No O'Keeffe in marathon?

1.
How do you know that Fiona couldn’t walk? What
evidence supports this claim?
2.
While Jess has certainly been performing well on
the U.S. scene, suggesting that she would have been competitive in the Olympic
Marathon is pure speculation. How do you know that she was in marathon shape?
3.
The idea that all Brooks athletes were aware of
what was likely a very closely-guarded situation is absurd.
4.
To clarify, no one receives payment for DNFing
an Olympic event.
5.
See my previous point regarding Olympic DNFs.
6.
Just a factual note—Des did make the 2016
Olympic team, and I assume she’s proud of representing the USA in two Olympics
7.
Popular threads on Let’sRun are more often a
reflection of people pontificating or expressing outrage about things they do not
fully understand, rather than a source of credible information.

It’s understandable to feel disappointed for Jess, but turning her into a
martyr based on conjecture, misinformation, and disparagement is exactly the
kind of behavior you’re criticizing in others.

To clarify one point, you can get paid for DNF'ing an Olympic marathon. By starting you become an Olympian. I reread a section of Des Linden's book last night, and she specifically stated her Hanson's contract was redone after she made the 2012 Olympic Team (It had expired at the end of 2011 and she held off signing a new one until she made the 2012 team. Her agent, Josh Cox redid her contract), and there was a financial incentive to being an Olympian. Not just making the team, but actually starting the race to get the title and the $$. So Des had to start the race to get the extra $$ and title. USATF had an alternate ready, the 7th place from the Trials, Clara Brandt (??), but Des minimized it by claiming her team heard she was injured, so there no one really to replace her. Was something similar in Fiona's contract?? I don't know, but it would explain a lot of this and the "talking around" her injury issues and what was really going on in the days, weeks, and months leading up to her decision to start injured, knowing she wouldn't finish the race. My opinion is there was more going on as her carefully crafted "interview" is very vague and reeks of deception/omission. Part of the truth is in there, but I think a lot of what really happened was left out.

On Fiona's post on IG, there is a comment which states, "...There was no way you were ready or able to run and that was apparent days before for those of us that saw you around Paris. Even if the alternate wasn't in town you should [not] have run as it's apparent to anyone with eyes that you are severely injured. Please get better and far away from any team that has coaches as agents..."

Fiona responded to the part about her coaches, refuting that Alistair and Amy are her agents. She didn't refute the rest.

Without any question whatsoever, yes. The floor and ceiling of elite marathon mileage and intensity, and the years required at the mileages/intensity, are very well established, and very well recorded, over many decades. Of course there will be individual variation, but 70 miles as the mileage ceiling, for any elite marathoner, doesn't happen, and won't.

Everyone has also trained the exact same way with minimal variation or exceptions, pretty much up to this day. I don't think their decades of ad nauseum repetition of the same principles necessarily proves your point.

Also, like me, you didn't cite any of those decades of sources you blanket-claimed proves you right, but you're also ironically proving my original point about points of view like yours in the process, so I suppose it's all a wash.

Eventually an elite group will try it and succeed.

Everyone has also trained the exact same way with minimal variation or exceptions, pretty much up to this day. I don't think their decades of ad nauseum repetition of the same principles necessarily proves your point.

Also, like me, you didn't cite any of those decades of sources you blanket-claimed proves you right, but you're also ironically proving my original point about points of view like yours in the process, so I suppose it's all a wash.

Eventually an elite group will try it and succeed.

There has been more information recently about the correlation between performance in track distance events (1,500, 5K, 10K) and the frequency of training as actually being better than the volume of training. This works for both frequency of intense workouts as well as frequency of runs (or aerobic efforts) in general. By definition, a high frequency of training will yield a fair amount of volume as well, but there is more and more anecdotal evidence that doubling with low-to-moderate mileage for each run is better than a single distant run even if the total miles run are the same. There is also anecdotal evidence that intense aerobic cross training session can be substituted for easy days to save the legs some pounding.

The problem for the marathon is that some amount of training does need to be specific and adapting to the pounding of the pavement is actually part of the training. The race is 26.2 miles, and you do need to get a run distance close to that at least every 2 weeks. For a runner on 80 miles a week, a single 20 mile run would be 25% of their weekly mileage, and you don't have to be a genius to know that is too high a percentage. You also need to get in sustained hard efforts in order to replicate the speed at which the elite marathons are raced (men would have to hold 4:46 per mile to run a 2:05 marathon). The other problem here is that pace is more or less right at the threshold for a lot of American men, so they are not going to sustain these paces for more than an hour, at most, in training.

