Lance Armstrong takes 2nd in his first Ironman

Rally wrote:

Lance H8r:

You lost me when you said, "Forget triathlon"

well, i think you lost your logic then too...

Surely I would agree that he could run anywhere between 1:05 and 1:41, why?

That sounds more logical, since we are talking about humans...

but, if you did talk to Lance after the race and maybe roomed with him for years, or just during all his training leading up to the race, and examined his run training every day and started understanding his strengths and weaknesses, I would be more obliged to agree with a 1:13...

Don't forget triathlon, think about it more...

OMG this is turning into a typical letsrun thread. I lost you when I said Forget triathlon? M A Y B E you can understand if I slow down. In a running race of the 13.1mi distance a 77min HM for a 40yr old is a pretty solid performance. Understand now?

Also, because you don't actually give your opinion about his run at 70.3 Panama, I will assume that you don't think he is capable of running in the 73min range for a HM in a stand alone HM race?

A few more points...

- The race was in Panama City, Panama (the nation, not Florida). High temp yesterday = 91F

- The race was not an ITU race, so those rules have no bearing on the course measurement.

- That said, this was a pretty deep pro field and the run splits were well within reasonable parameters for the other pros.

- It bears repeating, Bevan Docherty is a 2-time Olympic medalist in triathlon, which are run under ITU rules (draft legal bike leg). ITU races have a reputation for favoring the best runners.

- Long course triathlon still probably favors the best runners, but the no-drafting format of long course tri opens the door for the strong cyclists.

- Lance was holding his own with the legends of triathlon when he was a teenager, prior to deciding to focus on cycling as a career.

T1 and T2 count towards the run.

E.g. if T1 = 400m and T2 = 100m then the run only needs to be 20.6 km. Total distance is still a HM. Of course, the time run for the HM is really the time for 20.6km. Still not bad for a 40yo.

Also, looking at how first guy and Lance finish, they're looking rather slow in their finish. Certainly not 6min/mi pace. Considering this race was in Panama, maybe those were really a bit less. Considering the temperature, that is still fair.

LanceLegstrong wrote:

webbonomics wrote:

It was only a half 'man, much like one nut himself.

Not true. Website says "Ironman 70.3", not "Half Ironman".

This is hysterical; someone who has zero understanding of the sport, even what the distances are, starting a thread to condemn it.

How much authority would someone have with regards to running if they didn't know that a 1/2 marathon and 13.1 miles were the same thing?

The winner ran 1:12+ for whatever distance that was. Still fast. Even if it was 12 miles, that's still 6 minute pace.

And the winner, FYI, was a silver medalist at the Olympics in triathlon with a 28:00 10K PR. Not sure what he split in the Olympics, but those courses are definitely legit and he's a 30:xx 10K guy in a tri.

I know it's hard to accept for many people on this board - it definitely blows my mind - but the best triathletes are very, very good runners. The best Olympic distance guys are capable of high 27 stand alone, high 29 in a tri; the best 1/2 guys are capable of 1:07 in a triathlon if the weather cooperates and the course isn't challenging.

It was, btw, mid 90s during the run with no shade. Something else to consider. The bike course is also very challenging. Consensus is that the swim was a tad short.

"Armstrong led Docherty after the cycling, but the New Zealander made up ground on the 16½-mile running leg and passed Armstrong about 1½ miles from the finish."

http://espn.go.com/olympics/triathlon/story/_/id/7569815/lance-armstrong-runner-panama-triathlon-snubbed-winner

(1) swim was in a canal with a tail current, which explains the fast swim times.

(2) bike course was either windy or hilly (or both), which explains the slow bike times.

(3) many tri run courses are off with more being short than long. i haven't seen anything indicating that panama was short and the rest of the pro times lead me to believe it was accurate. if it were short, it wasn't short by much. you runner boys need to just face it that LA, despite being a world class prick, is a world class athlete and can run a HM split in a HIM at age 40 faster than most on this site can in a stand-alone HM.

(4) there have to be quite a few IM pros not looking forward to getting lanced by a 40-year old LA in kona this year. the dirty little dirty in the tri world is that almost all of the real talent is in ITU (not IM) and that will be greatly exposed this year by LA. there is zero chance that LA could be competitive as an ITU racer because of that.

