Why Would Saucony Drop Molly Seidel?

Their professional runners are slow?

not happening wrote:

you people have missed the boat wrote:

...Hoka who has proven to be the best running shoe company on the planet at the current time.

I can't think of any really fast runners running in Hoka.

Well the 50 mile world record holder and undisputed Best Athlete in the world right now in any sport- Big Jim Walmsley, would be a good place to start.

OG Coconino Cowboy wrote:

not happening wrote:

I can't think of any really fast runners running in Hoka.

Well the 50 mile world record holder and undisputed Best Athlete in the world right now in any sport- Big Jim Walmsley, would be a good place to start.

B I G J I M

right from wrong wrote:

Their professional runners are slow?

Which ones are 'fast', relatively speaking? (Their 1500m, 5k, 10k times should be indicative.)

not happening wrote:

you people have missed the boat wrote:

...Hoka who has proven to be the best running shoe company on the planet at the current time.

I can't think of any really fast runners running in Hoka.

Retired now, of course, but Leo Manzano was still racing at a high level after moving from Nike to Hoka - 3:30 1500m, 1:45 800m, 3:53 mile...

You know which ones. You are just doubling down on your losing statement. There are about 10 shoe sponsors of professional athletes. It is ridiculous to say that a professional runners is not fast.

Wejo or Rojo, you guys should change the thread title. Molly wasn't dropped. She just got a better offer elsewhere.

runderun wrote:

Let's be honest, if they ran another trials in Feb/March this year then the smart money would pile on D'Amato to qualify along with Hall

Smart money piled on Hall, Sisson, and Hasay to make the team at the first and only trials, so there's that. D'Amato has proven great at time trialing, she's far from the first person to excel primarily at that. As for sponsorship, she might rightly consider the SM and expo booth product pitch requirements attached to be a poor use of her time.

Old Man Runners wrote:

Why don't runners base themselves in States with no income tax? Especially given they are nomads to begin with -- going from training camps to training camps to races.

Get more take home money.

States with no income tax:

Alaska- yeah, no

Florida- unbearably hot and humid half the year

Texas- very hot and/or humid summers

Nevada - 100+degrees all summer, no running scene

Wyoming, South Dakota - relentless winds, frigid winters, no running scene, no flights

New Hampshire - cold winters, no pro running groups

Tennessee- hot and humid summers, not much of a running scene

Washington - the only decent option, but it's in the farthest corner of the country from everything so you'll be spending a lot of time flying

Plus a lot of these states hit you with high real estate and other taxes. And race winnings are taxable in the state where they're held. And some of your base salary might be due to other states too depending where you're training and racing and where your sponsor's based. But all of it's a moot point anyway, because you're going to live wherever your training group is based.

And race winnings are taxable in the state where they're held. And some of your base salary might be due to other states too depending where you're training and racing and where your sponsor's based. But all of it's a moot point anyway, because you're going to live wherever your training group is based.

Mmmm not true. Doesn't matter where your sponsor is based, it's where you live (it's why so many people who work in Portland Oregon try and live in Vancouver WA). And race winnings aren't taxed in the state where they are held. You get a 1099 at the end of the year and Uncle Sam then takes a cut based on where you file your returns (your state of residency)

not happening wrote:

runderun wrote:

See, running is a short career, maybe 10 years ...If they're smart, they'll make an offer to Keira D'Amato who is rapidly becoming one of the biggest long distance stars in the US. Let's be honest, if they ran another trials in Feb/March this year then the smart money would pile on D'Amato to qualify along with Hall

You seem to ignore the idea that the shoes make a difference in results. KD knows by now. If she had found a faster shoe, she would be running in it. She provides free advertising to Nike in running in their shoes, and their is no compelling reason for Nike to offer much of a contract.

Not ignoring it at all but I know that Saucony and Adidas both have shoes that are in the same ballpark as the Vaporfly. If Saucony offered KD 70-100k to run in their shoes then that would be a pretty strong incentive. The Canadian runner Malindi Elmore did a lab test and found the Endorphin Pro and Vaporfly were equivalent. Maybe KD has enough independent wealth that she could turn down sponsorship to keep running in Nike

Gentleman Savage wrote:

runderun wrote:

Let's be honest, if they ran another trials in Feb/March this year then the smart money would pile on D'Amato to qualify along with Hall

Smart money piled on Hall, Sisson, and Hasay to make the team at the first and only trials, so there's that. D'Amato has proven great at time trialing, she's far from the first person to excel primarily at that. As for sponsorship, she might rightly consider the SM and expo booth product pitch requirements attached to be a poor use of her time.

The Marathon Project was a... race?

Marathon project was a pretty stressful race. Winners earned $5k and D'Amato earned $2k. I think it is more stressful to race against a bunch of equivalent Americans than foreigners who you don't know. Jared Ward is obviously embarrassed at being beaten by some unknown guys. And some top women are embarrassed by being beaten by some old women, one who was unknown a few months ago.

Maybe Puma have agreed to allow her to wear a rival shoe in the Olympics.....

Saucony should go all out and crowbar Sisson away from NB.....

@TheRunningEffect wrote:

She made her first Olympic team, placed high at the London Marathon, and is very young in her career/has lots of potential left. She doesn't seem happy about them dropping her either based on her strava comment replies.

I just don't see why you'd drop one of the best American women marathoners. Makes no sense to me.

They forecasted that the ROI wouldn't be high enough to justify the expense compared to other potential usage of the budget.

runderun wrote:

Gentleman Savage wrote:

Smart money piled on Hall, Sisson, and Hasay to make the team at the first and only trials, so there's that. D'Amato has proven great at time trialing, she's far from the first person to excel primarily at that. As for sponsorship, she might rightly consider the SM and expo booth product pitch requirements attached to be a poor use of her time.

The Marathon Project was a... race?

Which you… didn't watch?

pegleg12 wrote:

And race winnings are taxable in the state where they're held. And some of your base salary might be due to other states too depending where you're training and racing and where your sponsor's based. But all of it's a moot point anyway, because you're going to live wherever your training group is based.

Mmmm not true. Doesn't matter where your sponsor is based, it's where you live (it's why so many people who work in Portland Oregon try and live in Vancouver WA). And race winnings aren't taxed in the state where they are held. You get a 1099 at the end of the year and Uncle Sam then takes a cut based on where you file your returns (your state of residency)

This is just wrong. First of all, Uncle Sam has nothing to do with it. The question is state taxes. States tax income where it is earned. The exception is that many states have reciprocal agreements with their neighbors such that they tax income based on residence. Incidentally, Oregon and Washington do not have such an agreement, so you can't legally escape Oregon taxes by living in Washington. Athletes are most definitely required to pay taxes where the events are held. Many probably do not, if they're not making much money, but that doesn't make it legal. NBA players have to file taxes all over the country.

You are partially correct. You pay tax in the state where you earn it, not where you live. Oregon and Washington have pointed that out in the time of Covid and telework. If you live in Oregon and telework 100%, you work in Oregon and that is who gets the state tax. It doesn't matter where the employer is located. Adidas is a German company. They sponsor Drew Hunter. He pays state tax in the state where he earns the money which would be the place where he lives and trains.

They wanted to place her down gently but she was too heavy, unfortunately.