I have a few thoughts on some things Americans can do in training to try to address the major issues:

1. Alternate weeks of doubling vs. weeks of single runs and then do the long run during the week of singles. I think too many times these runners are trying to do a 20+ mile long run on already tired legs or they are trying to do intense sessions too soon after a 20+ long run. They need to allow the body to adapt to the long run. A two week schedule could look something like this:

M: 8 AM, 8 PM

T: 8 threshold intervals, 4 PM

W: 8 AM, 8 PM

R: 16 sustained run AM, 4 PM

F: 8 AM, 8 PM

Sa: 8 threshold intervals, 4 PM

Su: 8 AM, 8 PM

Total: 108 mile week

M: Single 16

T: 12 threshold intervals

W: Single 16

R: Single 8

F: 22 mile long run

Sa: Single 8

Su: Single 8

Total: 90 mile week

That's 198 miles in a two-week period, but it's structured in a way to best adapt to the long run.

2. Avoid running in super-cushioned shoes and only use supershoes for some race-specific workouts getting closer to the race. The one advantage that we've seen with the higher cushioned shoes is that more runners can run higher mileage without beating up their legs. The problem is that it prevents runners' leg muscular-skeletal systems from adapting to the pounding of the pavement as well. Maybe the less cushioned shoes beat up the legs more, but maybe that's also an indicator your legs aren't ready to handle the mileage! I think all of our marathoners have well-developed cardio-vascular systems, but I don't think their legs are adapted to the pounding. Cooper Teare commented that Ben Thomas doesn't want them in high-cushioned shoes or supershoes during training so that they can actually adapt their leg strength to their runs.

3. Take the concept of double threshold and crank it up to 11. I think aerobic threshold is still very much a limiting factor for our marathoners running fast. I know the typical double threshold day is something like 8-10 x 1 K followed by 20 x 400 later in the day. You could take that concept and make it more marathon-specific going something like 5 x 2 miles in the morning and a Yasso-800 10 x 800 w/ 400 jog in the evening and of course do the lactate testing. Our marathoners need to get comfortable at faster speeds!

Yeah I think you're onto something. In general shorter runners have more success in the marathon. I know some people deny this, but lighter is better in distance running, as long as you have enough muscle mass to be strong and enough fat stores to be healthy.

Really petite athletes like Helen Obiri and Peres Jepchirchir while lean, aren't extremely thin yet still have low body weights since they are so short. East Africans tend to be shorter on average than Caucasians, so you see more taller marathoners from the U.S. and Europe. I think these taller runners try to compensate from the added bodyweight to to height by being too thin, which introduces a ton of health and injury risks. While shorter U.S. runners like Dakota Lindwurm and Emily Sisson skirt these risks similar to East African runners, taller runners like Fiona O'Keeffe and Molly Seidel are 5'7" and constantly injured. Eilish McColgan is another example. She's 5'11", 117 lbs, and constantly injured.

One exception is Sifan Hassan, who is also 5'7". The difference with her is that she naturally has a very narrow frame, which is common among Ethiopians. While she is thin and light, she has enough body fat to be healthy do to her genetics, unlike the Caucasian runners who are a similar height and weight.

You mentioned Emma Bates as well, who is 5'4". She's a bit taller than Sisson and Lindwurm, but she seems pretty healthy by maintaining a lot of lean muscle mass. It seems like she relies on having a big engine and fueling more frequently during marathons (I think she says she fuels every 5K). It's probably also why she has more success on hilly courses like Boston, where she uses her strength and energy help her drive up the hills instead of trying to be in an extremely energy efficient rhythm on a flat course. This is probably the best formula for taller Caucasian runners in the marathon

I think you're onto something here as well. This came up in an interview with Kristian Blummenfelt when he was asked how he could handle the volume of training on his frame and also why he was so good with that frame, and he mentioned that it was all due to fueling. Even at 5'6", 165, he mentioned that he doesn't feel the need to lose weight and thinks it's most important to properly fuel all of his workouts and his recovery so he can develop the power required. Now, I still don't think heavier marathon runners are going to work, but already relatively small, but not tiny, women like Emma Bates and Molly Seidel could just focus on their fueling rather than their weight. It appears Emma actually does a good job with that.

