Does the NY Times EVER fact check?

deucemac wrote:

yeah sam, they're really displaying their liberal bias there. it's probably all part of some leftist conspiracy to brainwash the world. keep reading the Post

Does this really have anything to do with politics?

The media is media. It's about as reliable as a history textbook.

old tymer wrote:

but the bottom line is that Salazar's performance was recognized for some time as the WR.

Is there some reason Clayton's time was not recognized? It's still listed in every marathon best progression that I've been able to find, and of course, it's faster than Salazar's. I don't think it was on a loop course, but I don't think Salazar's was either, was it?

dukerdog wrote:

old tymer wrote:

but the bottom line is that Salazar's performance was recognized for some time as the WR.

Is there some reason Clayton's time was not recognized? It's still listed in every marathon best progression that I've been able to find, and of course, it's faster than Salazar's. I don't think it was on a loop course, but I don't think Salazar's was either, was it?

My last math course was in 1982, so I might be a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that Salazar's 2:08:13 was faster than Clayton's 2:08:33 (or :34, sorry, I forget which it was).

OldXCguy wrote:

old tymer wrote:

Not true. He absolutely did have it--until the NYC course was found to be slightly short. You can interpret that any way you like, but the bottom line is that Salazar's performance was recognized for some time as the WR.

Thanks. I was just about to post that, and you beat me to it.

___________________________________

One could easily argue that Salazar's 1981 NYC Marathon was the the most important ever record-that-wasn't. In many ways, it was more important that several records that proved legitimate. In 1981, the existing WR (Derek Clayton's 2:08:33) was over 12 years old and people just had not gotten close to it. Rodgers and Shorter had only once come within a minute of it (BR's 2:09:27 at '79 Boston), and a lot of marathons got won in 2:11-2:12. But once Salazar smashed the perceived barrier, the floodgates opened. De Castella actually broke the WR two months later, though he didn't get credit for it until months or years later. And by the time de Castella was credited, Jones had already broken the WR again, then Lopes and Jones both ran 2:07; Seko ran several races in 2:08 and de Castella joined the 2:07 club too. Salazar's perceived WR in '81 was like Coe's 3:49.00 in '79 -- it opened a floodgate of fast racing.

There were not world records for the marathon - World Bests started in the mid 80's years after Salazaars 2:08:13. Plus, Clayton's time was on a course that was never verified to be accurate and It is highly unlikely that it would have help up upon re-measurements.

While Fred Lebow was alive, the NYRR kept recognizing Salazar's 2:08:13 as a legitimate world record...I'm not sure if they still do, but I wouldn't be surprised, and that's probably where the writer got his information from.

In response to that guy who responded to me...no, I'm not going to tell you Cruise is straight or that there are WMDs in Iraq. What else ya got?

I know how fashionable it is for the Right to bash the Times, but it is a huge paper with a vast cultural and international scope and does a remarkable job compared with the city's tabloids, which have the depth of comic books. And I've heard Times bashers Hannity and O'Reilly make many many more errors, and Hannity's next apology would be his first.

Name an American paper that comes close to the Times, other than the Washington Post (best on federal gov't stuff, obviously). The WMD stuff was all the Bush administration's bitch, since resigned.

deucemac wrote:

yeah sam, they're really displaying their liberal bias there. it's probably all part of some leftist conspiracy to brainwash the world. keep reading the Post

hey douchebag, who said something about liberal bias? go shoot yourself.

smd wrote:

My last math course was in 1982, so I might be a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that Salazar's 2:08:13 was faster than Clayton's 2:08:33 (or :34, sorry, I forget which it was).

Obviously my knowledge of the history is not as good as yours. That's why I was asking. I thought the 2:09:41 they mentioned was the one that was the soon-to-be-discounted world best.

smd wrote:

My last math course was in 1982, so I might be a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that Salazar's 2:08:13 was faster than Clayton's 2:08:33 (or :34, sorry, I forget which it was).

The course was both short and point-to-point. Neither qualifies Salazar's run as a world record.

so after reading through nearly two pages of posts, is this an accurate summary of the NY Times' errors:

1) they were off by 8 seconds on his 1980 NY marathon time; and

2) they stated that he had a WR when it was really a non-certified world's best?

wow, and to think that they are still in business with mistakes like these. i'd love to read the written work of the OP. i'm sure it would be a joy as i can't imagine there would be even a single typo.