Hey, I actually like your username. It amuses me, in a good way. The point remains -- you don't know as much or more than Ed Eyestone. Don't pretend to be.
* I really don't care about your typos. Autocorrect is the bane of modern life. It hurts more times than it helps.
so we're only allowed to participate in the discussions here if we know more than the very best elite athletes and coaches?
Hey, I actually like your username. It amuses me, in a good way. The point remains -- you don't know as much or more than Ed Eyestone. Don't pretend to be.
* I really don't care about your typos. Autocorrect is the bane of modern life. It hurts more times than it helps.
how about saying you're sorry, and then we're square
Rodgers and Beardsley both chose quantity over quality, but they were talented enough they had some good ones.
When did Rodgers ever run a sub-par marathon?
I would argue that Beardsley never ran a subpar marathon. He holds (or once held) the recognized record for running 13 consecutive marathon PRs starting with a 2:47 in 1977 through a 2:09 at Grandma's in 1981. The streak was broken when he did not ran a 2:16 at Stockholm in 1981followed by a 2:12 at Houston in 1982 -- both 2nd place finishes. His next race was his last PR and his most famous race, a 2:08:54 for 2nd at the Duel in the Sun in 1982. His next race was another win at Grandma's on a warm day.
That's stupid. Samples are split in two A, and B, to preserve the chain of custody. There is no opportunity to rig things.
Chain of custody is BS in many cases. And sample manipulation is a real thing. What do you think actually saved Bernie Lagat? politics is a real thing.
Name one sample that was manipulated and how is it possible? No person in any lab knows whose sample they are testing. Its impossible. In the case of the B sample no lab technician knows whose sample they are testing unless the athlete chooses to personally witness the test.
So Mr Conspiracy Guy, you got some splaining to do. How does COC get invalidated?
I would argue that Beardsley never ran a subpar marathon. He holds (or once held) the recognized record for running 13 consecutive marathon PRs starting with a 2:47 in 1977 through a 2:09 at Grandma's in 1981. The streak was broken when he did not ran a 2:16 at Stockholm in 1981followed by a 2:12 at Houston in 1982 -- both 2nd place finishes. His next race was his last PR and his most famous race, a 2:08:54 for 2nd at the Duel in the Sun in 1982. His next race was another win at Grandma's on a warm day.
NYCM in Nov 1982 was his first bad race in a long time.
Chain of custody is BS in many cases. And sample manipulation is a real thing. What do you think actually saved Bernie Lagat? politics is a real thing.
Name one sample that was manipulated and how is it possible? No person in any lab knows whose sample they are testing. Its impossible. In the case of the B sample no lab technician knows whose sample they are testing unless the athlete chooses to personally witness the test.
So Mr Conspiracy Guy, you got some splaining to do. How does COC get invalidated?
He listed Lagat. That was a major and obvious farce. Indefensible. If conspiracies disn’t exist why was say, Carl Lewis, allowed to compete after being caught several times?
Hey, I actually like your username. It amuses me, in a good way. The point remains -- you don't know as much or more than Ed Eyestone. Don't pretend to be.
* I really don't care about your typos. Autocorrect is the bane of modern life. It hurts more times than it helps.
so we're only allowed to participate in the discussions here if we know more than the very best elite athletes and coaches?
buzz off
Its a good idea not to pretend to know more than the best athletes and coaches.
Name one sample that was manipulated and how is it possible? No person in any lab knows whose sample they are testing. Its impossible. In the case of the B sample no lab technician knows whose sample they are testing unless the athlete chooses to personally witness the test.
So Mr Conspiracy Guy, you got some splaining to do. How does COC get invalidated?
He listed Lagat. That was a major and obvious farce. Indefensible.
Your conspiracy theory is not a response. As far as I'm aware, Lagats B sample wasn't properly stored. So what you're saying is that someone knew ahead of time that Lagat A sample would test positive and that someone knew that they needed to find his B sample, known only by a serial number and a personally stamped seal by Lagat himself, then putting it in their car trunk to degrade the sample? How did they do that? WADA and FBI, military, finance, schools, civil and criminal courts, law enforcement, government employment, and on and on, all depend on a locked down COC to ensure that their drug testing operation are secure. But you actually think that COC is corruptible? GTFOOH.
