Why do you reach that conclusion:
Here he is on 2:16 pace until very late in the game on a course known to wreck havoc on the legs. He was ahead of his Austin mark and, since he had already gotten his Q in Austin, I think is risky Boston strategy makes sense (going for it). Getting a late cramp so that you do not actually finish up on the Austin time does not imply that his Austin time was bogus.
If you really want to make a comparison, set out his marks in both races, and let others draw the conclusions. Your statements of the conclusion is not worth anything if it does not have enough content for other people to come to a similar conclusion. [and do not go to grad school in fields like econ or the sciences because people that can think will eat you alive.]
[quote]buy low sell high wrote:
2:16 pace through 35k...at least according to the athlete tracking.
i hope he does it and shuts up all the bitchers about his Austin time.
Looks like we'll still have to go with the notion that the course was unfairly fast, no?