Video Highlights of 2015 London Marathon
April 26, 2015
Binks wrote:
I watched on the day and they seemed to be getting in her way at times, almost breaking up her rhythm
No surprise as male pacemakers have no experience whatsoever pacing female runners.
I'm not taking a stance on the thread here, but why would pacing females be any different than pacing males? She ran the most dominating marathon in history - no one was breaking up her rhythm.
She dominated and deserves her place in history.
Coach Cookie wrote:
I'd feel better about the 2:15 if Paula's name didn't show on a IAAF list of suspect biological passport results. She's a cheater.
Where is this list?
For everyone saying Paula's "dirty" 2:15 is equivalent to a men's 1:59, that assumes the current men's WR is clean which I have doubts on. If it was possible to dope your way to a sub 2 it probably would have been done by now.
and like beamon wasnt on Dianobol like
every other american sprinter at mexico.
And
more than likely ill advised steroid use
before people understood them better
that led to subsequent damage to body
and performance.
AS for paula whether consider 2.15 as
record , she still ran that time.
.cant discount that performance .
Someone said no PED will help women
that much but if undedstand how
she and chinese doped makes
perfect sense and female runner nowadays
couldnt get away with such high hct.
boils down to fact epo invokes less responce in female athlete.
basically you need to blood transfuse to
get hct as high as needed far beyond what
epo can achieve .
and blood transfusion something east
africans not go near .
Sidenote ,ever wonder why largely more
female east african women caught with
epo compared to their men.
due to higher fat % and slower metabolism
aduck2022 wrote:
AS for paula whether consider 2.15 as record , she still ran that time.
.cant discount that performance .
Many men have run 2:15 or faster for a marathon.
No doubt she was talented but
also no doubt she doped.
just as obvious as bolt and as obvious
when it comes to speaking out about doping .easy if career over or if in bolts
case have or had whole federation behind
you.
To blood transfuse takes abit of
planning and preparation and much easier
done on home turf .
Common Sensesical wrote:
Try to keep up wrote:Paula didn't cheat.
So she didn't cheat? She is like 3 minutes faster than the next fastest runner (who likely cheated as well) BUT Paula didn't cheat? How can someone be so much faster than everyone else (and many of those are cheaters) yet she is the one not cheating?
I'm faster than Lance Armstrong, the biggest blood doper in history. Did I cheat too?
If your argument is 'no one ran faster/closer than', you are foolish. Newsflash: that's the definition of a WR.
Truth, as of today, is that Paula has a clean record. And was the greatest of her time.
So... suck it.
No evidence against Flo Jo.
So dumb! wrote:
... There\'s a huge difference between her and athletes like FloJo, Gatlin, and Armstrong. They found evidence against them. ...
Non elite marathoner wrote:
Common Sensesical wrote:So she didn't cheat? She is like 3 minutes faster than the next fastest runner (who likely cheated as well) BUT Paula didn't cheat? How can someone be so much faster than everyone else (and many of those are cheaters) yet she is the one not cheating?
I'm faster than Lance Armstrong, the biggest blood doper in history. Did I cheat too?
I run faster than Randy Barnes, am I a cheater?
Blitzplay wrote:
You have shown just how much of an idiot you are by using McMillian for female equivalent times and using it in general without any other consideration.
McMillan calculator is surprisingly close to actual WR's when comparing 5000, Half and Full Marathon for mens:
2:02:57 WR
58:25 MM / 58:23 WR
12:37 MM / 12:37 WR
McMillan predicts the 10,000 a bit faster but the 10,000 hasn't been attempted in a long time.
Lets look at womens:
2:15:25 WR
1:04:21 MM / 1:05:12 WR (!) (51 seconds gap)
28:52 / 29:31 WR (39 seconds gap)
13:54 MM / 14:11 WR (!) (17 seconds gap)
Clearly the Half Marathon WR is the strongest after the WR, then the 5000 by a hair and the 10000 being the weakest.
Yet the Half Marathon WR is still at least one order of maginitude weaker than the Marathon WR.
And btw, there are plenty of male runners who have run 2.15 off a 30 minute 10k
Whatever. Just because those men are too slow to compete on the international track circuit and therefore train their butts off for the Marathon doesn't mean a thing.
and women have better endurance than men.
What? Lol. If they had better endurance, they'd run faster Marathons then men. Even looking at it proportionally, if you discount Paulas performances, there is zero evidence that the gap between men and women gets smaller the greater the distances are. ZERO.
Cheat..not cheat...????
That aside.
Thank you for what?
She got up, took a dump, peed and ran a marathon.
Thanks for taking the dump?
She didn't do anything for you...
She ran a decent race for a woman in her forties. She'll more than likely race again including the marathon because like all the rest of us runners, she's obsessive.
Thanks for the memories?
2012 Olympic Marathon Results
That's only 16 seconds slower than the 2nd fastest Brit in the 2010 Olympic marathon.
GBR! wrote:
2012 Olympic Marathon Results
That's only 16 seconds slower than the 2nd fastest Brit in the 2010 Olympic marathon.