He listed Lagat. That was a major and obvious farce. Indefensible.
Your conspiracy theory is not a response. As far as I'm aware, Lagats B sample wasn't properly stored. So what you're saying is that someone knew ahead of time that Lagat A sample would test positive and that someone knew that they needed to find his B sample, known only by a serial number and a personally stamped seal by Lagat himself, then putting it in their car trunk to degrade the sample? How did they do that? WADA and FBI, military, finance, schools, civil and criminal courts, law enforcement, government employment, and on and on, all depend on a locked down COC to ensure that their drug testing operation are secure. But you actually think that COC is corruptible? GTFOOH.
People lie. That Lagat affair stinks to high heaven. We have only their word regarding COC, results, claims of improper storage. Anyway, the original poster can defend his post when he comes back, as for me, Lagat, Lewis, Dr. Hexum’s interviews and saved paperwork, and many other things show something is rotten in more than Denmark. I wouldn’t compare athletics to law enforcement, the military, and the like. The old “conspiracy theory” charge from the 60s (courtesy of the Warren Commission) doesn’t work too well these days as there are too many examples of proven conspiracies.
So you believe that you have to have been alive to write about a previous period of time? Ever heard of a historian? So you would admit you know almost nothing about the 1950s? I don’t believe that.
Correct. I know very little about how marathoners trained or raced in the 1950s or even the 1960s. Even if I did it would be irrelevant to the questions presented in this thread. My commentary is specific to this thread -- MARATHON TRAINING AND RACING IN THE 1970s AND 1980s. Most serious marathoners of that era ran 1-2 marathons per year. Many ran 2-3. Many of those marathoners were my peers, and/or my friends. Those are my qualifications.
I am not pontificating for the purpose of furthering an online coaching service for hobbyjoggers, who by the way is not a pejorative in my mind. It just describes a target audience that is far away from serious competitors like Rodgers and Shorter, and many more of the era.
The article cited was by Jeff Gaudette, a blogger whose target audience is hobbyjoggers. He was born in ~1985. He is not a historian he is writing about his opinions, not history.
I would say one difference perhaps between you and I is that, although I concur that first hand knowledge is the best, I am willing to learn from others regarding eras and practices I did not experience simultaneously with them. It broadens the horizons. Try it.
Your conspiracy theory is not a response. As far as I'm aware, Lagats B sample wasn't properly stored. So what you're saying is that someone knew ahead of time that Lagat A sample would test positive and that someone knew that they needed to find his B sample, known only by a serial number and a personally stamped seal by Lagat himself, then putting it in their car trunk to degrade the sample? How did they do that? WADA and FBI, military, finance, schools, civil and criminal courts, law enforcement, government employment, and on and on, all depend on a locked down COC to ensure that their drug testing operation are secure. But you actually think that COC is corruptible? GTFOOH.
People lie. That Lagat affair stinks to high heaven. We have only their word regarding COC, results, claims of improper storage.
Please stop it. COC is infallible. Theres a reason why it is the security standard used in testing for military, law, government, etc. If you don't want to hear it you won't.
I think that what started some of this nonsense is that you and maybe others took issue with “Paul Emerson,” who said he remembered from the 1970s a rule of thumb of one marathon per year. I don’t doubt him for a minute. You, on the other hand, had a different experience as you traveled in different circles, with elite runners, who probably would not subscribe to that, so nobody is incorrect here. He heard that rule of thumb and you didn’t. Not a big deal.
This was inevitable. I was hoping he learned a lesson after what happened post Chicago, but he clearly came back way too quickly once he was cleared to run again. I’m a big Connor fan so I’m not happy to see this, but he needs to first and foremost focus on staying healthy. I also think it’s a little odd Connor is saying it’s a fitness issue when it’s clear it’s injury related.
In other words, you know more about training Mantz than Eyestone, and Mantz himself. What’s your experience in training a world class marathoner?
