Shannon Rowbury Sub 4 in Paris?

doug burke wrote:

i was surprised and worried after she only ran 2:03.71 for 800 a few days ago.

Yes, because we all know that if someone shows huge leaps in fitness over a period of months, then shoots overseas, races outside her event, and turns in a slow time after almost going down midway through the race, it's a sure sign of the athlete's personal apocalypse.

I assume you just discovered distance track and field a week or two ago and the Internet oeven more recently than that. Soon enough you'll find the caps lock key on your keyboard aND tHEN yOU cAN rEALLY mAKE sOME nOISE!!!!

where is anyone suggesting she move to 5k ?

she cannot do any serious damage over a gp 5k in her "pefect race" off her current ability

being generous, call her 3'58 & her 800, 1'58 - 1'59

1'58 ->~

54.1

5'27.6

8'33.0

15'00.3

32'03.7

1'59 ->~

55.2

5'26.5

8'28.8

14'48.3

31'26.0

an elite 800/1500 runner's speed decays too "fast" to be threatening in a quick race of 3k or +

I used such formulas for running since being in high school, which has covered a number of decades, and can guarantee the 400 is not an accurate point on the curve. Take it down to 200 and 100 meters and you will see this more obviously.

Even the 800 is borderline, unless you're staying in a very narrow range. However, the curve has more meaning from 1500 meters through 2 hours.

As example of this, it would be foolish to train like a sprinter when training for 5000 meters. But training like a sprinter for a short time would dramatically change your time for 400 meters.

Off the top of my head other than Rowbury SFH is the only American to put up a 4:00.xx since Ruth did. (discount Jacobs toomuchsays her PRs are all Rx induced)

In the last 30 years the only Americans I EXPECTED to see in the WChamps/OG Finals were Ruth, Patti Plumer, Merrill, Slaney, SFH, Richburg, Runyan. Add Lynn Jennings and Cindy Bremser as borderline sure semis and maybe sneak in finals.

Now Rowbury joins that limited list.

wineturtle wrote:

Off the top of my head other than Rowbury SFH is the only American to put up a 4:00.xx since Ruth did. (discount Jacobs toomuchsays her PRs are all Rx induced)

I generally would expect a bit more from you...maybe you don't know much about Slaney?

She ran sub 4 for the last time, 10 years after Ruth ran her 4:00, and ran sub 4 multiple times after Ruth's run, including the second fastest time ever other than her own AR. I would hope that would have stuck out a bit to you! I'm sure it was just an oversight.

the site says not to include 100 or 200m

i e-mailed them to ask why

response was 100 or 200 aren't "evenly &/or symmetrically run" races - advised 1st practical one is 400m, so told to use that

out of interest, if you had a 'roccan who coud run 1'42.8/3'25.5, what do you get for 400/1k/2k/3k/5k/10k ?

Slaney was 4:00xx or better before Ruth was so I did not include her in the since list. As usual you picked a nit most folks would have understood.

Let us talk of Rowbury not nuanced interpertations of a posters possible range of meanings picking one possibility at the extreme, strawmanning it and giving a dig to a fellow fan.

Fellowsip is its own reward.

wineturtle, Mrr82 obviously doesn't grasp the fact that if you are discounting one known drug cheat, you're probably not going to credit another. And even if Slaney wasn't doping in her fastest days in the ;80s (a questionable assumption), she sure was in the mid-'90s.

This dude has been a proudly illiterate know-nothing since or almost since the inception of Letsrun.com, boasting the always charming combination of cluelessness and arrogance. Whenever there's a thread with 200 posts that I have resigned myself to checking out, I'm always relieved when I see Mrr82's name beside a lot of the posts because I know I can skip these without missing whatever useful info the thread contains.

ventolin wrote:

response was 100 or 200 aren't "evenly &/or symmetrically run" races - advised 1st practical one is 400m, so told to use that

out of interest, if you had a 'roccan who coud run 1'42.8/3'25.5, what do you get for 400/1k/2k/3k/5k/10k ?

The reason is because the training is different, also affected by the start, vastly different mechanics and energy systems etc, the same for distances beyond a couple of hours. Small adjustments in training can make huge differences in times for short distances, training that could be counterproductive for longer ones.

I've not seem the site but have mostly used the "power learning curve", a regression model used on the TI BAII Plus calculator, probably other statistical calculators too but this is the only one I've used recently. If you have a statistical calculator, look this up and you can do the calculations yourself.

wineturtle wrote:

Off the top of my head other than Rowbury SFH is the only American to put up a 4:00.xx since Ruth did. (discount Jacobs toomuchsays her PRs are all Rx induced)

In the last 30 years the only Americans I EXPECTED to see in the WChamps/OG Finals were Ruth, Patti Plumer, Merrill, Slaney, SFH, Richburg, Runyan. Add Lynn Jennings and Cindy Bremser as borderline sure semis and maybe sneak in finals.

Now Rowbury joins that limited list.

Take Slaney off your list for the same reason as Jacobs.

Mary ran 2:02/03 at age 14 or 15, off almost no training. Do you really believe she had to dope to run 3:57ish? I don't. I can't explain the testosterone imbalance which showed up in her later tests, but she clearly had the ability and toughness to run very fast, naturally.

turku wrote:

Mary ran 2:02/03 at age 14 or 15, off almost no training. Do you really believe she had to dope to run 3:57ish? I don't.

Agreed. Mary Decker Slaney has been the fastest U.S. 1500m runner of all time.

Only two U.S. runners have been under 4:00.0, MDS and SFH, each of them breaking 4 minutes 5 times.

Shannon Rowbury is 4th on the list, with the 12th fastest performance.

turku wrote:

Mary ran 2:02/03 at age 14 or 15, off almost no training. Do you really believe she had to dope to run 3:57ish? I don't.

She was doping back in the early 80s when Dick Brown coached her. Dick Brown ran AW's drug program and had a $65,000 dollar drug slush fund to pay the bills.

She finally got caught in 1996 when Alberto Salazar, one of Victor Conte's first customers, was coaching her.

Mary was dirty.

Ya know it is not as easy to look at Slaney and take her testo-epi test and use it to lump her with miss realestate and her proven longtime PEDs use. Who I can call out and who I want to call out are different lists.

I have been saying that 40-60% of the elite athletes have broken the drug rules, either in spirit or letter, for a long long time. In 1967 I sat and talked about what PEDs were available from the blackbag of an ex-pat York(?)barbell salesman.We were in town of less than 3,000 in South Korea overlooking the DMZ about 30 klicks northeast of nowhere. I kinda figure some of that stuff was available to someone,say in LA or NYC don t you.

but can the other runners do this?

Go Shannon!

http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/share.html?videoid=5243a23e-a014-4522-8162-753d63c7c3c8

I checked out the products on the SNAC website and they look like supplements to me. Mostly vitamins and minerals. Are you implying that they are banned substances? Please explain

It's trollism. He didn't think you'd actually check the Web site. No proof whatsoever, just throws trash at anyone he suspects without any stand-up-in-court proof.

he is pointing out it is a Victor Conte company.

Explain wrote:

I checked out the products on the SNAC website and they look like supplements to me. Mostly vitamins and minerals. Are you implying that they are banned substances? Please explain

Alberto said he was sending urine samples to Conte. He said "everyone was doing it." Everyone was not sending urine samples to Victor Conte. Case closed.