Shannon Rowbury Fires back at Jenny Simpson

message board rat wrote:

Oh yes that's right wrote:

She pulled her from behind her.

Correct. It's called rabbiting.

Except Jenny was in back.

The final 100m. That's what rabbits do. In this case, the best rabbiting possible, short of giving it up at the line.

oh really` wrote:

message board rat wrote:

Correct. It's called rabbiting.

Except Jenny was in back.

oh really` wrote:

message board rat wrote:

Correct. It's called rabbiting.

Except Jenny was in back.

1/10 for trying

Rowbury benefited from drafting of Simpson. Good tactics for last week. We'll see if it happens again.

oh really` wrote:

message board rat wrote:

Correct. It's called rabbiting.

Except Jenny was in back.

She couldn't have been in the back if Shannon was behind her (never mind a bunch of other people).

Simpson always has some excuse.

Here is quick cut at their trajectories in the 1500. This gives their fastest 1500 time (outdoors) for every year since 2008.

I'll be interested to see what patterns people see there to support the claim that either or both are dirty or clean.

_________Rowbury___Simpson

2015_____3:56.29_____3:57.30

2014_____3:59.49_____3:57.22

2013_____4:01.28_____4:00.48

2012_____4:03.15_____4:03.15

2011_____4:05.73_____4:03.54

2010_____4:01.30_____4:03.63

2009_____4:00.81_____3:59.90

2008_____4:00.33_____4:11.36

PS Sorry for the clunky formatting, but using ___s was the only way I could see to increase the spacing between columns. Does anyone know if there's a cleaner way to get them on this board?

Excuses Excuses wrote:

Simpson always has some excuse.

Simpson also has two more world medals than Rowbury.

Here's some science behind the principle of drafting.

How about some facts wrote:

What would be helpful on this topic would be a listing of the results of races over the past 3,4,5 or so years in which these two went head to head.

Remove all the spin

Great idea.

I can't wait to see what you come up with!

Al's NOPe PR fleet? wrote:

Excuses Excuses wrote:

Simpson always has some excuse.

Simpson also has two more world medals than Rowbury.

Here's some science behind the principle of drafting.

http://www.wired.com/2012/08/olympics-physics-drafting-1500-meters/

Wrong about the medal count

Rowbury - 2009 Worlds

Simpson - 2011 Worlds / 2013 Worlds

Rowbury performed better in the 2012 Olympics and now has an American Record

Al's NOPe PR fleet? wrote:

Here's some science behind the principle of drafting.

http://www.wired.com/2012/08/olympics-physics-drafting-1500-meters/

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd call the part about drafting "science."

"Let’s say that one runner is running behind another. What does this do? Well, the first runner pushes the air some. How much? This is tough to say."

It's a long way from "tough to say" to "1/3 of a second for every 100 meters." He doesn't even try to pretend he's done it. Instead, he ends up sounding like an economist: Under the right conditions, drafting "could help with a sprint at the end."

Surely somebody somewhere has done more than string together a bunch of guesstimates so they can end up where the rest of us thought we started.

Times are very similar wrote:

Typical hypocritical response from the low class, uneducated Simpson fans

FWIW, I have a graduate degree from an Ivy League institution and also know how to use hypocritical correctly in a sentence. If Jenny were making the accusations, then she would potentially be hypocritical. You are simply accusing me of being conveniently selective in my analysis.

Simpson showed herself early to be a prodigious talent. Rowbury has always been good, but since joining Salazar, jumped to a new level, particularly in terms of late race closing speed and overall fitness (lack of body fat, especially).

I'm less a Simpson fan and more an observer of people who are likely cheating, not to mention those who ironically accuse people of being uneducated.

Move along folks, nothing to wrote:

Al's NOPe PR fleet? wrote:

Here's some science behind the principle of drafting.

http://www.wired.com/2012/08/olympics-physics-drafting-1500-meters/

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd call the part about drafting "science."

"Let’s say that one runner is running behind another. What does this do? Well, the first runner pushes the air some. How much? This is tough to say."

It's a long way from "tough to say" to "1/3 of a second for every 100 meters." He doesn't even try to pretend he's done it. Instead, he ends up sounding like an economist: Under the right conditions, drafting "could help with a sprint at the end."

Surely somebody somewhere has done more than string together a bunch of guesstimates so they can end up where the rest of us thought we started.

Isntitobvious wrote:

Times are very similar wrote:

Typical hypocritical response from the low class, uneducated Simpson fans

FWIW, I have a graduate degree from an Ivy League institution and also know how to use hypocritical correctly in a sentence. If Jenny were making the accusations, then she would potentially be hypocritical. You are simply accusing me of being conveniently selective in my analysis.

Simpson showed herself early to be a prodigious talent. Rowbury has always been good, but since joining Salazar, jumped to a new level, particularly in terms of late race closing speed and overall fitness (lack of body fat, especially).

I'm less a Simpson fan and more an observer of people who are likely cheating, not to mention those who ironically accuse people of being uneducated.

What could possibly lead you to the conclusion that Rowbury is "likely cheating". I hope it wasn't your "ivy league graduate degree", because if it is you seriously wasted your money there.

Do you know Rowbury's training details prior to joining the NOP?

Do you know her training details SINCE joining the NOP?

Do you understand how big of an impact there can be by moving to a program that provides 10 times more resources than what she was accustomed to before?

And I am not talking about drugs, TUEs, etc. because I know for an absolute fact that she is not cheating.

It is obvious that you don't understand any of this, because if you did, you wouldn't be making such slanderous, libelous comments about Shannon while proclaiming Jenny to be beyond reproach.

They are both exceptional athletes through nothing but hard work, determination and a culmination of months and years of training with very few injuries.

Jenny also has living at altitude for many years as an added bonus.

Don't be so obtuse. Rowbury is past 30. Jenny is only 24.

You generally don't make big leaps as you as past a certain point without help.

Funny how everyone who joined AlSal past 25 is suddenly much much better than they were at a younget age.

armchair internet surfer wrote:

http://www.runningwritings.com/2012/07/brief-thoughts-front-running-is-one.html

Thanks. That's very helpful -- exactly what I was looking for. Interestingly, the research articles he cites don't get the same number that was citied earlier in this thread. Their number is 1/3 less than his.

Both of these articles were written a while ago. I'm curious to know if they still state of the art.

PS Subtle name, AIS.

Touched a nerve, eh? It wouldn't surprise me if Simpson was on drugs, I just think it is much more likely that Shannon is on them. I don't have a dog in this fight, other than a desire for dispassionate, objective analysis. Since you live with her (only way to speak with such certainty, right?), you would be the best to provide that and know best.*

*For the record, that is sarcasm. Add that to your GRE flash cards along with hypocrisy and irony.

Actually the runner behind is helping the runner in front, by reducing the suction of the draft.

Science man wrote:

Don't be so obtuse. Rowbury is past 30. Jenny is only 24.

NOPe!

Simpson is almost exactly 2 years younger.

She was born on August 23, 1986. Rowbury was born September 19, 1984.

Excuses Excuses wrote:

Simpson always has some excuse.

Did you listen to the interview with Simpson on FT? She didn't give any excuses there. She did, however, give props to Rowbury.