Sweetie when did I say that? Connor has said from his own mouth that he isn’t the most coachable, doesn’t always listen to Eyestone 100%, and during his recent comeback he said in an interview he might be trying to come back too quickly before Boston. So I think Connor would agree with what I said, but hindsight’s always 20/20.
Your lack of experience is numbing. Too many "wannabe" elite runners/coaches talk so much sh^t on these boards. When ya'll post your opinions and so-called "advice" on subjects you have little knowledge or experience about, its SOOOOOOO obvious. After reading a post that I don't understand or need clarification, in my reply I'll ask for clarification and the source of the comment in question, and guess what?...No reply back! Why is that? It's because the person who's posting doesn't know what they're talking about.
Regarding Conner Mantz, Ed Eyestone has said that Conner is very difficult to coach with regard to him always wanting to train hard, and getting him to "pull back" and rest more. It's a coaches dream to have such a dedicated and driven athlete, yet it can be a nightmare at times. Conner's success is directly related to how he trains and races, and no one can argue about his success. It's the way he's built. Conner clearly knows what works for him, and riding the razor's edge with his training and racing is who he is, and if injuries happen, so be it. As a coach (with invaluable experience) like Ed Eyestone, it's his job to put fuel on the competitive fire, while at the same time not let the house burn down. Conner's career will be a tug o' war between himself and Ed, but that is what it is, and hopefully along the way they'll experience more success than failure.
This could be the most idiotic-stupid comment ever:
Again, your lack of "Experience" and "Knowledge" is numbing.
Your ad hominem argument failed to address my points. Again, consider the merits of what's been said.
It's reasonable to say Mantz should take more of a break after his marathons, it wasn't a good idea to run that marathon with his wife so soon after Chicago, and trying to get ready for Boston in such a short time coming off a stress fracture didn't work out.
Mantz himself cited the marathon with his wife as one of the factors that caused him to get injured. His words:
"stress fracture, among other things. Happened through a combination of building up too fast after Chicago (mileage, workouts, and heavy weightlifting at the same time), running a marathon with my wife, not being diligent with nutrition (probably was underfueled heading into the marathon with my wife) and lack of proper sleep. I think I could’ve done 3 or 4 things and been fine for a few weeks, but lacking in the 2 most important ways to recover (sleep and nutrition), starting to build up 3 things in a short period, and finishing a marathon in the same week was too much at once."
He did too much too soon after Chicago, and he tried to do too much too soon coming back from injury.
None of the above is "talking sh^t" about Mantz. It's reasonable commentary. I like Mantz and cheered for him from the stands while he was racing at Pre last summer. I want him to do well.
None of the above means that Eyestone is an "idiot" as Kickers asked on the previous page. Eyestone's résumé speaks for itself. He's clearly one of the best coaches we have in the country, and any marathoner hoping to make a US Olympic team would be lucky to be coached by him. Yes, part of coaching Mantz is the challenge of reining him in.
If elite coaching/racing experience was necessary for fans of the sport to have an opinion, then there would be little point to having this message board.
If you want to try to refute what I've said, be my guest. Just spare me the petty insults.
No need to refute, I defer, and see your point and what you're saying. Yes, Conner should not have run the marathon with his wife, let alone not prepare properly for a 26.2 mile "fun" run. Was his buildup to Boston too fast? Yes, but I believe that was a combination of expectations from sponsors, money, and Conner's mind set. Nonetheless, not too smart.
"If elite coaching/racing experience was necessary for fans of the sport to have an opinion, then there would be little point to having this message board".
You're spot on with the above statement, my point being was that too many people post opinions and or observations without full knowledge of the subject matter.
I think that what started some of this nonsense is that you and maybe others took issue with “Paul Emerson,” who said he remembered from the 1970s a rule of thumb of one marathon per year. I don’t doubt him for a minute. You, on the other hand, had a different experience as you traveled in different circles, with elite runners, who probably would not subscribe to that, so nobody is incorrect here. He heard that rule of thumb and you didn’t. Not a big deal.
With the last two posts you are now being reasonable and having intent for a meaningful discussion. Carry on.