The way that running conveniently lends itself to performances being heavily based on raw, objective data (i.e., times and distances) often leads otherwise smart people to say dumb things. Comparing a 1:57 run in what is obviously's someone's target event on a favorable day at a key time of the season to a 4:30 run in a mixed, off-target race in March at some hick college meet on a windy day makes as much sense as looking at a 3:50 miler running a 2:31 marathon, like Steve Holman did, and immediately whacking off to the conversion tables that indicate just how badly Holman underperformed at 26.2 miles. Actually a better comparison would be going bananas if a guy who runs 13:30 at the NCAA level at Stanford tries his hand at a very hilly 10K road race in July and doesn't quite break 46:00. In reality the two performances aren't necessarily that disparate, but more importantly maybe the guy got a free trip and was asked by his sponsor to show up and at least mail it in, or told to tempo through the thing by a coach.
This place is great for its token "Sure we don't have all the facts" concessions that are immediately followed by conclusions based on the same shaky half-baked assumptions that posters openly say they'll avoid. Marvelous!