sanchobaile wrote:
Anybody know the math on this? how much distance does that really add on a (banked?) indoor track? is it the same as if you ran in lane 2 on a 400m track? just doesn't seem like it would be easy to avoid doing indoors. stringing out a pack indoors seems like it would give a huge advantage to the leaders.
I haven't done the math, but I would guess it is actually worse than running in lane 2 of a 400m track. Don't you run more of the race on turns on an indoor track?
F sa cAC A wrote:
sanchobaile wrote:Anybody know the math on this? how much distance does that really add on a (banked?) indoor track? is it the same as if you ran in lane 2 on a 400m track? just doesn't seem like it would be easy to avoid doing indoors. stringing out a pack indoors seems like it would give a huge advantage to the leaders.
I haven't done the math, but I would guess it is actually worse than running in lane 2 of a 400m track. Don't you run more of the race on turns on an indoor track?
If it is a tactical race, you will probablty spend more energy getting into position at the last minute than hanging off of someone's shoulder.
She wasn't hanging off of anyone's shoulder.. She was fully in the second lane for all 15 laps.
Complete non-story
@running_comment wrote:
doping control just doing their job. Do you think they want to be there until 1am
Of course they do. They were screwing around getting off for 3 hours. It was probably the highlight of the meet for them.
I blame Katie!
She kept those poor folks in doping control till 1AM because she couldn't pee? Really?
And my puppy has no problem peeing anywhere. Ironic?
From the 2011-2012 NCAA Drug Testing Policy Guidebook found on ncaa.org.
Which states that an athlete can have the test delayed until their final event. The key is not to sign the form and tell them that you will take the test the next day. This is on the medical and coaching staff at Washington to know this.
5.8. Notification of Student-Athletes for NCAA
Individual/Team Championships Testing.
5.8.1. At NCAA individual/team championship
events, a student-athlete will be notified of
selection for drug testing immediately after
competition. Any student-athlete selected for
drug testing will be handed a Student-Athlete
Notification Form by an official courier. The
notification form will instruct the student-athlete
to accompany the courier to the collection station
within one hour, unless otherwise directed by the
certified collector or designee.
5.8.2. If a student-athlete is selected for drug
testing during that championship, the NCAA
drug testing administrator or designee will direct
the student-athlete to be tested immediately, to
defer testing until the completion of his/her final
event of that session or day, or to defer testing
until the completion of his/her final event of the
championship.
5.8.3. The courier and selected student-athlete
will obtain an official institutional representative’s
signature on the notification form if testing is
deferred until completion of the student-athlete’s
final event of that session or day or completion of
his/her final event of the championship, as noted
on the form. An institutional representative must
present the student-athlete to the collection station
and certify identification of the student-athlete not
later than one hour after completion of this final
event of the session or day or final event of his/her
championship.
The Big Tuna wrote:
5.8.2. If a student-athlete is selected for drug
testing during that championship, the NCAA
drug testing administrator or designee will direct
the student-athlete to be tested immediately, to
defer testing until the completion of his/her final
event of that session or day, or to defer testing
until the completion of his/her final event of the
championship.
So it was the fault of the NCAA drug testing administrator or designee, not the coach or the athlete. Obviously the NCAA was supposed to be in charge of this and not screwing it up. In fact the coach might have pointed this out and they simply ignored him.
Stating the obvious wrote:
I blame Katie!
She kept those poor folks in doping control till 1AM because she couldn't pee? Really?
And my puppy has no problem peeing anywhere. Ironic?
This whole story sounds suspicious to me. I am a male, and if I drink a 16 oz bottle of water, it takes me less than 30 minutes to pee. Why did she not drink an entire bottle of water at once? She would be out of there in less the 30 minutes.
She was very sick, dehydrated, and amped up on adrenaline from the race. No wonder she couldn't pee. Especially being pressured to do so!
That said, I don't think Katie is suggesting this is why she performed poorly in the 3000 (it is the journalist who is implying this). Katie underperformed because she was fighting a stomach flu and had already run one very hard effort, 2900 feet above where she is used to, to win the DMR.