Which doesn't mean much since British runners s*ck. Well except for British runners who are born in Africa.
When you chose Daniel's VDOT as a reference, the analysis changes:2:15:25 WR 1:04:38 / 1:05:12 WR (!) (34 seconds gap)29:21 / 29:31 WR (10 seconds gap)14:06 / 14:11 WR (!) (5 seconds gap)VDOT might be better for women, than McMillan, due to the weaker strength of women.
Nutella1 wrote:
...
McMillan calculator is surprisingly close to actual WR's when comparing 5000, Half and Full Marathon for mens:
...
Lets look at womens:
2:15:25 WR
1:04:21 MM / 1:05:12 WR (!) (51 seconds gap)
28:52 / 29:31 WR (39 seconds gap)
13:54 MM / 14:11 WR (!) (17 seconds gap)
Clearly the Half Marathon WR is the strongest after the WR, then the 5000 by a hair and the 10000 being the weakest.
Yet the Half Marathon WR is still at least one order of maginitude weaker than the Marathon WR.
so Paula happens to run 2 min faster than any women ever did in 100 years of recorded history
If you see the all time list all times are following each other nicely till the top where paula's gaping gap of 2 minutes with her own record is waving.
I would say that she was running on a 5k escalator
Euro Dude wrote:
GBR! wrote:2012 Olympic Marathon Results
That's only 16 seconds slower than the 2nd fastest Brit in the 2010 Olympic marathon.
Which doesn't mean much since British runners s*ck. Well except for British runners who are born in Africa.
Yes but that means she could be selected for Rio.
Nutella1 wrote:
And btw, there are plenty of male runners who have run 2.15 off a 30 minute 10k
Whatever. Just because those men are too slow to compete on the international track circuit and therefore train their butts off for the Marathon doesn't mean a thing.
And you, a 3 hour hobby jogger, would know this how? I know a guy who trained his butt off and never broke 15:00 and ran under 2:20. Same ratio as Deena Kastor who ran 30:50 and 2:19.
Aren't you the same guy the other day trying to tell us that there were lots of black immigrants on the Swedish national team I don't understand how every one of your posts is chock full of misinformation.
Nutella1 wrote:
and women have better endurance than men.
What? Lol. If they had better endurance, they'd run faster Marathons then men. Even looking at it proportionally, if you discount Paulas performances, there is zero evidence that the gap between men and women gets smaller the greater the distances are. ZERO.
Look at the Japanese national records - top 3 men 2:06. Top 3 women 2:19. Same ratio as 2:02 / 2:15.
Nutella1 wrote:
Blitzplay wrote:You have shown just how much of an idiot you are by using McMillian for female equivalent times and using it in general without any other consideration.
McMillan calculator is surprisingly close to actual WR's when comparing 5000, Half and Full Marathon for mens:
2:02:57 WR
58:25 MM / 58:23 WR
12:37 MM / 12:37 WR
McMillan predicts the 10,000 a bit faster but the 10,000 hasn't been attempted in a long time.
Lets look at womens:
2:15:25 WR
1:04:21 MM / 1:05:12 WR (!) (51 seconds gap)
28:52 / 29:31 WR (39 seconds gap)
13:54 MM / 14:11 WR (!) (17 seconds gap)
Clearly the Half Marathon WR is the strongest after the WR, then the 5000 by a hair and the 10000 being the weakest.
Yet the Half Marathon WR is still at least one order of maginitude weaker than the Marathon WR.
And btw, there are plenty of male runners who have run 2.15 off a 30 minute 10k
Whatever. Just because those men are too slow to compete on the international track circuit and therefore train their butts off for the Marathon doesn't mean a thing.
and women have better endurance than men.
What? Lol. If they had better endurance, they'd run faster Marathons then men. Even looking at it proportionally, if you discount Paulas performances, there is zero evidence that the gap between men and women gets smaller the greater the distances are. ZERO.
Seriously!? Anyone worth their salt will know that McMillian is a gender biased calculator which was alluded to in the post you replied to. You then continued on to use McMillan to try and prove the point. Posters like you with armchair physiology skills are why there is so much misinformation on forums like this, you think you are being clever when you are actually making a fool out of yourself to anyone who knows what they are talking about. If you don't believe that McMillian is gender biased, I urge you to look at the IAAF tables for female performance.
More endurance does not mean a faster marathon time if speed is absent. The distance is still too short for a woman to compete on an even plain with men at the very elite level because women do not have the speed to do so. If you don't believe that there is no evidence to suggest that women are more endurance biased than men, you are lost and living in ignorance.
The other point you made about the male 30 minute 10k runner running 2.15 has to be the most stupid comment I have ever seen. It basically says that if the 30 minute male runner trains hard enough, he can run 2.15 but didn't you also say that women performance degradation was similar to men(while incorrect, that makes it extremely possible for a woman to do the same in your version of physiology).
I'm not saying Paula did or didn't dope, just pointing out the incompetence of you as a poster and your know it all atitude when in fact, you know nothing.