Any St.George people out there? Bad wind for the marathon?

ssundwall wrote:

People who whine about SG being allowed to be a qualifier should try running the course first. Go run 14-15 miles above 4500 feet and then try and take advantage of he downhills. Try it and then report back about how easy it was to "parachute in" to the finish.

By my calculations, SG is aided by maybe 90-120 seconds. Miles 8-12 were all slower than OTQ "B" pace this year. In fact, mile 8 was a 6:00 mile for me. Had I run a flat marathon at sea level, there wouldn't have been any 6:00 miles.

. . . .

So stop whining, lace up your shoes and come run the SG marathon with me next year and tell me what a breeze it is to run in 2:18.

This is one of those situations where it would have been better to remain silent.

I remember a guy at the 1992 Olympic trials who had qualified for that race by running a 2:17 or 2:18 at St. George. He made it clear that he that he didn't consider himself to be a sub-2:20 marathoner, that he got into the the trials through the back door, and that he thought it was kind of silly that he should have been allowed to qualify by running that race. I respected that about him.

You don't do yourself any favors by accusing people of "whining" about the legitimacy of "marathon" times recorded on the SG course, by suggesting that criticism of the legitimacy of such times should be restricted to those who run with you for two hours and eighteen minutes, and by posting your delusional "calculations" that "SG is aided by maybe 90-120 seconds."

There are two issue here:

1) Should the USATF allow St.George, or more precisely, any point-to-point marathon to count toward OTQ?

Valid arguments can be made for either side and frankly, I don't care what the decision is. Either way is fine. Just make the decision, make it fair and communicate it to runners.

2) Are the people who run SG and get into the trial lacking moral character and basically cheaters?

This is my biggest problem with this thread. I and the several others who qualified this year and last year don't have an integrity problem. We played by the rules set before us, period. We aren't dopers. We didn't hitch a ride to the finish and we didn't cheat. We played within the rules. Home run hitters who spend their career at Coors Field aren't cheating by hitting home runs in the thin mountain air. It's part of what's allowed. So if you don't like what the rules are, then work to change them but don't criticize those who play within in the rules.

In case I left any doubt in my previous post, there is no question my SG time is faster than if I had run a Chicago-like marathon under the same race conditions as I enjoyed at SG. There is also no doubt in my mind that I would have qualified that day on any of those courses, probably not with an "A" time but certianly under the "B" time, again assuming similar race conditions. So while I may be getting an expense paid trip to NY that was "aided", my qualification for the race itself is well deserved. Fortunately, no one on this board is paying for my Trials expenses so that shouldn't be of concern to anyone.

I was registered for Twin Cities, Chicago and SG so I could have a choice. I selected SG because I knew the course well, I was going to get access to the elite water tables and the weather is VERY predicatable. It turns out I chose correctly.

Do I think my SG PR has an asterisk by it? Yes and no. No in that I PR'd over the previous year by 13 minutes, a clear indication of increased fitness and from hard work. Yes, from the standpont that I would like to replicate that same time on a flat, sea-level course. This is for my own personal satisfaction and not an effort to placate people to look down on SG runners. This is exactly what I did in running Eugene this year. I had a time of 2:31 in the 2006 SG and came back six months later and got a 2:29 on a sea-level, so-so fast Eugene course despite blowing up and running a very stupid race.

So my point is, stop questioning the moral fiber of those who played within the rules and work to change the rules. I have no problem with disallowing SG qualifiers moving forward as long as it includes all marathons that are point to pointers.

ssundwall wrote:

There is also no doubt in my mind that I would have qualified that day on any of those courses, probably not with an "A" time but certianly under the "B" time, again assuming similar race conditions.

That's a very strong statement. A 2:18:55 at the 2007 St. George's Marathon, with its absurd elevation loss and strong tailwind, doesn't come close to a sub-2:22 at the 2007 Twin Cities or Chicago Marathon, so what makes you so sure that you would have run so much better at either of those races?

I don't have a problem with a runner who, whether looking for a PR, a BQ, or an OTQ, looks for the fastest course legal and available.

My problem is with those runners who disregard common sense, physics, and history, and insist that St. George is not an artificially fast course. And in fairnes, you have not, although I think you underestimate the extent of the "bonus" time.

The runners I know who have run there recorded huge PRs, not 90 or 120 seconds. However, I haven't run the course, and I certainly can't comment on the relative fitness of someone I've never seen or met.

ssundwall wrote:

My 1/2 PR is 1:08.

