Like Schumacher and Hudson, Treacy is a high profile coach who can't seem to enable athletes to bullseye the marathon with consistency. Between Sisson, Huddle, and Kim Smith there hasn't been a record of success like they've had at sub-marathon distances. Treacy should be held in high regard, otherwise.
To the guy who says he doesn't like the idea of rhythm runners, let me just say, having been one, that rhythm runners are often people who'd rather be running 800 meters in the track but aren't fast enough.
fact checker 642572498 wrote:
Let's just say it like it is - her coach really messed up her training and preparation for the Olympic Trials. Instead of him admitting his own mistakes, he blames it on Emily. A classless move by Ray Treacy.
You know the course more than a year in advance. Train for the demands of that course. Hit more hills in your preparation. If she wasn't ready for it, the blame is on Ray Treacy.
She should change coaches.
Congratulations, you win!
Seriously, in horse racing there's an expression, "horse the the course". She just wasn't a good fit for the ATL course. Like a previous poster said, some runners prefer certain surfaces and conditions.
YOU CAN"T CHANGE THAT
A mudder is a mudder, they can not be made to love a fast track.
You can train them all you want, but it WON"T work.
Not even the great Superior JS can pull off that feat.
Obviously, we don't know the details of her training, and she and Moly Huddle are not on Strava so we can't armchair analyze their training. But from their instagrams, it seemed like both were doing a lot of mileage on the pancake flat canal paths.
I wonder if there is something to be said for specificity on that course. Everyone who lived in a hilly area (e.g. Flagstaff or Boulder) ground out tons of hilly runs--long runs, tempo runs, workouts, easy runs. Hills, hills, hills, basically anything that wasn't a track workout was on hilly terrain. Molly Seidel spent a few months in Flagstaff grinding out hills. The Naz elite women cranked on hills. Laura Thweatt and Jake Riley were grinding hills in Boulder. Sally Kipygeo was running hills in Kenya. Not driving somewhere to do 1-2 hill workouts per week, but making hills the default.
Not everyone who hill trained ran well--Sarah Hall did plenty of hills but it still wasn't her day. Jordan Hasay lives in a hilly area and usually is a strong hilly runner, but she wasn't healthy. But on the whole, it seemed to make a big difference on that course.
Ehhhh...it's whatever. she didn't prepare for the hills I guess.
I really respect the top ladies who had a bad day and still finished. Especially Jordan Hasay. She was coming back from injury and had a rough day but still finished. Respect!!
I took her comment as just honesty and took it as such. As a fan, I was disappointed for the olympics for her but that seems more my problem than hers.
And with covid, it may not be a thing anyway.
Best of luck Emily with next endeavor!
She ran well at NYC Half a few years back, it's not the marathon course hilly but it's not a flat course by any means.
the all time worst take in history wrote:
fact checker 642572498 wrote:
Let's just say it like it is - her coach really messed up her training and preparation for the Olympic Trials. Instead of him admitting his own mistakes, he blames it on Emily. A classless move by Ray Treacy.
You know the course more than a year in advance. Train for the demands of that course. Hit more hills in your preparation. If she wasn't ready for it, the blame is on Ray Treacy.
She should change coaches.
Congratulations, you win!
Seriously, in horse racing there's an expression, "horse the the course". She just wasn't a good fit for the ATL course. Like a previous poster said, some runners prefer certain surfaces and conditions.
YOU CAN"T CHANGE THAT
A mudder is a mudder, they can not be made to love a fast track.
You can train them all you want, but it WON"T work.
Not even the great Superior JS can pull off that feat.
Except that's BS. The course really wasn't that hard, the hills weren't big at all. Many people ran significant personal bests.
Humans aren't horses. It's not complicated to fix biomechanics so that you aren't horribly inefficient on hills. If she wasn't interested in learning how to run different courses, she should have stuck to the track.
Ray Treacy was outcoached by a 25 year old hardware store worker with no coaching experience (Molly Seidel's coach). It's that simple.
I the larger question to ask is why she didn't wear New Balance's carbon racing shoe? She had months to try yet still used a traditional 1500 model. With all the talk about carbon racing shoes how can she not avail herself to her sponsors top racing shoe? For that matter how does New Balance allow her to get away without wearing it? Can you imagine any Nike athlete choosing to wear anything other than the NXT% or Alpha Fly? The excuse of "don't really like the fit" is idiotic when the performance benefits are fact. Just saving a few seconds per mile would more than make up for any comfort issue and I'm sure New Balance did everything to insure the best fit for her. Slap in the face to her sponsor IMO.
Sebcoe7 wrote:
I the larger question to ask is why she didn't wear New Balance's carbon racing shoe? She had months to try yet still used a traditional 1500 model. With all the talk about carbon racing shoes how can she not avail herself to her sponsors top racing shoe? For that matter how does New Balance allow her to get away without wearing it? Can you imagine any Nike athlete choosing to wear anything other than the NXT% or Alpha Fly? The excuse of "don't really like the fit" is idiotic when the performance benefits are fact. Just saving a few seconds per mile would more than make up for any comfort issue and I'm sure New Balance did everything to insure the best fit for her. Slap in the face to her sponsor IMO.
Interesting point. I had no idea she didn't wear the new NB racer. Maybe she realllyyyy didn't like how they felt.
