update... looks like Quigley worked out alone today, on a track 15 miles away from where BTC did a team workout.
update... looks like Quigley worked out alone today, on a track 15 miles away from where BTC did a team workout.
You have created an unlikely scenario. For one, a Stanford ' 13 grad is probably in the last year of their 2nd 4 yr Olympic cycle contract and their attention is on Eugene and Tokyo. Secondly, as an intellingent goal oriented , driven individual they have a plan. No Tokyo ? ,, ok do I try Paris or is it time to move on ? IF they decide to retire they have laid the ground work for this. Maybe not the day after failing in Eugene but shortly after. They could so many things because of their career. They could go back to school for a masters or doctorate and volunteer at that school. They have likely networked with people that they admire and respect and decide they would like to persue a similar career. Pick an industry or profession. It doesn't matter. People with these athletic accomplishments don't have a hard time finding a career. They are sought after.
The comment about her being model wasn't sexist. She has talked about being a model in various interviews. If Colleen was male and was a model in a previous life, he could go back to it.
I forgot how she got disqualified from 2017 Worlds. Fun times.
She is live on Instagram right now.
Why would you cut Colleen but keep Gwen?
Carrots wrote:
Why would you cut Colleen but keep Gwen?
doesn't gwen have a gear only contract? or at least that's what i've heard on here. free gear for a ton of publicity is a pretty good deal.
Carrots wrote:
Why would you cut Colleen but keep Gwen?
Also why keep Infeld? Serious question because I can't think of what she has done in the last 4-6 years?
Six years ago she got a bronze in the Worlds 10k. Since then she had made an Olympic team and came in 6th in the World 10k in 2017. Hit podiums at other national events. She has been injured often but hasn't done absolutely nothing.
Seems more likely that she had a COVID exposure and isn’t allowed to train with the team during a quarantine.
Possible but then why did her boyfriend show up in the last couple of days? Does he want a side of Covid too?
Also those asking about Emily and Gwen vs Colleen, the contracts are most likely different. Maybe Gwen and Emily are okay with what they are offered. It sounds like Colleen wanted more
than what they are offering her.
Are you kidding? If she told you that you could show up, you would decline?
JamesD2 wrote:
how it is wrote:
I'm hiring the person with more life experience who performed at a high level under pressure. The extra week or 2 it takes the Stanford grad to get up to speed is a small price to pay for hiring the superior candidate. This is a no brainer.
It probably would depend on the job, but I would think Stanford '13 could impress the recruiter by emphasizing her focus, discipline, self-starter nature, and proven ability to work steadily towards a goal for a sustained period, as well as her life experiences. Also, even saying, "Olympic Trials" would impress a lot of recruiters. She'd just have to convince them that she was done with that part of her life and could put the same enthusiasm towards managing Proctor & Gamble product lines or whatever.
Along those lines, I wonder what Liz Costello is doing these days. She was a Princeton grad who ran the 10K for New Balance and wrote occasional articles for Runners World. In one of them, she noted how strange it felt going to her class reunion (maybe 5-year?) and still basically doing the same thing she had in college while all her friends were getting on with their adult lives. I think she might have been 5th or 6th in the USATF 10K a couple of times, but I haven't heard of her recently, so I wouldn't be surprised if she's no longer a pro. With a Princeton degree, she ought to be reasonably marketable.
The '13 Stanford grad who was a medallist at the USA Olympic trials and competed at the World Championships would definitely get the job at Goldman or similar over the Kent State '20 grad, 99 times out of 100.
First of all, the Kent State grad has minimal experience beyond a couple internships and you haven't cited any accomplishments of theirs so I'll guess it's nothing notable. The level of work, ability, preparation, favorable life experiences, or combinations thereof to get into Stanford or any top-20 or so school and make it out will be a very positive factor in the selection. These traits are what recruiters at an elite bank look for - people who have excelled in some way, taken the best classes with the best professors surrounded by the best students. The fact that '13 Stanford grad managed to graduate with what I will assume are competitive grades while training for the Olympics and becoming one of the best in the world tells you that they could have absolutely crushed it in either academics or internships had they focused solely on that.
Unfortunately for the '20 Kent State grad, there's not all that much going for them, yet. Hopefully they did an amazing job at their internships to make up for the lack of elite resume items, and have amazing letters of recommendation. But it's hard to stand out much in an internship, and the Kent State grad did not benefit from a network of peers who are competitive. Being in an elite university where everyone around you has been trying their hardest to be a leader since they were kids and has had an incredible support network financially, socially, and academically, is a big edge and recruiters know this. Kent State grad will likely need to step it up a few levels compared to other recruits who have been used to an extreme work output from years of private schooling and lessons. Kent State grad may get lucky and get the job at Goldman, but they will have to work much harder than what they're used to as Kent State classes probably don't take 80 hours a week. If they don't get the job immediately, they'll need to do something exceptional soon. What are the odds they'll do something exceptional by the time they have 7 years post-graduation? They're not going to make a world championship team like Standord '13 grad, or anything close to that level. Most likely they will have been working at a respectable position in finance amongst countless thousands of peers. And if Kent State '20 grad becomes a VP or associate at some small firm years later, they won't take a downgrade to analyst at Goldman. And it'll be hard to move laterally from a smaller firm to one of the big coveted spots. There is still an opportunity, if they work very hard, produce exceptional results, and leverage all the connections they can.
Stanford '13 grad has had years to mature as an adult and is confident that they want the job. Most of their friends from college who took the same classes probably already work at major finance, consulting, or law firms. As a sportsman/sportswoman, they are more of a team player even as runners than a non athlete. They are more determined and will work harder than a non athlete. They are used to setbacks and know how to work to overcome them. The fact that they were a world-class athlete is inspiring to others on the team, and coworkers and colleagues will be more respectful and communicative. They literally were amongst the best in the world at something, and it's not a stretch that they have the mindset to excel in a new challenge and career.
Emily comes from money, Gwen already has an Olympic gold medal and Colleen will end up in Oiselle because of her hubris.
I heard Colleen is no longer with Nike from the father of a different female professional runner. To be fair this female is not a member of BTC and may or may not know what is going on. But I heard this before I saw this thread on Letsrun. So I am pretty sure it must be true.
"Why drop Colleen but keep Gwen?"
Is the wrong question.
Better question:
with low likelihood of an Olympic/World medal for CQ, does it not make more sense to milk the financial cow of her career for the last four years with the sponsor who a) pays the most coin and b) gives her most breathing room to build her brand.
i run and I know things wrote:
"Why drop Colleen but keep Gwen?"
Is the wrong question.
Better question:
with low likelihood of an Olympic/World medal for CQ, does it not make more sense to milk the financial cow of her career for the last four years with the sponsor who a) pays the most coin and b) gives her most breathing room to build her brand.
And by this I mean - there could be sponsors out there who are willing to pay more $ than Nike, and be less of a pain in the rear about individual branding. Meanwhile for Gwen, it isn't about money, but about training/family stability.
how things really work wrote:
Quigley had already been dropped by Kimbia after a dispute over the mamba 5 structuring(it had Frerichs signature in the insole). .
Can you explain what you wrote above?
fml wrote:
Carrots wrote:
Why would you cut Colleen but keep Gwen?
Also why keep Infeld? Serious question because I can't think of what she has done in the last 4-6 years?
Infeld’s boyfriend works for nike. The real question here is: why is hall on the team? I just watched a race where she finished behind gwen.
Infeld's fiancé isn't anyone high up at Nike.
Hall is one of my favorite runners and has made teams and works out with the longer distance runners. That said, if you take her off BTC you have a bunch of Karens.