Pat ran in a plain black kit, but in Puma shoes. He wasn't tagged in any Puma elite posts in the lead up to Boston and they've been posting all about their athletes who ran Boston. Bit weird. Must have left the group.
Pat ran in a plain black kit, but in Puma shoes. He wasn't tagged in any Puma elite posts in the lead up to Boston and they've been posting all about their athletes who ran Boston. Bit weird. Must have left the group.
https://imgur.com/a/FUl9Ela Kinda reminds me of when Gen Gregson left Nike and she ran in random kit for a few months
Not sure what to make of any other the results - feel like all of them slightly underperformed.
I have a feeling Liam Bonding and Tim Vincent will both beat 2:09:59 in London this week.
really poor results all round
feel Izzie leaves her best results in training. she is by far the fastest at half but just never transalates this to the marathon. her ridiculous racing schedule and mileage seem to always catch her out. if i were her, id leave the track alone and focus on nailing a decent marathon. the conditions were worth at least 3minutes today over a standard course (not down-hill or wind-assisted) like London so when you put it like that, these arent good results at all!
Pat ran in a plain black kit, but in Puma shoes. He wasn't tagged in any Puma elite posts in the lead up to Boston and they've been posting all about their athletes who ran Boston. Bit weird. Must have left the group.
https://imgur.com/a/FUl9Ela Kinda reminds me of when Gen Gregson left Nike and she ran in random kit for a few months
I’d leave Puma too if they made my feet bleed like that, holy moly.
Not sure what to make of any other the results - feel like all of them slightly underperformed.
I have a feeling Liam Bonding and Tim Vincent will both beat 2:09:59 in London this week.
really poor results all round
feel Izzie leaves her best results in training. she is by far the fastest at half but just never transalates this to the marathon. her ridiculous racing schedule and mileage seem to always catch her out. if i were her, id leave the track alone and focus on nailing a decent marathon. the conditions were worth at least 3minutes today over a standard course (not down-hill or wind-assisted) like London so when you put it like that, these arent good results at all!
I’d say it was more of a course profile thing; Boston isn’t so good for rhythm runners (which most Aussie pros seem to be imo). Shame Andy Buchanan couldn’t race as I think he would’ve been rather good at this type of course.
I really want to see Lisa back on a flat, fast course and see how she gets on. The odds aren’t on her side now she’s 47 but I’m sure there’s another 2:24/5 in there with a decent build-up. A legend in marathon longevity!
Not sure what to make of any other the results - feel like all of them slightly underperformed.
I have a feeling Liam Bonding and Tim Vincent will both beat 2:09:59 in London this week.
really poor results all round
feel Izzie leaves her best results in training. she is by far the fastest at half but just never transalates this to the marathon. her ridiculous racing schedule and mileage seem to always catch her out. if i were her, id leave the track alone and focus on nailing a decent marathon. the conditions were worth at least 3minutes today over a standard course (not down-hill or wind-assisted) like London so when you put it like that, these arent good results at all!
Isn't this just a Nic Bideau as a coach thing? Pretty much all of Nic's marathoners have gone back and forth between track and road over the past decade. Presumably to make money.
I wish Izzi would drop the 'MTC mara build'. There must be a conscious/subconscious element of racing your sessions to beat your past splits each time for the confidence boost. Riley should set the program and give her a brand new build where she hits the race on the upswing.
She spoke about being done with track and fully focused on roads in a recent Run With It pod interview. And that she had some “over training syndrome” symptoms last build for Valencia and peaked at the wrong time and Riley stepped in and changed some of her sessions. So she’s definitely a smart and aware woman, hopefully she gets her ducks in a row, leaves MTC and Riley coaches her fully moving forward.
Mate, this is how misinformation comes about. You give clear time lines, connect some dots between two runners of same origin, yeah yeah, they all look alike hey?
Except....you are talking totally through your arse.
Paris OG was August 24. Bol was tested in October 22, nearly two years earlier, suspended in Jan 23 and exonerated on 1st August 23, more than a year before OG.
Now, as for the testing itself, you need to give up already. The 'B' sample was atypical, not positive, not negative...suspended on suspicion. The 'A' sample was NEGATIVE. Exonerated. There was never ever any positive result.
I had high level access to a certain WADA lab , maybe in Sydney, no longer work so no access, and although testing/samples are under strict chain of custody, I spoke to 'people; about it at the time. There must have been a screw up in collection, splitting etc. The instruments simply measure what they are given. Laywers can't just wave wands or money to make samples give different results
It is now 2026, time to leave Peter Bol alone to run his race.
cheers
Facts that correct a poster's misleading dates by over 2 years, fact that the 'B' sample (first tested) was 'atypical', NOT POSITIVE NOR NEGATIVE, fact that 'A' sample WAS NEGATIVE.
Result? 5 downvotes. Welcome to LRC logic
When tested - an athlete provides a urine sample which is split into two identical sealed containers. The A sample is the first sample tested - which is why it's called the A sample. The B sample is then stored for retesting in the advent of a positive or adverse analytical finding.
The A sample originally returned a positive test. The B sample returned an atypical. This was then challenged with some expert witnesses for the defence arguing the A sample was actually negative.
So the reason why you're getting downvoted is presumably because you're talking out of you ar*e.
Cam Myers was a great listen on Inside Running Pod this week. Confirmed he's not doing 5k at comm games which opens up a spot for Morg Mcdonald.
He also said he didn't do world cross due to the same issue of passing out on/after runs that he had last year. Seems to be sorted now after the testing.
