Petraeus and Mistress were both runners...hmmmm

NYR runner wrote:

Let this be a lesson to all you married women. Keep it looking good, or else. case and point; look at his wife.

Can you blame him?

Keep it looking good ladies.

True. Very true

Not a temp fan. wrote:

Call me when you've done something for the greater good. I doubt you've done 1/1000000th of the thing Patreaus has done in his life.

Dumb jingo. If you want to deify the guy, start by learning how to spell his name.

Greater good? Ask the relatives of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans murdered by the U.S. military how pleased they are to have been graced by the little general's benevolence.

It dismays me that when the subject of infidelity comes up on this board, several posters talk enthusiastically about how they approve of it. Now, I don't fit the stereotypical profile of who most people would think of as the type to speak out on "sexual morality." I'm liberal and not religious. I even support polyamory as long as all involved parties are aware of and okay with the situation--it's not for me, but I believe it can work for the right people. What bothers me about people who cheat though is that they betray the trust of someone in a profound way, even if the other person never finds out (I think most cheaters think they are sneakier than they actually are, with the result being that their partner has to deal with lingering suspicion and growing distrust). Infidelity also puts the other party at the risk of an STI. If you really feel that you have the need to have sexual partners outside of a monogamous relationship, then have the integrity to end the relationship you're currently in, or, better yet, don't enter into one in the first place. I'm not arguing that people should be publicly humiliated, ostracized, or fired for an affair (though in this case I think it's justified to let Petraeaus go insofar as he compromised national security). Call me naive, though, but I do believe in respecting others and keeping promises. If it's naive to have ideals like that, then I'm happy to be naive.

It's indicative of the character of cheaters that they're "brave" enough to put others at risk with their behavior and boast of their exploits on an anonymous message board, but they lack the spine to make the changes to their lifestyle to have the sexual experiences they feel they need in an open and honest way. The great irony is that they're often too weak-willed to stand up to the social pressure to be married and be perceived as someone standing outside of traditional social norms of family and sexuality. In other cases, people who truly love the thrill of cheating and just don't care about the consequences might in fact be sociopaths.

Some perspective here wrote:

Infidelity also puts the other party at the risk of an STI.

STI = "soft tissue injury"?

Ouch! wrote:

Some perspective here wrote:

Infidelity also puts the other party at the risk of an STI.

STI = "soft tissue injury"?

I laughed.

Is it just me or does anyone else find that RW account of Petraeus's pace implausible? It basically implies that he normally runs 5.7 miles at sub-6:00 pace. Racing 5.7 miles at sub-6:00 pace makes you around a 2:52 or so marathoner, so if you believe the article, as of 2008, Petraeus could get off from the couch and run low 2:50s without much training. No doubt if he was trained and tapered he could go mid 2:40s or better according to those times.

Here's why I believe that the article is full of it:

First, he ran a 2:50 flat in 1983 at the age of 32. He's now 60+. Yes, he could be in better shape now than then, relatively speaking. But if anyone actually believes that someone who ran 2:50 flat at 32 could be significantly faster than that at 60+ -- especially if he seems to have been a runner all his like, well, I have a bridge to sell you. (I'm primarily basing this on the assumption that he must have trained at least somewhat to run the 2:50, so it's not like he was the total couch potato-turned-runner where you'd believe substantial late-in-life improvement.)

Second, he apparently would go along with his mistress on some of these runs, and from what I read, they were evenly matched. Well, we have a good indicator of how fast she is -- right around this point in time (2008 or so), she raced a 1:36 half marathon. That's basically the equivalent of a 40:00 over 5.7 miles. (Incidentally, it looks to be right in line with what he ran in an 8K around that time, which indicates that it's a robust conversion.) So that's already a bit over a minute per mile slower than the RW article claims that he was running. Now factor in the fact that she was racing (as was he in the 8k) and he and his companions weren't in these daily 5.7 mile runs? My guess is that they were probably running 7:30s, maybe a touch slower.

So really impressive for someone in his late 50s/early 60s. But the claim that he was routinely running sub-6:00 for 5.7 miles? Either RW is lying about the time, or he's lying about the distance.

RE Stedman wrote:

No wonder Petraeus liked the "intellectual challenge" of the CIA. After decades of playing the standout in the mediocre world of the military, he finally had a chance to see how he measured up in something closer to the real world.

The CIA closer to the real world than the military?

Umm.... wrote:

So really impressive for someone in his late 50s/early 60s. But the claim that he was routinely running sub-6:00 for 5.7 miles? Either RW is lying about the time, or he's lying about the distance.

That's not quite how I understood it- this AP article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNFWL8_J2K0HjX9Wpi6-AOss6mIQ?docId=072e159f714f4e149a07111b94f3174c) says- ""I'd earned varsity letters in cross-country and indoor and outdoor track and finished at the top of my class for athletics at West Point; I wanted to see if he could keep stride during an interview. Instead it became a test for me," she wrote. He eventually increased the pace "until the talk turned to heavy breathing, and we reached a 6-minute-per-mile pace. It was a signature Petraeus move. I think I passed the test, but I didn't bother to transcribe the interview."

I got a feeling this is like the six minute miles in that other thread about the guy's nurse buddy who claimed the whole unit routinely did 6s- as in, not real. Maybe they ran 400 meters in 90 seconds. But a woman with 23:04 5k fitness is NOT suddenly running more than even a short distance at 6.

Couldn't agree more. As someone who's been in the military for 23 years, I'm fully aware of the fact that it has weak links...LIKE ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, PROFESSION, etc. What a DB to suggest that getting where Petraeus got was in ANY WAY easy....

RE Stedman wrote:

Not a temp fan. wrote:

Call me when you've done something for the greater good. I doubt you've done 1/1000000th of the thing Patreaus has done in his life.

Dumb jingo. If you want to deify the guy, start by learning how to spell his name.

Greater good? Ask the relatives of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans murdered by the U.S. military how pleased they are to have been graced by the little general's benevolence.

What "jingo" has to do with it? Nothing. The degree to which anyone was deifying him? Not at all. Get over yourself, RE Stedman.

Paula is a little bit nutty and mucho sluty.Many Army guys are skin hounds. How about their poor kids? White trash say I.

She might do more than boil your pet rabbit-

http://www.businessinsider.com/paula-broadwell-gun-model-2012-11

David Petraeus, as proven by the now three publicly known women who are in his love life, is yet another example of how distance runners drive women wild. No wonder Paul Ryan exaggerated his marathon time. He knows what the ladies find irresistible.

His wife is buuuuuuuuuutt ugly..

Now that is a LOSER!

QUESTIONS 1/ PAULA'S maiden name? 2/ Did Petraeus run track at West Point or play any other varsity sports? 3/WHERE did they first have sex and who was the aggressor ?4/If adultery is a crime in the military what is the ordinary punishment?

Of his two affairs who would rather be with?

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/GenericImages/2012/11/11/afp-515243124-4_3_r560.jpg?f061b7ce9937c38b702e6f308816ac2a14e2a4ec

or

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00354/116445821_kelley_354992c.jpg

Come on Letsrunner's, how can you doubt the General's pace when he was obviously "relaxed."

Unfortunately Petraeus and Broadwell know too much and must be put down (life ended) by the Obama Adminstration for national security reasons. Also Rep Cantor, Rep Boehner, Sen Mitch McConnell knew too early through his Tea Party own spy network and should be considered for the same measures by Obama.

Judging by his only 2 races on Athlinks, I doubt he's capable of maintaining a 6-minute pace. 10 years ago he averaged a 6:22 pace in a 10-mile race.

http://athlinks.com/result/174335/136961/109922034/109979494