Don't sell yourself short. Your 1/2 PR is 1:07 --- from the second half of St George.

Ok ok, your moral fiber is intact, blah blah blah.

Now have fun gettin' your ass whooped at the trials, I'll be rooting for it.

There was no tailwind to speak of at SG. Reports of that are false. The very light wind was out of the west and was a crosswind for the whole race until entering the canyons from about 15-18 where there was a slight and inconsequential head wind. Wind was neither an aid nor a hindrance at SG this year.

My confidence of qualifying on any of the three courses was based on training progress and resolved mistakes from Eugene where inexperience and stupidity cost dearly. Assuming you are a runner, you certainly understand how important confidence is heading into a 26-mile adventure. In the end, you have to go run it to truly know but my coach and I were confident that I had the fitness and experience to beat 2:22. I made the decision to run SG instead of Chicago with only four weeks left. What pained me most about that decision, although it ended up being the right one, is knowing wouldn't have a pack to run with at SG and I would at Chicago. The power of a pack can be very large not only in helping to eliminate the headwind we runners create, but also for morale over that last 10k. Someday I hope to run a race with lots of 2:18-2:25 guys.

I guess I'm not sure why any runner would root against another runner, especially one who has no chance to be among the fastest runners at the Trials. I would hope that as a running community we would cheer for everyone to do their best, but so be it.

While I would love to "re-qualify" at the Trials, I don't know that the course and my super short recovery time will allow for it.

I've been running for two and a half years and I'm 35 years old in February so I just plan to enjoy this once in a lifetime opportunity.

I wish you luck and success in all of your running endeavors.

ssundwall wrote:

Assuming you are a runner, you certainly understand how important confidence is heading into a 26-mile adventure.

I have run a few marathons. In the quest for fast times, I have never found confidence to be a substitute for fitness. A downhill course and a tailwind, however, can be.

ssundwall wrote:

I wish you luck and success in all of your running endeavors.

Thanks. I'm looking for a downhill track to set a 5k Olympic Trials standard on. Know of any?

No, no, you're thinking all wrong! Get someone to mount a jet blower on the front of a cement truck and have it follow you around the track.

Sean, 2:22:25.4, is the equal to your reported 68:00.00 1/2Mth. It looks like more like 209+ seconds, (3:29) of advantage you gained from the now illegal SG marathon.

The results from SG show that there is NO 4-5% slow down from 1/2M to the full Mth, that there would be resulting in running on a legal course.

For example Geb just ran 59:24 in NYC 1/2M, results in Berlin 2:04:26; 4.75% slower in doubling the distance. You show the remarkable ablity to only slow 2.14% from your 1/2M pr of 68:00? to 2:18:55. How do you explain that ability? We would all love for you to please share how to pull that off.

Holy Toledo wrote:

Thanks. I'm looking for a downhill track to set a 5k Olympic Trials standard on. Know of any?

You need to get control of the anger, son. Don't let it control you.

Holy Toledo wrote:

Thanks. I'm looking for a downhill track to set a 5k Olympic Trials standard on. Know of any?

Yeah...

...Stanford.

So if Geb ran SG and using the same math, he would run 2:01:21, using his 59:24 Ny half mary. Using his 58:55 PR he would run ... 2:00:21, nearly under the two hour mark!!

thinairunr wrote:

Sean, 2:22:25.4, is the equal to your reported 68:00.00 1/2Mth. It looks like more like 209+ seconds, (3:29) of advantage you gained from the now illegal SG marathon.

The results from SG show that there is NO 4-5% slow down from 1/2M to the full Mth, that there would be resulting in running on a legal course.

For example Geb just ran 59:24 in NYC 1/2M, results in Berlin 2:04:26; 4.75% slower in doubling the distance. You show the remarkable ablity to only slow 2.14% from your 1/2M pr of 68:00? to 2:18:55. How do you explain that ability? We would all love for you to please share how to pull that off.

barely legal? wrote:

Holy Toledo wrote:

Thanks. I'm looking for a downhill track to set a 5k Olympic Trials standard on. Know of any?

Yeah...

...Stanford.

wouldn't a downhill track mean every lap has an uphill too?

No, like the pro-St. George arguments, it's a descending spiral.

Ouchie

90 44 Sean Sundwall 34 Snoqualmie, WA Club Northwest 2:30:41

outdated updater wrote:

Ouchie

90 44 Sean Sundwall 34 Snoqualmie, WA Club Northwest 2:30:41

Ia this someone we should know?