ITU is not the governing body for WTC race, so that rule set isn't valid.

- triathlons allow length to vary by +/- 10% on any one leg (though the total distance is fixed).

Where do people get this stuff?! This is simply not true. Some races have short legs but these are primarily small, local races or (reportedly) European races. Many Ironman races are actually qualifiers for Boston. WTC in the US, Rev3, and other large / serious companies that produce races endeavor to make the race distances accurate.

The idea that most triathletes would prefer a short race for a fast time than an honest distance, espoused elsewhere, also strikes me as false (though I haven't polled folks). Would most runners prefer short races with fast times? Are runners and triathletes different breeds?

The funny thing, to me, is that serious triathletes love running, follow the sport, are inspired by it. I wonder why there's commonly such condescension, vitriol, and / or dismissal of triathlon from the running community. Why not choose to be inspired by the feats of some truly amazing athletes?

"The best Olympic distance guys are capable of high 27 stand alone"

Really? Which oly distance guys have done this?

A. Brownlee ran 29:15 for 10k last year, on a fast course.

Tim Don ran 28:56 on a fast road course in 2010.

I just dont see either of them being capable of high 27 on the track (unless they gave up triathlon and started running, in which case maybe, in a few years).

rwhitehead wrote:

The best Olympic distance guys are capable of high 27 stand alone

Ridiculous claims like this are why people hate triathletes.

agree with rwhitehead

but not the guy who said transition distances are included in the run! What?

I think a letsrunner who runs 1:17 for a half should go run the same run course for the 70.3 FLorida or Texas race he is going to do and see what they run on it.

Then when he races it, you can compare (hoping that he doesn't walk)

Note, he will be running on the course from 10-11am, not a cool 7am start.

and of course will be after a swim and bike...but you just run it stand alone and see...

BCT wrote:

A 1:17 half is about what you'd expect him to run in an *open* half based on his marathon PR (i.e., without swim and bike first), though I suspect he could run way faster than 2:46 with serious training. For the end of a half Ironman, that is an extremely impressive half, and the winner's 1:12:xx is a monster run.

According to ESPN, the run was 16.5 miles! 77/16.5 = 4:40 pace. Holy god he got fast! Should probably have ran the marathon trials. And he wasn't even the fastest runner in the tri...

"Armstrong led Docherty after the cycling, but the New Zealander made up ground on the 16 ½-mile running leg and passed Armstrong about 1½ miles from the finish."

LanceLegstrong wrote:

webbonomics wrote:

It was only a half 'man, much like one nut himself.

Not true. Website says "Ironman 70.3", not "Half Ironman".

70.3 miles is a half ironman. a full is 140.6.

also how does this prove the sport is a joke? hes the best cyclist of all time who used to be a triathlete before focusing on cycling.

Cunningham, Richie ?

Correct, Rally. Having done numerous Ironman events, I can affirm that T1 and T2 are NOT included in the run time. At the end of an Ironman triathlon, you will have a swim time, a T1 time, a bike time, T2 time, and a run time.

Last time I did the Half Ironman in Panama City (Florida), temps were mid-90's on the run, and over 100 on the pavement. Yes, it's difficult to run fast in that weather. And that was after a relatively easy (flat) bike course. The other Panama would be tougher.

Bottom line: Lance did good. Got beat by a better triathlete. Maybe they should start a "Masters Pro" division for those of us who can't compete with the younger crowd anymore ...

come at me BRO:

Do you know who the Brownlee brothers are?

If not, they are running mid to low 14's off the bike in sprint distance (5k run)

and mid 29's off the bike in olympic distance (10k)

rwhitehead is not too far off...

incredibly wrong wrote:

also how does this prove the sport is a joke? hes the best cyclist of all time

The best cyclist of all times is Eddy Merckx. Even Lance admits that.

Kudos to Rally for being one of the few that has a clue on this topic. I'm amazed at the stupidity on this board. 99% of posters seem to talk out of their ass, having no idea what they are talking about. Forget triathlons, I bet less than 10% of the people who post here are actually runners.

Lance runs a 1:17 half of the bike, and that's unbelievable to you people? 1:17, not 1:07 or :57. One of the greatest endurance athletes in the history of earth runs a 1:17 half, and you start thinking the course was short? Unreal.