I am always amused at anti-CIM threads when they come up. The OPs of these never mention that Boston is significantly more downhill. Why does that course get a pass? Posters may be up in arms about the Great North Run or Grandma's, which are almost record-eligible, yet Rodger's 2 fastest times were both considered American Records. They were run at Boston, as were the PRs of most of his peers. No one panicked when Salazar ran what he considered a World Record - as recently as the publication of his memoir he referred to it as such - on the NYC course which isn't close to being record eligible and was actually measured short.
What is it about this CIM course specifically? There are many marathon courses specifically designed to be hugely downhill. St. George gets mentioned, but the collosoly downhill Tuscon doesn't. The Wasatch Front has more than one: Utah Valley goes down Provo Canyon. There's one down Big Cottonwood too, or used to be. As long as every poster is willing to talk big smack about anyone who's ever run Boston, I guess there would be little hypocrisy with all the CIM talk. If you're willing to say Hasay, Rupp, Ritz, Meb and Benoit all went to Boston because they're 'cheaters', 'scammers', otherwise dishonest, or aren't capable of running without a 'ski slope', 'skateboard park', or whatever derogatory term befits the 'aided course', well then I guess we're all being consistent.
