Casey Clinger BONK, runs 72 minutes for the 2nd half

That's what happens when you are a grandparent

Yeah, it happened.

And I'll be the first to say that I thought he'd do really well, and he didn't. Do we have some idea why? Not really. It was apparent in workouts that Aidan Troutner was mastering the strength stuff better than Casey and Creed but I did not think they would fade like they did, if anything I figured I might be underestimating Aidan.

Was it the long season? Wear and tear from so many races? Is he injured? Just needs more time for strength work? I don't know. I'm not sure he knows. I was wondering a couple days ago why Ed had them on a 64 through half, and then try to negative split race plan, and I now think Ed did secretly know that they still didn't yet have the strength component, and having them go out in 64 was his way of trying to protect them.

But to return to Clayton Young's favorite analogy. "The man in the arena." And Clayton Young would know, because he ran a 2:29 debut marathon at 26 yo. And then ran a 2:16:07 in his second marathon. It is so easy and so comfortable to look at an athlete who didn't master the 26.2 on his first try and to laugh and point. And to write him off and say "oh he's not going to be any good."

I still think he's a top marathoning prospect. I still think he has elite talent. Elite speed. Incredible rider. Maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated. He has still only ever raced over 10k twice. He's never raced a half marathon, or even a road 10k. The dream is delayed. Not denied.

What was YOUR time? What's that? You didn't even run? It's easy to throw stones at people doing things you can't, or won't.

And as already referenced, go read "The man in the arena."

It is not the critic who counts...

Father Time remains undefeated haha

Didn't run, but I did manage to get in a 7 mile run this past week in the midst of my cancer chemo treatment, so I was happy about that.

And I did run faster than Clinger did back in the early 80's.

Let's peel the "facts" of the onion back a little deeper.

Salazar ran 2:09:41 his first time out, also not having run a 1/2 marathon and on a tougher course in windy conditions, NYC 1980.

Casey ran a 27:11 10,000 this year on the track. He ran a 20k road race this year in 58:05, close enough to a half and it translates to a sub 1:01:25 half.

No, he hasn't run a 10k road race....but with his pr's that I listed above, would it make a difference?

Salazar ran 27:25 in 1982, almost 2 years after that first marathon in 1980. Casey ran 14 seconds faster in his best 10,000 and that was before he ran his first marathon.

You said, "Maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated" What?

Respectfully, over-analysis can lead to paralysis, sir. He may have had a bad race. He may have had many things going on, but....it wasn't due to anything even remotely close to what you posted. Whatever happened it had NOTHING to do with the strength component.

Alberto was 22 , Casey is 27.

1982 was a short course and it was not windy at all.

Re-read my post. 1982 was never mentioned for the marathon. 1980 was where Alberto was 22 years old.

But since you brought it up, I was talking about 1980 and it was windy in Alberto's first marathon.

But.....drum roll, so was 1982 in NYC. You are clearly confused. Ask Malmo. As Alberto said after winning in 2:09:29 over Gomez...."the wind seemed to be in our face the entire way today"

You are making things up.

1:53:36 in the video.

1982 was a typo. I meant 1980 (and 1981) I ran all three of them.

I believe that Casey will be a great marathoner. However, he learned very little today. A crash and burn does not help his development. He is starting from square one in his next marathon.

WTF? what do you know about marathoning?

He could have learned one of two things. 1) Its better to be patient in marathons or 2) in competitive racing, especially marathons, sometimes you'll have days like these. You move forward.

Im going to choose to believe you. Gl with the treatment

Fair enough.

1980 and 1982 were both windy races, not light breezes. I never mentioned 1981, not once.

You can look it up yourself. If you were in the race and claimed no wind in 1980 and 1982, well I don't know what to tell you.

******However, the bluster reached 35 miles per hour and originated at the runners’ rear for most of the race. Call it a tailwind, which it was for about 20 miles, but then the course turned south while the wind kept blowing from the north. Or vice versa. Anyway, as Gomez noted, and every marathoner knows, the 6 miles of headwind seemed much more of a handicap than the 20 miles of tailwind had been an aid (1980).

The guy should be peaking around now or soon, and he’s just getting started professionally. Spent way too much time in school, regardless of fault or circumstances.

Boom!!!!