It was implied.
It was implied.
What a surprise! wrote:
yougot nothing wrote:excuse me, the original post was about elite women runners, which you are not. I don't think you should kid yourself that 4:44 is good, enough if it gets you to nationals at your D2 school. If you stop running and have babies, no one will notice. Just thought I would clear that up for you. Your welcome.
Wow...a condescending jerk on the LetsRun boards. Imagine that!!
By the way, you said "Your welcome." The original post was intended to solicit replies from people who aren't immature, illiterate jerks. Instead, they found you.
and you too! lucky day
meta4 wrote:
It was implied.
uh, no, it was not implied.
yougotme wrote:
My first year I was a walk on 21min 5k runner who wanted to stay skinny, now I'm a full scholarship 4:44 1500, trying to break that 18 min barrier junior.
full ride meaning full tuition- thats the most Americans can get.
You certainly did say "full ride" as well as "full scholarship". Americans can get more than full tuition, FYI.
legally blond wrote:
uh, no, it was not implied.
You may have not intended to imply it, but your words did indeed imply it. "Lack of substance" was the operative phrase that lent that meaning. You were going off about how foreigners must be 'better' at doping than Americans. Tell that to Kelli White's competitors.
meta4 wrote:
legally blond wrote:uh, no, it was not implied.
You may have not intended to imply it, but your words did indeed imply it. "Lack of substance" was the operative phrase that lent that meaning. You were going off about how foreigners must be 'better' at doping than Americans. Tell that to Kelli White's competitors.
no, I'm pretty sure that was not said. Really, I'm sure.
legally blond wrote:
Too much misdirected, 3 times a year peak crap in high school and college would be my best guess.
meta4 wrote: Wouldn't apply to the women's field events, though.
legally blond wrote:
that might be "lack of substance" issue. I still think many countries are better at taking illegal substances than the Americans are. That, or it is something in the culture. don't know.
legally blond wrote:
meta4 wrote:Wouldn't apply to the women's field events, though.
that might be "lack of substance" issue. I still think many countries are better at taking illegal substances than the Americans are. That, or it is something in the culture. don't know.
That was said about the field events ONLY and I commented that our sprinters seem to have no problem in obtaining substances, thus Kelli White - if I recall is a sprinter.
I said our field event people must not take them - and others must be better.
Read carefully and don't fill in the blanks.
I think a better question to ask is why do American sprinters succeed but American distance runners do not? Derderian listed some good reasons why women in their 20s don't go for it like the men. But if you're a sprinter things seem to be different, at least in terms of priorities. Why is that?
legally blond wrote:
I said our field event people must not take them - and others must be better.
You've clarified your position further, but my response remains the same. Why would US sprinters take them and not long jumpers? Just because the sprinters have been busted? The drugs that help sprinters would help jumpers and throwers, so it is naive (at best) to think that "our field event people must not take them." CJ Hunter, Erick Walder, Kory Tarpening, Melissa Price (THG), John McEwen (THG, modafinil) and Kevin Toth (modafinil, THG!) indicate otherwise.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/balco-timeline.htmUS sprinters are more probable to be closer to the top of their event internationally and therefore their income will reflect that. Typically how long are the pro careers of US sprinters who rank worse than 15th, 30th in the world?
meta4 wrote:
legally blond wrote:I said our field event people must not take them - and others must be better.
You've clarified your position further, but my response remains the same. Why would US sprinters take them and not long jumpers? Just because the sprinters have been busted? The drugs that help sprinters would help jumpers and throwers, so it is naive (at best) to think that "our field event people must not take them." CJ Hunter, Erick Walder, Kory Tarpening, Melissa Price (THG), John McEwen (THG, modafinil) and Kevin Toth (modafinil, THG!) indicate otherwise.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/balco-timeline.htm
you are now off topic, but I think if you look at the sprinters who were caught in the BALCO investigation, there are two seperate coaches involved with those particular athletes - Trevor Graham and Korchemney, and they are coaches/agents for sprinters, and maybe CJ at one time. I do not know of any jumpers or other types of athletes they represent.
Tie most of the recent "bans" back to these two. I believe you might be able to tie some of the other throwers you mentioned to Logan, just tossing out the thought.
as far as your "naive" comment goes, I said they weren't good at taking steroids. This has certaintly been done successfully on the international level.
You spend too much time trying to read into something and then disputing your own imagination.
legally blond wrote:
oh crap! Joanie!
LOL!
I've only been on a point that you chose to bring up. Just so you know, Melissa Price (THG), John McEwen (THG, modafinil) and Kevin Toth (modafinil, THG!) are all throwers and were caught in the Balco scandal, they got THG from Balco. If anything, I've spent too much time thinking I was having an honest debate with someone who isn't going to just turn around and say you never said what you actually said.
Whatever.
[quote]Quit University running wrote:
Looking at many of the greats in american womens distance running a very clear pattern comes to mind.
Benoit, Decker, Jennings, Ruth Wysocki all quit D1 running or never got involved with it in the first place. Not having to go through the grind of three seasons year in and year out allowing for good buildups or not having to rush back into shape seemed to allow these ladies as well as many others to escape the down cycles in running. quote]
back to some of the original points of the post...i don't think we need to start discouraging women from running D1. although my experience wasn't perfect i wouldn't trade those years for anything. competing in college is such an amazing opportunity and if anything we need to encourage more women to walk on and work their way up. i went to an ivy league school so at least there was no scholarship pressure but i was a 11:10 2 miler coming in and an All american in the 10K coming out. yes i ran alot and it was intense but i learned a lot about training, racing, and what works for my body. if i quit running in college i don't think i would ever know the upper level of my ability and it would have been harder for me to stay in the sport.
obviously every program is different but what we need more of is good college coaches who are motivated by running fast when it counts and (i.e. peak once a season at NCAAs) unfortunately ADs hold coaches to standards that work for other team sports that shouldn't apply to an individual sport like track.
I'd be right with you in a perfect world, where coaches have the perspective of someone like Mark Wetmore who is able to successfully place the proper emphasis on the important parts of the year for peaking. A system where an athlete could have one coach with that perspective guide her or him for 8+ years, rather than a couple of coaches for maybe 4 years at a time that want to maximize points scored in 2 or 3 long seasons each year, would be most ideal and I think that's what we all should be trying to move towards if we want to see the best US runners developing more consistently. We have the talent pool but we support a system that has a long history of running most of the better runners right into the ground before they reach the peak years of performance production. The ones that survive and thrive for the most part seemingly develop IN SPITE OF the scholastic/collegiate system, rather than due to it. With other sports (soccer, skateboarding) and distractions (X-Box, myspace.com) draining talent away from the sport in the USA, it's time to put what talent the sport does attract into a more effective system of development.
Plain and simply, because they have their hands on better drugs.
hola hola wrote:
I think a better question to ask is why do American sprinters succeed but American distance runners do not?
SHALANE
Woahhh wrote:
SHALANE
Yeah, but this thread was started before she started using the optimum level of drugs.