It really doesn't matter what you say here, because as I said above, letsrunners have been voting with their posts for a long time in favor of discussing sprinting. Maybe that's because US sprinters win and distance runners make excuses.
But it is not up to sprinters to make up for the incompetence of distance (over 1500m) programs in the US. In Beijing, US male sprinters won 12 out of a possible 15 total medals. Distance runners won NOTHING--and except for Lagat, they really weren't even in contention.
So instead of discussing whether letsrun should be covering sprinting, maybe we should be discussing whether USATF should continue spending USOC funds at all on long distance. Maybe we should spend that money on finding the next Carl or the next Webb, and let the long distance people run road races.
Those medals aren't worthless. Usain Bolt is demanding--and getting--$250,000 a race. That's what happens when you have the talent and do the training to be the best in the world at your event instead of making excuses. Being the best is what people care about, which is why people do not care about distance running.
And what you are saying above is exactly what the problem is. You are not talking about WINNING an athletic event. You are talking about participating in a fitness event. Remember the Tergat comment about how he thinks about world records when he goes out to train? Bolt talks about winning. Gay talks about winning. Wariner talks about getting back to where he was (winning). And of course Lagat talks about winning.
YOU talk about jogging for fitness, and I think that mindset is a lot of the problem in the US beyond 1500m.
It's about WINNING, not about running 100mpw so you can write big numbers down in your logbook. This is the difference between an athlete and a fitness jogger.
Typical lack of knowledge one sees from distance runners. You don't even understand the most basic truth: Distance running is sprinting limited by the cardiovascular system. In sprinting (below 400h at least and for high quality athletes) you don't have cardio effects, so you train for muscular power output.
The alactic system runs out of maximum power at 7 seconds.
Partial recovery of creatine phospate occurs in 3 minutes. Full recovery requires 7-10 minutes, CNS recovery requires longer than this.
The glycolytic system peaks at 40 seconds at maximum effort.
Acceleration power lasts for a maximum of 30-50 meters (depending on the quality of the athlete).
Maximum velocity lasts for TWO SECONDS. That's it.
A high level 400 runner is producing 10 mmol/l at the end of the race. 15 minutes later, it's 20 mmol/l, and it takes a full 30 minutes to get back down.
Any sprint event is a blending of several of these physiology facts. Sprint coaches (and middle distance coaches) understand these facts and blend training appropriately, which can involve very long rests. They train to win and do what is necessary to win.
Long distance runners seem preoccupied with their mileage, logbooks, and obsessive compulsive behavior and adjust their training to fit their mileage obsessions.
Why does a marathon runner race precisely 42,195 meters? Because that's how long the race is. If you compete in a 200m event, you sprint 200 meters (well, unless you're Asafa Powell in a 100, when it's really 85 meters you sprint).
Duh.
You are not fast. And that's what you're problem is. Because you know that people--including distance runners--like watching people who are a lot faster than you are. So you bring up mindless nonsense about how much better you are if you run 100 miles a week. They give out medals for winning track events. They don't give out medals for training volume.