Sir Isaac Einstein wrote:
Going down a hill is an advantage over running on a flat road.
But why doesn’t the course elevation map a few post back show any up hills during the last several miles. It just looks like a gentle sloping downhill.
Yeah but the earth is a sphere so you're ALWAYS running downhill - in ANY direction!
dunes runner wrote:
So says the deceitful person who makes up dishonest statements about people you don't even know,
which is the very definition of cheating.
I don't know Ms Paulson, but she's not displaying the questionable behavior on here that you are.
Lol. "Making up dishonest statements about people you don't even know is the very definition of cheating". An explanation of the word "Cheating" by Dunes Runner. Not even close - I guess your grasp of English is on a par with your grasp of biology. The above example being the linguistic equivalent of your Liver Flush cure for possible hepatitis.
One doesn't need to know you to come to the conclusion that you find cheating acceptable and therefore it's fair to say you are probably a liar and a cheat at heart too. Or maybe you are just very thick (not unlikely) and think cheating means something else other than to act dishonestly to gain an advantage over someone else.
You probably "think" that cutting a course and lying about it in order to steal someone else's finishing position is exactly the same thing as someone making what you consider to be a "dishonest" statement on a message board. If that's actually the case then you are indeed extremely thick and incapable of being reasoned with.
scam_watcheroo wrote:
I need a face palm simile for the posters here that cannot grasp the concept of going up a hill versus going around one.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that, for example, ascending and then descending Mount Everest would take any more out of you than just covering 17,696 metres on the flat. They both have the same net elevation change. Explain that!!
Anyone calling out a person who avoids the mountain is just a LRC troll, probably not a Rhodes Scholar and definitely a Moran.
Honestly, the longer this thread refuses to die the more I find myself supporting the clearly "misunderstood" Ashley Paulson.
Go Ashley!!
The Whole Truth wrote:
Sir Isaac Einstein wrote:
Going down a hill is an advantage over running on a flat road.
But why doesn’t the course elevation map a few post back show any up hills during the last several miles. It just looks like a gentle sloping downhill.
Yeah but the earth is a sphere so you're ALWAYS running downhill - in ANY direction!
.
.
. X
.
.
You are going down or you're going up. Not always down...
Says the person who wasn’t there. When you have facts to display here go ahead and post them. So I can display the witness to your discredit. Be gone troll.
The approximate time taken, T seconds, for a hypothetical optimal male athlete to complete a flat (long) distance event of L metres can be stated as:
T = (V / L) ^-1.0741
where V is 10.31 m/s
If you add slopes, you drastically alter running efficiency due to braking downhill and the square of cross-sectional body area wind resistance. Notwithstanding the metabolic changes affecting efficient locomotion whilst climbing.
Power (energy consumption) is inversely proportional to time, and when you add a bigass hill you have to add the time to climb the hill obviously - time you will not make up going down the other side.
Running up and down hills is much more inefficient versus running on the flat over the same distance.
Physics Minor wrote:
Power (energy consumption) is inversely proportional to time, and when you add a bigass hill you have to add the time to climb the hill obviously - time you will not make up going down the other side.
Running up and down hills is much more inefficient versus running on the flat over the same distance.
+1
Or over a shorter distance.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a liar and a cheater!
USATF Course rules: if a runner runs off the course. That runner must go back to the point where they left the course and continye the course. She still hasn’t finished the course. That is why she was DQ’d
The uproar on here by actual athletes, runners and her own Nephew disputing her is the fact of lying that she passed runners that placed 5-8 without them seeing her pass them. Telling runner number 8 (her nephew) and his mom that she passed him. ?all lies then not reporting it. Leaving the race with a results nightmare and innocent runners left with her mess. This is what is triggering her minions of followers into a spiral. I still have no facts from anyone going after my character. Give me one and I’ll back it up with a witness.
Runwithwalter wrote:
I still have no facts from anyone going after my character.
All the fraudulent lies you've been posting, and which you continue to post are black marks to your character, for which there are plenty of witnesses.
People who seek out these downhill courses, and especially those who then talk about "PRs" set on these courses, are untrustworthy to begin with. I know a few, and all of them are relatively fast, chasing downhill times because legit OTQs are just out of reach. They are all whack jobs. So it is not surprising that the tenor of the conversation of all the "I was there and ran that day" is somewhat autistic.
