The New UncleB wrote:
"But the real meat of this debate is the effect of the wind on the times? Let's repeat that this question is unanswerable."
Perhaps you shouldn't edit the article for choice quotes?
He only says that they cannot quantify EXACTLY what the time would have been like on a flat course, as the part that you conveniently edited out says,
"We will never know exactly what Mutai would be capable of on a flat, fast course like Berlin or Rotterdam on a still day. We will never be able to quantify the improvement that might have occurred thanks to the tailwind during today's race."
The article goes on to cite two scientific sources who put the benefit at 3:36 and 3:48. Then goes on to provide a statistical analysis that shows Boston to be 3:03 to 3:27 slower than London and Berlin. Now you have a race that is 3-3:30 slower than London and Berlin and now it's suddenly a minute or two faster? The wind? Nahhhh, couldn't be. That's too obvious. Musta been a superhuman effort.
Why is it that you guys get so upset when the obvious is put right in front of your faces? No one is saying that Mutai, Hall etc did not have great runs. They did. When Obadele Thompson ran 9.69 with a 4.7 meter per second wind behind him, legions of pimple-popping nitwits didn't become enraged when it wasn't accepted as a world record, in fact, people were giggling when they heard that time.
Did Tyson Gay or his friends get angry when his 9.68 at the last Olympic Trials was negated due to the wind?
What is it about yesterday's marathon with twice as strong of a wind that Thompson had makes you go apoplectic? It didn't make Thompson any less of a runner, and it certainly doesn't make Mutai any less of a runner either.
It does, however, make the credibility of your arguments look completely foolish to ignore that elephant in the room.