Does it bother you when people claim false PR's? Should it?

Your first paragraph says more about you than it does about the local HS runners. I'm surprised you still have a job. I would fire you.

I used to work with a guy who claimed he regularly knocked out and easy 6 miles in 36 minutes in training. He wasn't a runner and never did races, but went to the gym and lifted weights and practised boxing.

I never argued with him, just smiled and nodded.

About 30 years ago, one of my older high school teammates, a spinter, came back to tell us what college was like for him. He was on partial scholarship, in what he learned was an incredible recruiting class for a team on the way up in the NCAAs. He had one of the worst PRs in the 100, but was happy to be with such an elite group. One of the earliest practices was a time trial in the 100. To his astonishment, he won. Evidently, the runners and possibly their coaches lied about their times to get the scholarships. This was all pre-internet readily available meet results, so lying apparently did pay. He remained one of their top sprinters and most of the liars never amounted to anything on the track.

he maned up wrote:

What's the general thought on claiming a pr from a split?

This has always been tough for me as I ran a 3:42.2 1500 split but never quite matched in an open (3:44). So on the one hand I like to lay claim to having run the equivalent of a 4 minute mile, but I always feel like I have to qualify it to people that it was a split.

It depends on who you are talking to.

If you are talking to a knowledgeable track person it is good to qualify it as a split as you are doing here, it is your best performance.

Talking to an average person I think it's OK to say you ran "about a 4 minute mile". I would not say that you "ran a 4 minute mile". I don't think your conscience would let you phrase it that way.

In general when I can tell that someone is lying about their PR I don't saying anything but I make a quiet assesment of their character and anything else that they claim.

cgrunner21 wrote:

You are actually supposed to take the splits when the runner crosses the start line before/after each handoff.

That's great that it's supposed to be that way, but most people tend to time from handoff to handoff.

All else being equal, and not knowing whether his coach is competent in the ways of timing splits or not, it's "safer" to assume he did it how most people do it.

Honestly, how else do you account for the fact that his 1500 relay split is 2 seconds faster than his best open time? He probably ran the 4x1500 once per year at the Penn Relays or something, and he probably ran the open 1500 eight times as often.

Michael Johnson's 42.91 400 split came at the same World Championships where he ran 43.65 for the open. His was an "official" split, meaning it was timed using FAT and from starting line to finish line, yet he still gained 0.74 seconds just from the running start. If we're talking unofficial splits where it's hand-timed and the timer may or may not be timing from handoff to handoff, well, that's why our friend who's best open time was a 3:44 suddenly ran a 3:42.2.

I was once introduced to another girl who I was told was also a runner and had been recruited by a DI school. While making small talk, she mentioned that she'd run for a nearby high school and come in 2nd in a road race in my hometown.

At home, I decided to look at the old results from that road race. I was surprised to discover that the only year her name was in the race results, I knew the 2nd place finisher and she wasn't it. I was. Her DI recruited times turned out to be more like 25 minute 5Ks.

yetanotherchick wrote:

I was once introduced to another girl who I was told was also a runner and had been recruited by a DI school. While making small talk, she mentioned that she'd run for a nearby high school and come in 2nd in a road race in my hometown.

At home, I decided to look at the old results from that road race. I was surprised to discover that the only year her name was in the race results, I knew the 2nd place finisher and she wasn't it. I was. Her DI recruited times turned out to be more like 25 minute 5Ks.

Wofford?

Some friends of mine and I were watching a race in Central Park when a young woman walked up and asked us what the event was. We told her, and she seemed interested--she said she'd just moved from California and thought she'd try a road race in the park. I asked if she'd raced before, and she said yes, she'd run some 5Ks a while back. One of us asked what kind of time she ran. "Oh, about 15:45, but that was back then--I couldn't do that now." We held our tongues--she seemed very nice, so no one pressed her for details. As she was about to leave, I said "You should check out our team, come to a workout sometime. "Sure, thanks," she said. I asked, "Do you have an easy e-mail address? I'll send you a link to our website." "Yeah, it's pretty easy--it's just Julia Stamps at yahoo.com."

First, I don't see how any kid that's in college or HS these days can lie about a PR or a performance. You can look it all up in like 2 seconds!

As a masters runner the BS is worse because back in our day there was no big data base or websites. Some guys in their 40's take the "the older I get the better I was" philosophy to heart. The BS gets hipwader deep at times.

No but it bothers me when people claim falsely to have met Julia Stamps.

Need tire info wrote:

As a former world record holder in three different track events, two relays, and one throwing event, it really doesn't bother me at all when people lie about past performances.

I know I was better than them, that is all that matters.

How did you miss the jumps?

I like to go around saying I once beat Coe and Ovett in the same race, but no-one believes me.

There was a teammate of mine at a juco that I ran at for one semester who claimed to have gotten 7th in the state xc meet in 2A his senior year. We had the guy who actually did get 7th in 2A who promptly said "that's funny, because I got 7th in the state in 2A." The former replied with "well, maybe it was 1A." Me and a teammate looked up the state results later and found out he didn't even place in the top 70. He also claimed to have run a 1:52-54 800, even though he was nowhere near the top guys in speedwork even when healthy.

whatutalkinboutwillis wrote:

We have a kid on our team who claimed he got 4th in the 3200@ state in D2 his senior year, which was really funny at the time cas the one kid on our team was like "hey i got 4th in the 3200 in d2 our senior year"..it was hilarious

But its pretty bad b/c the kid lies about his workout times..he will cross the line a good 3 seconds behind us, and when the coach asks for his time he will say he ran faster than us..thats when it pisses me off the most..but ive come to realize its a disease for him and if hes that much of a little bitch to have to lie his way through running and life ive learned to just laugh that he actually needs to

That reminds me of the movie, Marathon Man.

When Dustin Hoffman introduces his (improbably) beautiful new girlfriend to his secret-agent brother (Roy Scheider), his brother smells a rat. So, he makes a little small talk with her, and when she says that she's from a tiny skiing village, he goes with the lie and fabricates that he knows a ski instructor there, and makes up a name ("Horst", or something). She bites and says she knows the guy, which thereby exposes her as a fake.

It's a simple, yet effective, lie-detecting technique, and could be used anywhere!

Its so easy to check times on the net, at least for road races or marathons. I get a great kick out of checking up on the liars and then confronting them (as long as they arent potentially violent). What great fun!! Enjoy!!

cheat wrote:

Only bothers me when coaches and unattached athletes lie about their entry times and bump people out of competitive heats. If you haven't run a time, you can't put it down as an entry. Especially if, just using the 800m as an example, you're putting down 1:52.00 and bumping out a guy who's really run 1:52.23 from a good heat he deserves to be in. That's really bothersome.

Ever heard of the Stanford Invitational?

It obviously depends on how much they "lie". Two seconds in a 2 mile is nothing, OP, unless they are claiming to have challenged some record. If a 9:47 guy says he ran "like 945" that isn't really lying. Obviously if a 54 400 guy says he ran 51 that's a little different.