rojo wrote:Can you email what you mean by ARRS and the wind-aided stuff? I don't see how the wind could be a huge deal in London
ventolin^3 wrote:
rojo wrote:Can you email what you mean by ARRS and the wind-aided stuff? I don't see how the wind could be a huge deal in London
ARRS is well known for calculating race-time "bias"
http://www.arrs.net/HP_LonMa.htm
They give the women's bias for '03 as
2,5s/km
-> Paula a "corrected"
2"17'11
men's/women's sprint times are reckoned to be ~ 10% different for equivalence : 10.00 = 11.00, 20.00 = 22.00, etc
from physiology basis, sprints are dominated by muscle = testo & men have a huge advantage in this
with increasing race distance, the effect of testo is much reduced & endurance dominates
( you don't need to be built like harry atkines-arrety to run a M )
for a M, the difference shoud be something like 8 or 9%
for paula's 2"15.25, leaving aside drafting & wind-aided ->
9% -> 2"04'15
8% -> 2"05'24
my gut feeling is that a fair male equivalent is a prelim
2"04-mid/high
Hayduke wrote:
I have no proof, but if Paula is clean, then Lance is clean.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
How can it be wind aided when the course loops back on itself and a lott of the course is between tall buildings
When is she getting all her frozen samples rechecked for trace epo
pr100 wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
How can it be wind aided when the course loops back on itself and a lott of the course is between tall buildings
Because you're on different parts of the course at different times and the wind doesn't have to be blowing in the same direction throughout the race.
(I don't actually know what the wind was doing on the day, but it's at least possible that you get lucky and have the wind behind you all the way round a circular course.)
very favorable conditions
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGLL/2003/4/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&MR=1
http://www.eadt.co.uk/polopoly_fs/7.48568.1395065475!/marathon-route.jpg
pr100 wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
How can it be wind aided when the course loops back on itself and a lott of the course is between tall buildings
Because you're on different parts of the course at different times and the wind doesn't have to be blowing in the same direction throughout the race.
(I don't actually know what the wind was doing on the day, but it's at least possible that you get lucky and have the wind behind you all the way round a circular course.)
dont need a weatherman wrote:
very favorable conditions
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGLL/2003/4/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&MR=1
http://www.eadt.co.uk/polopoly_fs/7.48568.1395065475!/marathon-route.jpg
What lies behind doping in our sport? Either the desire to make money by setting a WR/winning Olympic gold or to show the superiority of a nation or political system as in the GDR of old. (In contemporary Russia there is probably a bit of both factors in play.) It should come as no surprise to anyone that money and dodgy actions by national federations have helped dopers avoid positive tests!
In 1984 & 1988 it is clear that several US athletes got away with stuff- especially in 1984. America had to have a massively successful games for all sorts of commercial and political reasons. In 2012 the pressures on British sport were pretty similar and it would not surprise me in the slightest if several British medalists from those games (across the range of sports) are eventually proven to have cheated. If you doubt that, consider the political pressure the British Olympic Association was placed under to drop its life ban on drug offenders in order that a certain female 400m runner could compete in the Games.
Is Radcliffe "clean"? Until there is evidence to suggest strongly that she is not (and simply running faster than any other female is not strong evidence) her performances have to be accepted. In Armstrong's case, well before he was proven to have cheated there was a whole mass of circumstantial evidence that pointed to his guilt; something lacking, at present, in Radcliffe's case
ventolin^3 wrote:
pr100 wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
How can it be wind aided when the course loops back on itself and a lott of the course is between tall buildings
Because you're on different parts of the course at different times and the wind doesn't have to be blowing in the same direction throughout the race.
(I don't actually know what the wind was doing on the day, but it's at least possible that you get lucky and have the wind behind you all the way round a circular course.)
thank you for saving me the trouble of having to "enlighten" one of the greatest "geniuses" to ever post on an athletics board...
dont need a weatherman wrote:
very favorable conditions
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGLL/2003/4/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&MR=1
http://www.eadt.co.uk/polopoly_fs/7.48568.1395065475!/marathon-route.jpg
ukathleticscoach wrote:If it did happen then surely the drafting effect from the pacemaker would have been negated
Ventolin you don't know what you are talking about, You have no idea what the conditions were. And she didn't run behind the pacemakers, she ran next to them.
Is there any doubt she got help from the wind during the last 6 miles along the Thames - her last 10k was something like 31:40. The London Marathon course finishes far west-northwest of where it starts. The wind was coming from the east-southeast.
People who ran Boston 2011 deny the wind helped them too...
There is no rational reason why a net downhill point to point course such as London is eligible for any sort of record. Only loop courses should qualify for records.
ventolin^3 wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:If it did happen then surely the drafting effect from the pacemaker would have been negated
jeez !
how dumb are you ???
if it was from behind, she gets 2nd advantage apart from winds upto 9m/s behind her, from pacers "cutting" thru air in front of her at :
42195 / 135'25 =
5.2 m/s
with perfect drafting in still conditions, paced from gun-to-tape, a 2"15'25 has to be considered from physics as
2"15'25 (+5.2)
impress me :
go to to mureika's wind/ altitude calculator, input what 42195m in 2"15'25 for 100m is, then give it 5.2 m/s wind, then big up "basic" time back to 42195m
then try & learn from that what a perfectly wabbited gun-to-tape run couda given her as un upper limit advantage even without consideration of winds of upto 9m/s blowing her behind
In the men's race 7 men were together at 40 km
Everybody ran 30-40k faster than 20-30k which is unusual for a marathon
Almost all of them ran PBs
Breathe in breathe out wrote:
In the men's race 7 men were together at 40 km
Everybody ran 30-40k faster than 20-30k which is unusual for a marathon
Almost all of them ran PBs