Suggesting that a fit Jess who has posted many fast workouts and put up impressive results in recent races would have been less competitive than a broken Fiona limping down a street in Paris is pure delusion. We don't need to speculate to *know* Fiona was not in marathon shape....

I don't think she's a martyr, I think she had - without a doubt - a better chance than Fiona of representing USA in Paris with a strong marathon run. She probably could have exceeded expectations like she did at the trials. I would bet this is just lighting a fire in her for races to come!

This is why you can ignore everything that comes out of Fiona and her camps mouths. They are playing games with all of us.

1. Amy is not an Agent so that part is true

2. Alistair Cragg is an Agent and works for Kimbia

3. Fiona is represented by Kimbia

4. Tom Ratcliffe is the director of Kimbia

5. To act like Tom is her Agent and not Alistair is disingenuous at best. They are one team.

This is how they continue to tell half truths because the honest truth makes them look horrible.

To the extent that this was the real reason she limped a mile and then dropped, shoe companies need to get better lawyers. There's no reason to draw up a contract with this exact language. In fact, there's every reason not to. This makes everyone involved look bad. If it hadn't been for this drama, the most noteworthy story for Americans at the women's marathon would have been the emergence of DII - Dakota Lindwurm--that's a great story for Puma. Instead, this is the most noteworthy story for runners. As someone posted earlier in the thread, now the whole world knows that Fiona O'Keefe injured herself horribly while training in Pumas. How does it market your brand to have images of an elite athlete limping horribly in last place wearing your shoes?

Sad. Between Fiona and the Sinead Diver situation, no one's talking about the accomplishments in the actual race itself. Most of the talk has been about the circumstances surrounding these DNF's, which in both cases preceded the race by quite a while. What controversy.

I think we need to be more kind with our posts on this thread.

I totally agree that this was a very bad decision from Fiona and her coach. If you don’t think so, I don’t know what to tell you besides get a grip on the uncomfortable truth. Fiona is a Stanford graduate and presumably a very intelligent person. Somewhere in her mind was a rational voice saying “This will go horribly wrong if I start.” She did not listen to that voice.

I think there is a fairly high probability that she is quite mentally ill. There has been understandable speculation about her having an ED, and EDs are sadly all too common in women’s marathoning. There is other evidence in the way she has acted regarding this situation that suggests she is not in her right mind. If she is currently mentally ill, we have to be more forgiving about this decision and not just say she’s selfish and we’re done with her. Honestly, I feel terrible for her as I bet she feels mortified by this entire situation. Screw The Olympics for a second and have some humanity…

Personally I feel it is appropriate and fair to criticize a behavior. A behavior is just one choice, one event, one decision. A behavior also has consequences. A behavior can be examined and maybe learned from. A bad behavior can be apologized for, if someone wishes to express regret.

I think it is less appropriate and unfair to generalize one decision to judging the person as a whole. One bad decision doesn’t mean a person can’t do better — they always have free will and can hit a higher level of integrity, if that would be meaningful or useful to that person.

But we are not being mean to discuss the behaviors and decisions made here. We are just being adults.

I agree that one poor decision should not define any of us.
Apolgize and move on. The problem is when you turn that bad decision into several by trying to defend it. I then think we judge your character.
Even worse is when someone like Des is still trying to defend this decision 12 years later. It speaks to her character and where she sits with morality issues.

I think Fiona does have some personal issues, probably including some kind of ED, but I don't think she's mentally ill let alone really mentally ill. If there's evidence she's gone off the deep end in her personal life then anyone please share it, but erratic decision making in this situation makes sense without some sort of mental illness.

This is the Olympics, an accomplishment she quite possibly may not experience again, especially in the hyper competitive US marathon scene. I can understand her having a ton of (perfectly understandable from someone otherwise well-adjusted) anxiety and pressure to try and get to that starting line in the face of ongoing injury problems that objectively should have compelled her to withdraw weeks before.

She's obviously got some things she seriously needs to work on, and I agree with others that she at the least needs to change who she answers to regarding coaching and agenting, that they've probably been steering her in some unhealthy directions for a long time prior to now.

If a hard reset on her inner circle requires she leave her shoe contract and move back in with family for a while, then so be it. But she's got to make some big changes or a bad situation is only going to get worse for her.

I'm not reading this whole thread, but why is it only the USA where we have marathoners who can hardly walk start the marathon? I guess it's okay that teammates can elbow Valby when she's near in the track 10K, so you can be an "Olympian" if you limp six inches.

"Be the change you want to see in the world"