Mr. Dick Straight wrote:
Not that I think non African (or non African decent) people can't run, this is just too overwhelming.
I hope they are all decent.
RW: Radcliffe has run the equivalent of sub-2 hr marathon
Pro News/Info/Results
Marathons
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
I hope they are all decent. -
talent level wrote:
Balian wrote:
There isn't an equivalent. You either can run sub two hours or you can't. Age and gender grading doesn't count. It's fine for ranking a run as far as value but it's not the same as running 1:59:59.
Radcliffe ran 2:15:25. Great run but that's all it is. A great run. Not equivalent to...
You've got to be kidding. This is all about the equivalent talent level between men and women.
There's the T word again, that mystical attribute that supposedly tells you what an athlete can do. Whenever anyone says talent, they're surely talking nonsense.
Here's what Radcliffe can do: 2:15.xx Since that's the best a woman has ever done, the "equivalent" is 2:02:57, the best a man has ever done. End of discussion.
And anyone who thinks analyses of large populations have any bearing on the "equivalence" of top elites is out of their mind. -
Equality wrote:
I find it odd that women want to be equal with men in areas of employment such as leadership roles and pay. They even want equal money for placing in a race against their own gender even if they have lost to 30 men in a race. Yet when it actually comes to competing men they are against it; their premise being that men are superior. Thus, they want adjusted standards and or separate gender teams. I say it should all be equal. If women want to be equal, they should compete head to head with men. No excuses.
Phenomenal post which is right on the money.
Radcliffe ran 2h 15 XX and was awarded huge amounts of prize and appearance money based on that performance. Race organizers have essentially committed a human rights crime by not awarding the so many faster marathon runners higher amounts of appearance and prize money. Performance in running is measured only by the clock and position finished and prize and appearance money should only be based on these criteria. Doing so otherwise has perverted one of the purest of sports.
The people pointing out that there are structural and hormonal differences in women to take into account are making a completely and utterly ridiculous argument. Why not have a category for runners who weigh over 200 lb as these runners are also handicapped by their structural differences? Or for runners who are less than 4 feet tall? -
Non Sexism wrote:
Equality wrote:
I find it odd that women want to be equal with men in areas of employment such as leadership roles and pay. They even want equal money for placing in a race against their own gender even if they have lost to 30 men in a race. Yet when it actually comes to competing men they are against it; their premise being that men are superior. Thus, they want adjusted standards and or separate gender teams. I say it should all be equal. If women want to be equal, they should compete head to head with men. No excuses.
Phenomenal post which is right on the money.
Radcliffe ran 2h 15 XX and was awarded huge amounts of prize and appearance money based on that performance. Race organizers have essentially committed a human rights crime by not awarding the so many faster marathon runners higher amounts of appearance and prize money. Performance in running is measured only by the clock and position finished and prize and appearance money should only be based on these criteria. Doing so otherwise has perverted one of the purest of sports.
The people pointing out that there are structural and hormonal differences in women to take into account are making a completely and utterly ridiculous argument. Why not have a category for runners who weigh over 200 lb as these runners are also handicapped by their structural differences? Or for runners who are less than 4 feet tall?
while were at it, why not just make it so only land-owning white males can compete for the prize money? -
Athletics Illustrated wrote:
Check my math, but I think these are correct. These are the current world records from 200m to the marathon, for the more common distances for men, women and the percentage slow that they women's times are to the men's times.
200m - Men - 19.19 - Women - 21.34 = 11.2%
400m - Men - 43.18 - Women - 47.60 = 10.2%
800m - Men - 1:40.91 - Women - 1:53.28 = 12.2%
1500m - Men - 3:26.00 - Women - 3:50.46 = 11.7%
3000m - Men - 7:20.67 - Women - 8:06.11 = 10.5%
5000m - Men - 12:37.35 - Women - 14:11.15 = 11.8%
10000m - Men - 26:17.53 - Women - 29:31.78 = 12.2%
21.1k - Men - 58:23 - women - 65:12 = 11.6%
Marathon - Men - 2:02:57 - Women - 2:15:25 = 10.2%
Need to consider this:ALL WOMEN WR´s WERE DONE WITH DOPING ! Paula Radcliffe or everyone else might do blood doping actually or in the past and claim that is clean. Paula authorizes to keep the samples to be analyzed later when doping detect will be more perfect, but she knows, and we all know that self-blood doping is impossible to detect, only if the athlete is caught with his/her blood kept somewhere. -
António Cabral wrote:
Need to consider this:ALL WOMEN WR´s WERE DONE WITH DOPING ! Paula Radcliffe or everyone else might do blood doping actually or in the past and claim that is clean. Paula authorizes to keep the samples to be analyzed later when doping detect will be more perfect, but she knows, and we all know that self-blood doping is impossible to detect, only if the athlete is caught with his/her blood kept somewhere.
And where is the evidence to support your claims? -
Humans aren't always either man or woman. Genders come in a continuous spectrum from 100% male to 100% female. The only way to ensure that female sports are fair would be to only allow mothers to compete. Eventually you could strip a woman of her medals if she doesn't get a child after her career.
-
Paula EPO Queen.
-
Non Sexism wrote:
Equality wrote:
I find it odd that women want to be equal with men in areas of employment such as leadership roles and pay. They even want equal money for placing in a race against their own gender even if they have lost to 30 men in a race. Yet when it actually comes to competing men they are against it; their premise being that men are superior. Thus, they want adjusted standards and or separate gender teams. I say it should all be equal. If women want to be equal, they should compete head to head with men. No excuses.
Phenomenal post which is right on the money.