Also, that Ashley has some incredibly stupid Instagram commenters. Her Instagram feed is like the Rush Limbaugh fan site of running. She serves up what she knows is complete horseyshit and laughs her a$$ off as the accolades from folks she knows are loyal halfwits flow her way.
Guarantee she's juiced, too. No one who does Ostarine only does Ostarine. I hang with bodybuilders and this one is a biggie with women because of the relatively benign side effect profile. For Limbaugh it's Viagra and opiates and the sound of his own voice, for Ashley it's doping and course-cutting and gazing at her own photos.
Why are you still posting? No one is suggesting that she didn't cut the course and pretend that she didn't cross the finish line. She tried to cheat, again, and she failed. It is widely known.
I seriously hope that you get back on your meds. Ashlosser isn't worth your effort worn out stinking running shoes.
Has no one else flagged that her 10k "pr" is 33:23 yet her 5k pr is 17:30?!
What, wait - you don't mean... wrote:
scam_watcheroo wrote:
I need a face palm simile for the posters here that cannot grasp the concept of going up a hill versus going around one.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that, for example, ascending and then descending Mount Everest would take any more out of you than just covering 17,696 metres on the flat. They both have the same net elevation change. Explain that!!
Anyone calling out a person who avoids the mountain is just a LRC troll, probably not a Rhodes Scholar and definitely a Moran.
Nope. Go back and read the mind-numbingly stupid early protestations on this thread. They all said in effect, that this woman skipped the "all uphill" and ran the "all downhill".
NOT TRUE
I get that running up and down a hill is more difficult than running around it. That's not what was argued here though. What was argued was that , (in whining, crying, safe space invaded voice) "but she cut off the most difficult part, and ran the easiest part. Simply not possible.
Physics Minor wrote:
The approximate time taken, T seconds, for a hypothetical optimal male athlete to complete a flat (long) distance event of L metres can be stated as:
T = (V / L) ^-1.0741
where V is 10.31 m/s
If you add slopes, you drastically alter running efficiency due to braking downhill and the square of cross-sectional body area wind resistance. Notwithstanding the metabolic changes affecting efficient locomotion whilst climbing.
Power (energy consumption) is inversely proportional to time, and when you add a bigass hill you have to add the time to climb the hill obviously - time you will not make up going down the other side.
Running up and down hills is much more inefficient versus running on the flat over the same distance.
Agreed. If only this was the original argument. It WAS NOT
Walter is clearly not out of his mind, he comes over as someone who is not used to expressing himself clearly in writing and in his over-emotional state about this situation has repeatedly assumed that the readers understand the background of unexplained points he has made.
This unfortunately has given the trolls and apologists an easy target.
... You do appreciate these two points appear quite contradictory?
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Walter is clearly not out of his mind
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
he comes over as someone who is not used to expressing himself clearly in writing and in his over-emotional state about this situation has repeatedly assumed that the readers understand the background of unexplained points he has made.
Well get that she is a cheat. We got that she was a cheat right from the off. But there's an apparent madness at play here now...
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Walter is clearly not out of his mind, he comes over as someone who is not used to expressing himself clearly in writing and in his over-emotional state about this situation has repeatedly assumed that the readers understand the background of unexplained points he has made.
This unfortunately has given the trolls and apologists an easy target.
I think the jury is out about whether Walter is out of his mind or not. I think he's an accomplished runner who is very emotional about this and doesn't express himself very well.
He does not write very well. He seems to think any criticism of his writing style, or pointing out the fact that you can't replace an all uphill portion with an all downhill portion is the same as saying Ashley didn't cheat. Therefore anyone that does either of these things must be a cheater themselves.
Runwithwalter wrote:
She has a previous suspension for doping in the Ironman community. She left that scene and come to the running community. They hold the same standards here as in the Ironman community. She served her suspension and cane to the road running scene. She competes at a bear Olympic level right away which all athletes will question. Which is typical. Then she cheats on a non doping issue but it deals with integrity. She got caught and called out. Now the running community looks at her as bringing her past doping issues with her. If you cheat on something as small as this then there are bigger issues involved is the consensus. That’s the jest of it. Would you take a test if it were you? If you wouldn’t and feel like this is singling you out then stop your cheating. I’m speaking on behalf of a large voice that wants to keep this sport honestvand fair.
Walter,
Without paragraphs, your argument looks more like a rant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph