.

I have to add to that- we had a local girl who was sub 4:45 for 1500 but injury plagued throughout high school.

I was shocked when one of the top schools in the nation gace her a full ride. A D3 coach told me ( and I agreed) he wouldn't want her on his team.

A couple years later she hasn't broken 510 for the mile and a girl I coached in the same era (who ran about 4:49 in HS) is routinely beating her and breaking 4:50 for the mile.

WHy do college coaches go after damaged goods AND girls/boys who obviously overtrained in HS?

They are ready made teams. They have 3 girls that will be ready to roll in the fall. Throw in 2 frosh anorexics who will run 80 miles a week over the summer and they win conference or place at region. They are hurt by indoors but who cares. They need 3 maybe 4 distance runners until next XC. How many points come from the distances? 1 girl in the 10,000, 1 in the 5000. Maybe they will get another season of cross or some 5 or 10 points by the time they are finished. The 1500 runners are 800 girls that move up and most of the time those girls are level headed and healthy eaters. It's a business if you think otherwise you have your head in the sand.

Everyone cuts on Cain but you can bet her physician father won't put up with her eating an apple and some pretzels for 4 yrs.

Honestly, do you believe that all these 80 pound 100 mile a week girls are going to become brain surgeons? You have to be fueled and focused on your studies not counting miles and calories. Very sad but that's the system.

No, there is no truth to that complaint. There are plenty of runners who excel in high school and then do just fine afterwards. Stop complaining and train your son or daughter better. No fault but their own.

I'm not cutting on the Stanford coach. As far as I know it's a great place to run. I think these athletes come in to college with issues. If my kid got a scholarship to Stanford and Oregon I would hope he would choose Stanford but of course that would be up to him.

Bleu wrote:

I'm not cutting on the Stanford coach. As far as I know it's a great place to run. I think these athletes come in to college with issues. If my kid got a scholarship to Stanford and Oregon I would hope he would choose Stanford but of course that would be up to him.

Why? Oregon is so much better at running and is more fun

PPD, my daughter IS at a top program, so this is not sour grapes. Thankfully, she was able to manage it on moderate mileage, but for a while it didn't look that way. The majority of that crop of runners who modeled themselves after the girl I wrote about, have not been able to run in college due to constant injury.

nordicmama wrote:

PPD, my daughter IS at a top program, so this is not sour grapes. Thankfully, she was able to manage it on moderate mileage, but for a while it didn't look that way. The majority of that crop of runners who modeled themselves after the girl I wrote about, have not been able to run in college due to constant injury.

Well isn't that their own fault? How can you blame the first girl for their mistakes? No one forced them to copy her

elmore345 wrote:

Is Cayla Hatton update?

Great use of grammar - this does not even make sense!

Makes not sense to you?

Refund Ruler wrote:

Take Ashley Brosovan for example. You've probably have never heard of her but she won Footlocker in 2007. She took a scholarship to Duke and for four years, was never healthy enough to even put on the shirt. There are so many other examples.

The damage it does is that it forces the "regular" runners to adopt unsustainable means to compete at the national level. You either have to drop 20 pounds or run 100+ miles a week to compete at NXN or Footlocker.

I'm not asking these kids to win at the collegiate level but if you trained at a level that you can't even finish college then you have to give it all back. It's a fair system. All you have to do is finish.

How do you propose they give it all back?? I agree with some of the points you make but winning is winning.

As far as all you have to do is finish - if they jog around some race and come in last do you think that's ok?

No one is blaming the girls. We're just saying that right now, for college roster spots and scholarships, the system favors girls who over-train in high school. These girls admit to their high mileage in interviews, and surely college coaches must ask them what about their mileage. I know my daughter was asked. But as pointed out above, there's apparently an unlimited supply of kids willing to over-train, and so when they fall apart they can be replaced by a new crop the following year. This is not good for the sport long-term. And let's not forget the college coaches who take girls with obvious eating disorders.

nordicmama wrote:

No one is blaming the girls. We're just saying that right now, for college roster spots and scholarships, the system favors girls who over-train in high school. These girls admit to their high mileage in interviews, and surely college coaches must ask them what about their mileage. I know my daughter was asked. But as pointed out above, there's apparently an unlimited supply of kids willing to over-train, and so when they fall apart they can be replaced by a new crop the following year. This is not good for the sport long-term. And let's not forget the college coaches who take girls with obvious eating disorders.

How does it favor girls who over train? Can you actually back this up? What percentage of incoming freshmen are overtrained? And what exactly does "overtrained" mean to you? Jordan Hasay made it to and through college just fine despite being a highschool superstar. That alone disproves anything that you're saying.

From what I can tell, the "system" favors girls who run the fastest. Has nothing to do with over or under training.

Yes, the "system" does want girls who run the fastest, and many college coaches ignore the way in which these girls go about it, as long as the results are positive. "She was once a runner" gives an honest account of this very issue:

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/156110

Also, whoever suggested the idea of penalizing teenage girls for "cheating" by running high mileage to produce faster results at an earlier age is absurd. Many of the girls run high mileage or engage in unhealthy eating practices to please a parent and/or coach. They also sacrifice their social lives (proms, birthdays, boyfriends) in order to run to the best of their ability in high school. I would imagine that this pressure is especially prevalent amongst girls from a lower income bracket that rely on scholarship $ in order to afford an education.

This thread is starting to have nothing to do with Cayla.

But seriously, anyone who has run in college knows it's a buisiness, I don't really care what division you are, although in D1 this is more the case. Far and few between are the coaches that give a crap about the health of athletes so long as they produce for 4-5 years. This doesn't just apply to women but men as well. College coaches as a general whole are not there to nurture athletes to long,healthy, productive running careers (therein lies the biggest downfall with the "development" of U.S. distance runners), because that's not how they keep their jobs. It's not their buisiness if Sally or Johnny go on get better and better after college and represent the U.S. or make an Olympics. Sally and Johnny need to be scoring points right NOW.

So no kidding they go after the ones they'll get quick results with. Is it right? No. Is it "fair"? No. But it's buisiness.

It's not a system, it's a no-brainer. Not sure why anyone wonders about this.