Shannon Rowbury Fires back at Jenny Simpson

Dopes on dopers, redux! wrote:

Science man wrote:

Don't be so obtuse. Rowbury is past 30. Jenny is only 24.

NOPe!

Simpson is almost exactly 2 years younger.

She was born on August 23, 1986. Rowbury was born September 19, 1984.

So she's less than two younger. That's effectively nothing at their ages.

I like how Rowbury admits to trying to avoid the drug test. Yeah she's clean. :eyeroll:

Once a doper wrote:

I like how Rowbury admits to trying to avoid the drug test. Yeah she's clean. :eyeroll:

Good for her.

Those things are stupid anyway and should be done away with immediately.

J.R. wrote:

Once a doper wrote:

I like how Rowbury admits to trying to avoid the drug test. Yeah she's clean. :eyeroll:

Good for her.

Those things are stupid anyway and should be done away with immediately.

:eyeroll:

Once a doper wrote:

I like how Rowbury admits to trying to avoid the drug test. Yeah she's clean. :eyeroll:

NOPe! She doesn't want to be Emma Coburn.

Times are very similar wrote:

Jenny also has living at altitude for many years as an added bonus.

Does Rowbury use an altitude tent (or house)?

^^^a practice by itself I don't consider unethical.

what say you? wrote:

Times are very similar wrote:

Jenny also has living at altitude for many years as an added bonus.

Does Rowbury use an altitude tent (or house)?

WADA should test that lipstick.

Doping NOPers wrote:

Every NOPer is a doper.

And what are Jenny's TUE's? Why don't you ask her and see who you call a doper:)

Get with the program, Jack! wrote:

Once a doper wrote:

I like how Rowbury admits to trying to avoid the drug test. Yeah she's clean. :eyeroll:

NOPe! She doesn't want to be Emma Coburn.

Emma didn't avoid a test. There was no test to avoid.

As unbelievable as this may sound....no American 1500/mile (female) runner has finished higher in an Olympic final (ever) than Shannon Rowbury (6th)...the Pinnacle of all running events. This carries a lot of weight and should be mention more...it's the most important stat!

Btw I like all the American 1500 runners

reader of the forums wrote:

Emma didn't avoid a test. There was no test to avoid.

And that was the problem, wasn't it?

As I said, Rowbury did not want to be Emma Coburn.

BigDaddyWooWooo wrote:

As unbelievable as this may sound....no American 1500/mile (female) runner has finished higher in an Olympic final (ever) than Shannon Rowbury (6th)...the Pinnacle of all running events. This carries a lot of weight and should be mention more...it's the most important stat!

Btw I like all the American 1500 runners

Maybe for the flag waving average 'murican, but real runners know that the WCs are just as tough if not tougher than the Olympics.

Jenny has 1 gold and one silver.

SR basically calls Jenny's gold a fluke, but she backed it up in the last 3 years. if anything sR medal was fluke as was this record .

sorry big baddy wrote:

SR basically calls Jenny's gold a fluke, but she backed it up in the last 3 years. if anything sR medal was fluke as was this record .

But her gold was a fluke! Nobody expected her to win. Morgan Uceny, who was regularly beating both Simpson and Rowbury, was the favorite. If she hadn't fallen, things might have turned out differently. And is she hadn't kept falling, who knows what would have happened?

I'm shocked at how quickly we have forgotten Uceny. She, not Simpson, was the first American woman to win the DL championship. In 2011 and 2012, she was clearly the best 1500 runner in the US. Rowbury and Shannon were just competing for second place behind her.

If a runner wins a medal in the Olympic Games you are considered immortal and you got eternal glory....WC not so much....to be honest only running nerds care about it (WC)

the Olympics is track and field....and everybody KNOWs it!

I wanna know, that's all wrote:

neutral fact of the day wrote:

A draft like that is worth about 1/3 of a second every 100 meters...

This sounds plausible, but I wonder if it is true. Do you have any evidence for this claim? Or is this just one of those things that "everybody knows"?

I really am curious. Not trying to be a db, at least not this time!

Of course it depends on ones exact speed, the air density, their frontal area, and coefficient of drag. However, the speeds these ladies race at will typically have a drag "cost" of about 1.3 seconds per 100 meters. My "background" is cycling and I was geeked out enough in it to spend time working with others at the LSWT in San Diego occasionally.

Someone else mentioned another article stated the drag is only 1 second, but that was an approximation to make reading easier for the masses, and that test was at 6 m/s, whereas Jenny was pulling Shannon along at about 6.36 m/s. A 6% increase in speed will cause about 20% more drag. 1 x 1.20 = 1.20 seconds. So call it 1.20 seconds if you like.

Further, if you are clicking off 63 second laps, an energetic "savings" of 1.20 seconds is approximately 2%, but that takes about 3% more power. When you're at your limit 3% more power is, well, more than you can muster.

Someone else mentioned that Jenny should have followed Hassan. Hassan ran a bit of a crazy race. She started at the very back and then blew by everyone. Simpson was in 5th and the lady in 4th with the crazy last name "let" a huge gap open up. At that point I don't think Simpson was in a position to close it considering they were already running faster than would be ideal for her if she had her own rabbit.

That link should cut to the start of 1200 to go. The gap between 3rd and 4th is already huge. The lead trio is shooting for a world record so it would be crazy to think the 5th place runner would go around the 4th place runner on the turn and close a huge gap like that; it's just not going to happen.

Although I'm not a fan of the NOP, my ex ran with Rowbury at Duke and had nothing but great things to say about her, so I think rather highly of her even though I've never met her.

My point was that I believe Simpson is the stronger runner and if she had a proper rabbit Rowbury would not have been able to come around her and likely would have finished at a bare minimum 1 second behind her, but probably closer to 2 seconds.

Again, I think if Simpson can have this sort of form in Brussels, she could take the record. It's not easy to hold peak form, of course.

Olympics are the trump card.

If Rowbury did make the Final in 2012 and Simpson did not, then in her mind Rowbury is going to think she is more successful.

Isntitobvious wrote:

Other than perhaps Mo and Galen, is there anyone more worthy of doping suspicion than Shannon (other than perhaps Trenier a few year back). Her late career trajectory is incredible and worthy of scrutiny. My guess is Jenny's tone is informed by concern/assumption/knowledge that Shannon is doping to beat her.

lol Most of the top Ethiopians and Kenyans are more worthy of doping suspicion you PC twit. Most of them aren't tested out of season, they avoid spot tests constantly.

Time for a cat fight? "Fires back at Jenny?"

Seriously, are you 12 years old or something?