I think many professional runners in Aus could take a leaf out of Cam's book in regards to how honest and open he is with running fans. He's candid and refreshing.
I honestly don't understand how hard it is for some runners to provide a racing/training/injury update once every 6 months when Cam's just mapped out his entire year ahead on a podcast.
I wish Izzi would drop the 'MTC mara build'. There must be a conscious/subconscious element of racing your sessions to beat your past splits each time for the confidence boost. Riley should set the program and give her a brand new build where she hits the race on the upswing.
Is she required to do as many races as she does?
She seems to do pretty good in less important races during her mara builds, while doing real big mileage, and then not do as well in the actual marathon/goal race.
Though tbf, I wouldn't call her Valencia and Boston results "bad", but I believe she was aiming for a bit more
interesting insight into Pat Tiernan’s build for Boston. Is it absurd to say that he is the most naturally talented Aussie distance runner around right now? Let’s assume you label Cam as Mid-D. On his day, Pat is amazing but he seems like he’s made of glass
interesting insight into Pat Tiernan’s build for Boston. Is it absurd to say that he is the most naturally talented Aussie distance runner around right now? Let’s assume you label Cam as Mid-D. On his day, Pat is amazing but he seems like he’s made of glass
There's obviously an element of talent in order to become a world class runner, but I think a lot of it is his body of work that allows him to get back into shape quickly.
I always thought Jack Curran, who Pat grew up with and was in the same year level, was more talented than Pat and had a higher ceiling. They both had almost identical times at the end of their final year of HS. But ultimately Pat continued on with running more seriously.
Anyone remember Josh Torley? He was a guy who I thought was going to go onto be the best runner ever, but he seemed to just quit the sport after juniors. I still watch the 2015 de castella 3k from zatopek sometimes.
Facts that correct a poster's misleading dates by over 2 years, fact that the 'B' sample (first tested) was 'atypical', NOT POSITIVE NOR NEGATIVE, fact that 'A' sample WAS NEGATIVE.
Result? 5 downvotes. Welcome to LRC logic
When tested - an athlete provides a urine sample which is split into two identical sealed containers. The A sample is the first sample tested - which is why it's called the A sample. The B sample is then stored for retesting in the advent of a positive or adverse analytical finding.
The A sample originally returned a positive test. The B sample returned an atypical. This was then challenged with some expert witnesses for the defence arguing the A sample was actually negative.
So the reason why you're getting downvoted is presumably because you're talking out of you ar*e.
So was the A sample positive or negative? It was negative
When tested - an athlete provides a urine sample which is split into two identical sealed containers. The A sample is the first sample tested - which is why it's called the A sample. The B sample is then stored for retesting in the advent of a positive or adverse analytical finding.
The A sample originally returned a positive test. The B sample returned an atypical. This was then challenged with some expert witnesses for the defence arguing the A sample was actually negative.
So the reason why you're getting downvoted is presumably because you're talking out of you ar*e.
So was the A sample positive or negative? It was negative
In other words the lawyers were correct. The first test result was incorrect and no longer counts. But keep downvoting
interesting insight into Pat Tiernan’s build for Boston. Is it absurd to say that he is the most naturally talented Aussie distance runner around right now? Let’s assume you label Cam as Mid-D. On his day, Pat is amazing but he seems like he’s made of glass
There's obviously an element of talent in order to become a world class runner, but I think a lot of it is his body of work that allows him to get back into shape quickly.
I always thought Jack Curran, who Pat grew up with and was in the same year level, was more talented than Pat and had a higher ceiling. They both had almost identical times at the end of their final year of HS. But ultimately Pat continued on with running more seriously.
Anyone remember Josh Torley? He was a guy who I thought was going to go onto be the best runner ever, but he seemed to just quit the sport after juniors. I still watch the 2015 de castella 3k from zatopek sometimes.
Josh's dad ran him into the ground from a young age. He ran his best with Philo Saunders but when things didnt workout went back to dad and was done by 19. Would love to see him make a comeback.
You’re talking nonsense. If the A sample was negative, how did anything come out of it? You don’t exactly see many news articles about athletes testing negative… As the previous poster said, the A and B sample are split into two parts each - this allows for multiple tests to be conducted at separate times on each sample (this is important for athlete safety as it means the same tester doesn’t necessarily test both samples, as well as scientific rigour). Is this where you are getting confused?
Here are two links - one contains a direct quote from the AA CEO confirming they were alerted about the positive A sample, and the second from Sports Integrity Australia confirming the B sample return an atypical finding which did not confirm the result of the A sample, and hence Pete was cleared. Make of them what you will but you are clearly chatting rubbish and I don’t believe for one second you worked at an anti-doping lab.
You’re talking nonsense. If the A sample was negative, how did anything come out of it? You don’t exactly see many news articles about athletes testing negative… As the previous poster said, the A and B sample are split into two parts each - this allows for multiple tests to be conducted at separate times on each sample (this is important for athlete safety as it means the same tester doesn’t necessarily test both samples, as well as scientific rigour). Is this where you are getting confused?
Here are two links - one contains a direct quote from the AA CEO confirming they were alerted about the positive A sample, and the second from Sports Integrity Australia confirming the B sample return an atypical finding which did not confirm the result of the A sample, and hence Pete was cleared. Make of them what you will but you are clearly chatting rubbish and I don’t believe for one second you worked at an anti-doping lab.
"The further analysis resulted in varying expert opinions as to the positive or negative reporting of the sample, and the A-sample was reported as negative."