Additionally, she and D'Agostino definitely looked like rookies, being jostled by the pack and running in lane 2 much of the race. No wonder when it came down to it the athletes who had been tucked in on the rail (Hasay and Infeld) blew them away.
J.R. wrote:
Only because you're a DRUG BELIEVER who believes you have to take drugs to run your best.
I believe drugs at the least have no effect, but most often result in slower times, or worse.
Man, Imagine how fast the World Records would be if everyone would quit taking these drugs that are slowing them down?
Mourhit would have been able to speed up to a 12:30/26:02 level and set WRs that would have lasted 200 years. Brahim Boulami would have been able to put the Steeple record out of sight at 7:45 or so if he hadn't slowed himself down with drugs.
I could see Marita Koch running 45-point in the 400m and Kratochvilova running a 1:48-9. They would have sped up more than most men because they were really abusing the drugs that slowed-you-down the most.
I wonder why these athletes never thought of NOT using drugs as a way to get faster? Or as a way to win more Global Championships since they won so few? They all had top doctors monitoring their health and their doping? Why didn't the doctors come to the conclusion that by quitting doping they would be so much stronger?
I would have loved to see Mourhit win 5000m races by 10-15 seconds over the best non-dopers in the world (clearly the best of the 90s were non-dopers as they were not slowed by the insidious dope). As it stands now he was SLOWED to JUST WINNING two World Titles in XC and a 9th-best all-time 12:49 in the 5000m (even 13 years later). Just think of what could have been if he had quit the dope? If only he had known what J.R. knows?
Clearly the BEST runners of the 90s must have been dope-free because they were able to run 5-10 seconds faster than Mourhit at 12:39-12:44, because they weren't dumb enough to take the dope that CLEARLY slows you down.
I agree.Did I mention my puppy is a girl?Every girl I know needs to pee all the time!I'm calling shenangins!Also wah wah wah
Stoopid wrote:
Stating the obvious wrote:I blame Katie!
She kept those poor folks in doping control till 1AM because she couldn't pee? Really?
And my puppy has no problem peeing anywhere. Ironic?
This whole story sounds suspicious to me. I am a male, and if I drink a 16 oz bottle of water, it takes me less than 30 minutes to pee. Why did she not drink an entire bottle of water at once? She would be out of there in less the 30 minutes.
J.R. wrote:
Only because you're a DRUG BELIEVER who believes you have to take drugs to run your best.
I believe drugs at the least have no effect, but most often result in slower times, or worse.
newname wrote:
Imagine how fast the World Records would be if everyone would quit taking these drugs that are slowing them down?
I am sure that none of you and your druggie friends have run any world records and never will. You don't have the right psychology, and therefore can never have good physiology. You will never have any world records no matter how many drugs you take, so you might as well stop deluding yourself.
Yeah, no kidding Flood and D'Agostino looked liked rookies (True)....And the complaining and excuses on these boards is quite sickining ........Wow!
Frankly, Flood lost the race because she wasn't ready and was ill-prepared. Now, whether that had to do with altitude, lack of sleep, the flu, an injury, lack or proper coaching, OR her making up exuses with all of the above?????.....IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!!!
The bottom line is....it happens to every athlete. If you lose, you learn to overcome it. You prepare for the next race. You prepare for the obstacles facing you before you step your foot on that track, both mentally and physically. If you win, you win. If you lose, you learn to study why you lost and move on. That should be the spirit, goal, and motivating desire in every athlete.
I'm sure Katie and and coach have learned a lesson and are studying........... and moving on.
@running_comment wrote:
I'm also blaming the cheerleading journalist, who should have informed himself, just a little tiny bit, before spouting off and embarrassing himself. Someone, please send him a link to this thread.
There are very, very, very, very obvious reasons that when you're tapped for doping control, you can't just say "sorry, I don't feel like it, get me tomorrow night." It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, and many reasons are listed in this thread.
Should athletes be told "you've been selected for doping control - if it's not too much trouble, please submit a urine sample this weekend"? Of course not.
I can't even believe this is being called a "fiasco." The only "fiasco" here is a couple of grown men not knowing when to shut their faces.
His address is in the article. Just look it up.