Brings up a good question, how much power do the sponsors really have over their athletes?
fact checker 642572498 wrote:
Let's just say it like it is - her coach really messed up her training and preparation for the Olympic Trials. Instead of him admitting his own mistakes, he blames it on Emily. A classless move by Ray Treacy.
You know the course more than a year in advance. Train for the demands of that course. Hit more hills in your preparation. If she wasn't ready for it, the blame is on Ray Treacy.
She should change coaches.
I believe she has; now in Arizona. Good move.
I agree with those who say Treacy is a great coach; look at Huddle from 5-21km. But look at Huddle at the full. Good, but not corresponding with AR caliber performances at shorter distances. As others have pointed out here, not the greatest marathon coach in history by any means. Also, doesn't coach anyone male to any outstanding performances. Not that that's relevant to this topic, but just sayin......
Drop out if you want to...oh well its only the Olympics
It's not an odd excuse wise guy. Some people are better suited to certain conditions than others. And it's no wonder the hills and winds in Atlanta shuffled the field so much. Those are brutal conditions for a marathon, and most of the field was not well suited to them. No surprise, the one runner who was so fast that the conditions didn't make a difference was Galen Rupp.
fact checker 642572498 wrote:
Let's just say it like it is - her coach really messed up her training and preparation for the Olympic Trials. Instead of him admitting his own mistakes, he blames it on Emily. A classless move by Ray Treacy.
You know the course more than a year in advance. Train for the demands of that course. Hit more hills in your preparation. If she wasn't ready for it, the blame is on Ray Treacy.
She should change coaches.
That seems really stupid since Treacy seems to be really good at getting her ready for just about everything else. Maybe she could consider it if she has another ultimate goal of running well on a hilly course with lots of turns and wind but I don’t think that’s the case.
Why can’t we read an article and see the positives? Like she dropped out at mile 21 because she was slowing and the thought was she could bounce back to prepare for the Olympic 10k trials and not risk injury or destroying her legs in the last 5 miles of a race that was turning bleak. Makes sense...why give up her chance at the 10k too? Or the real positive in the article that she adopted a three legged dog right after the trials that everyone else was passing by.
Do any of you actually understand racing wrote:
Is this an attempt for her to justify a bad performance? Absolutely. Does it sound like an excuse? Yes it does. Is she wrong? Well no, not at all.
She is also absolutely right. Different runners, different cyclist, different athletes have different strengths and weaknesses. In cycling, is Peter Sagan right when he says he cant climb like Alaphillipe and that a stage or course that plays to a different rider's strengths isn't suited for him? Yes, he is.
Same said for track, cross, road. Some runners do better on muddy hilly xc courses, some want a flat fast hard as a rock course. Same is true for road running.
It's not that hard to understand different athletes have different backgrounds and strengths and genetics that make better or worse at different types of racing.
*** Yes, I know there are anomalies who are good at it all.
Her 2nd marathon. Do you actually understand racing? You can't run 2 marathons and definitively claim to understand why one went bad and one went well.
In addition and most importantly, ever have a bad day? It's 26.2 miles, not 100 meters.
fact checker 642572498 wrote:
the all time worst take in history wrote:
Congratulations, you win!
Seriously, in horse racing there's an expression, "horse the the course". She just wasn't a good fit for the ATL course. Like a previous poster said, some runners prefer certain surfaces and conditions.
YOU CAN"T CHANGE THAT
A mudder is a mudder, they can not be made to love a fast track.
You can train them all you want, but it WON"T work.
Not even the great Superior JS can pull off that feat.
Except that's BS. The course really wasn't that hard, the hills weren't big at all. Many people ran significant personal bests.
Humans aren't horses. It's not complicated to fix biomechanics so that you aren't horribly inefficient on hills. If she wasn't interested in learning how to run different courses, she should have stuck to the track.
Ray Treacy was outcoached by a 25 year old hardware store worker with no coaching experience (Molly Seidel's coach). It's that simple.
Wow, some of you must really be hobbyjoggers. Who coached her to her first marathon?
Many on this thread have amazed me with their sheer ignorance. I was there, bouncing all over the course. It was tough conditions and I've got more than one picture/video of her near the front facing the brunt of the wind. She had a bad day, period. Geez!
It seems like people who have commented so far may not have read this carefully:
"Atlanta was a bit too extreme for me,” Sisson said. “I don’t want to just chalk it up to it was just the course, and that’s what went wrong. I want to know if there something I can do so this doesn’t happen the next time."
She's looking for other reasons than the course to explain her bad race. If she was saying that it was just the hilly course, presumably she wouldn't be trying to find something to do so it didn't happen next time; she'd just plan to train on more or tougher hills.
I wouldn't call this "making an excuse" at all.
Seems odd though. You'd think a pro runner for NB would take the time to pre-run the course or have an idea beforehand. And if it's not an ideal course.. why do it?
Great Hill TC wrote:
It seems like people who have commented so far may not have read this carefully:
"Atlanta was a bit too extreme for me,” Sisson said. “I don’t want to just chalk it up to it was just the course, and that’s what went wrong. I want to know if there something I can do so this doesn’t happen the next time."
She's looking for other reasons than the course to explain her bad race. If she was saying that it was just the hilly course, presumably she wouldn't be trying to find something to do so it didn't happen next time; she'd just plan to train on more or tougher hills.
I wouldn't call this "making an excuse" at all.
This. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who’d actually read the article!!! I’d hardly call what she said an excuse. If she had said that she would have won had the course had been flatter, then that would’ve been an excuse, but she never said that.