Radcliffe ran 2h 15 XX and was awarded huge amounts of prize and appearance money based on that performance. Race organizers have essentially committed a human rights crime by not awarding the so many faster marathon runners higher amounts of appearance and prize money. Performance in running is measured only by the clock and position finished and prize and appearance money should only be based on these criteria. Doing so otherwise has perverted one of the purest of sports.
The people pointing out that there are structural and hormonal differences in women to take into account are making a completely and utterly ridiculous argument. Why not have a category for runners who weigh over 200 lb as these runners are also handicapped by their structural differences? Or for runners who are less than 4 feet tall?
Because people who are born obese or only grow to be under 4 feet tall don't make up half the population. -
90% of stats are bullshiiit.
The other half is just rubbish put up by people trying to find a correlation for effort and achievement, -
M. H. Hughes wrote:
And where is the evidence to support your claims?
The athletes don't actually tell us that they are doping, and generally they pass tests
The evidence is mainly circumstancial
Pro-cycling is different
It's a team sport and everyone in the peleton spends time together
Don't make the mistake of believing athletics was any different -
Doping.. wrote:
The evidence is mainly circumstancial
Give us the circumstantial evidence then -
ME run wrote:
Doping.. wrote:
The evidence is mainly circumstancial
Give us the circumstantial evidence then
Don´t bother. He´s just one of the typical LR bullshitters who are bitter because he is a mediocre runner. -
All doped and you can still consider the 100m h and the 400m h.
The evidence is in the number of years that all that records will last and consequently with no one from the late years (even with doping) could break that records. Decades in fact, Remember Marion Jones, with all doping take she couldn´t break the 100m and 200m WR .Most of that records where done without any dope test after they were done.
Besides Radcliffe 2:15 WR was an illegal record abosolutely. In a female exclusive competition, they take 3 kenyans to help her, what in fact creates a big advantage: no wind trouble and pace precise. This is illegal because it´s against the norm/rule of that London marathon edition that states that the female run starts before the male and with JUST women competitors. This record should be take out of the records. They permited the 3 male kenyans to be present just because it was a british white woman and runned in british territory or english language that is the caso of Chicago marathon. When she was take in regular, legal conditions, she couldn´t win no World Champ or the Olympics. However she was a good runner, but try the marathon men run with the best and as it´s impossible to have pacers from the start to the finish as paula did, then use people with a bike or a car to pace and attenuate thye wind from the leaders, and you will see that they will run a sub 2:02. -
facts.. wrote:
fkk wrote:
Brokedown Palace wrote:
...as doping helps women proportionately more than men.
Based on what? Prove this.
Based on the % difference between women's clean v doped performances
The margin is greater for women than men
That is in no way proof. That's not even good statistics because you don't know which performances are doped vs clean. Please say you were just kidding when you wrote that. -
But your complaint about male pacing explains why the women's record has not been touched, not drugs. When Mary Keitany ran 2:18:27, the fastest except Paula, she ran the first half in 1:10:53 and second 1:07:44, with a final 10 km of about 31:30.
Think how much faster Rita Jeptoo could have run when on EPO... in New York, she let Buzunesh Deba go an entire 1 km ahead, before deciding to catch back up and win. In Boston she followed Shalane to a 1:07 first half, slowed as the pack died down, then ran the 24th mile in 4:47 to make everyone else look silly. She never attempted to run 2:15-2:17. -
Equality wrote:
I find it odd that women want to be equal with men in areas of employment such as leadership roles and pay. They even want equal money for placing in a race against their own gender even if they have lost to 30 men in a race. Yet when it actually comes to competing men they are against it; their premise being that men are superior. Thus, they want adjusted standards and or separate gender teams. I say it should all be equal. If women want to be equal, they should compete head to head with men. No excuses.
Non Sexism wrote:Phenomenal post which is right on the money.
Radcliffe ran 2h 15 XX and was awarded huge amounts of prize and appearance money based on that performance. Race organizers have essentially committed a human rights crime by not awarding the so many faster marathon runners higher amounts of appearance and prize money. Performance in running is measured only by the clock and position finished and prize and appearance money should only be based on these criteria. Doing so otherwise has perverted one of the purest of sports.
The people pointing out that there are structural and hormonal differences in women to take into account are making a completely and utterly ridiculous argument. Why not have a category for runners who weigh over 200 lb as these runners are also handicapped by their structural differences? Or for runners who are less than 4 feet tall?
Says the guys who get their @sses beat by women and are bitter about it. Go back to 1955- you're not welcome here. -
Wasn't it Priscah Jeptoo who let Deba get 3:00 ahead in New York?
HardLoper wrote:
Think how much faster Rita Jeptoo could have run when on EPO... in New York, she let Buzunesh Deba go an entire 1 km ahead, before deciding to catch back up and win. -
rekrunner wrote:
Wasn't it Priscah Jeptoo who let Deba get 3:00 ahead in New York?
HardLoper wrote:
Think how much faster Rita Jeptoo could have run when on EPO... in New York, she let Buzunesh Deba go an entire 1 km ahead, before deciding to catch back up and win.
Yeah, my bad -
HardLoper wrote:
But your complaint about male pacing explains why the women's record has not been touched, not drugs. When Mary Keitany ran 2:18:27, the fastest except Paula, she ran the first half in 1:10:53 and second 1:07:44, with a final 10 km of about 31:30.
Think how much faster Rita Jeptoo could have run when on EPO... in New York, she let Buzunesh Deba go an entire 1 km ahead, before deciding to catch back up and win. In Boston she followed Shalane to a 1:07 first half, slowed as the pack died down, then ran the 24th mile in 4:47 to make everyone else look silly. She never attempted to run 2:15-2:17.
Mary Keitany EPO is one kind of doping, but Radcliffe self-blood transfusion is a different one, a better one.
