Does a 1:15.55 1/2 by Liz Yelling warrant BBC press??

The sport gets no press, we complain the media sucks. The sports gets coverage, and we complain the runner doesn't deserve it. Runners are KNUTZ.

The sport is focused on individuals in the UK. Any result by Paula is newsworthy and so is any result by Yelling, she is teh European Champ after all. In all likelihood they decided to cover the story before it ever happened.

Whats the problem anyway? If she were a football star we'd be hearing about her kids new playground for 120k. At least its about the athletics. I'm interested and am grateful for whatever number of column inches we get for the sport.

I take it you actually read the report?

Maybe you missed the bit

"The British Olympic marathon runner had to battle against gale force winds before clinching a deserved victory."

Liz is the UK's 2nd best marathoner at present and it is great to read of her races on something like the BBC athletics websites.

Certainly makes a change from "news" of the latest drug scandals...

It's Hayley that's European champ, not Liz! I guess the BBC got a bit confused too!

still, apparently it was blowing a gale during the race and also Liz had done a 23-miler on the Thursday before, so it was a pretty good run in the circumstances.

ah! beat me to it.

a bit much wrote:

It's a bit much to have a headline article in the athletics section of the BBC homepage about Liz Yelling running just under 1:16 for a half.

Anyone else agree with me??

It's a British news website reporting that a top British althlete has won a race in tough conditions - what's the problem with that? Any coverage away from the drugs side is great.

I agree it is good that the BBC give coverage to performances rather than drugs. Anyway, the real discussion we should be having regarding Liz is whether she can be pre-selected for the world XC. Halley and Jo Pavey have both been pre-selected after the Europeans and I can't see Radcliffe being forced to compete in the trial if she wants to run the world XC. Therefore, there is a possibility that the ladies racing at Nottingham will be competing for only 3 places in the long course team. Liz hasn't missed a world XC for years (about 7 I think, although she did do the short course one year) and she wants to compete again this year, but will not be back in the UK for the trial. Last year she was about 13th in the world XC and has been top 20 for the last 2-3 years, but I don't see how UK Athletics can select her without running the trial. Anybody have any thoughts on whether she should be selected on her record and a display of suitable fitness (better than a 75 min half) or is she just going to have to miss out and focus on the London marathon due to her decision to train in NZ? A reflection of how strong UK womens XC running is perhaps?

It would be a shame to have 4 athletes preselected but if they make themselves available on this condition then I suppose they've been good enough in recent years to justify it. At least the 4 arent in the one event (Pavey is short course, right). In any case PR will not be running, will she?

Anyone pre-selected for the mens? Hs Brown indicated he wants to run?

Pavey and Hayley both selected for the long course after 1st and 3rd finishes at Euro XC, don't know whether Pavey will run it though as she has expressed interest in the Euro indoors in Madrid. Hayley sure to run the long race but Radcliffe not yet decided as far as I know, but has expressed an interest and used the world XC as preparation for London in previous years. My guess is she will run if she thinks she is in shape to win it.

Liz Yellings record at the world XC is 13th 8km (2004), 19th 4km (2003), 18th 8km (2002), 17th 8km (2001). Other than '97, she has ran every year since '96.

Kathy Butler also wants to run (12th last year), so potential for 5 UK ladies to finish in the top 20. It would surely not be possible though to pre-select 5 athletes for a team of 6 (I'm not suggesting Butler will not run the trial, but if I'm calling for Liz Yelling to be pre-selected on her world XC record, Butler must also be considered).

For the men, Keska has been preselected for the men's long course after his 7th place finish at the Euro XC. No word on Brown's intentions, although he is also down to run London marathon, and the world XC seems to be a favoured 'warm up'

"Strong Run By Karl Keska to win local 1/2 marathon in 1:08.40"

Despite strong winds, Karl powered to victory in 1:08".......I'm sorry you just wouldn't see a headline like this on the BBC for a British male. It would be more likely lamenting a disasterous run by a British male athlete.

Whilst I have no problem with the reporting of this particular performance I think this debate highlights the relatively raw deal that british males get and the inability of the media to set a performance in context.

For example, Tracy Morris became a media darling after the London Marathon for a performance some 18 minutes short of the womens world record. In comparison with the world record this is worth say a 2-18 for men. I can't imagine the likes of Dave Norman, Huw Lobb, Dave Mitchinson and even Chris Cariss and Dan Robinson recieving the same exposure even though they were equally (and perhaps in Dan's case more) deserving in purely athletic terms. Yes, Tracy deserves a lot of credit for that perofmance and her run in the Olympics but Dan deserves far more in my opinion for his own two excellent marathons.

The fact is that Paula aside we have no-one running below 2-30 for the marathon whereas in the 80's we had people like Sarah Rowell, Veronique Marot, Angie Hulley...and more recently Liz McColgan.

The mens marathon is dertainly not as strong as it has been but I think it's stronger than the womens - trouble is the media portray the opposite.

...too true!

I guess with UK women generally doing well, the media (and general public) equate winning a womens british vest as indicative of a world class athlete. the same cannot be said of the men.

I am not trying to put Liz Yelling down, she is a solid international runner, but like Simo says.......I am just trying to highlight the raw deal the British males do get.....this particular performance by Liz in not newsworthy. A sub 71 minute run would have been newsworthy

Hayley Haining ran 1:13:31 to win the Brass Monkeys Half on Sunday - Tracey Morris was over a minute back in second...

Ah well if Keska ever did do a race, the BBC might be able to report it!

I think he did a short 5 in the States in Nov and then the Euro cross in 2004. Anything else?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/uk_results/default.stm

Above BBC link even as results of the kids races! Hard for the BBC to talk up a best British finish of 12th in the "headline" race however. They need to get some tips from the UKA feature writers on this aspect...

That said, this placing is noted prominently at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4171879.stm

Even get a quote from McCormick .... The women were summarily dismissed further down so little favouritism there.

Simo wrote:

The mens marathon is dertainly not as strong as it has been but I think it's stronger than the womens - trouble is the media portray the opposite.

I know what you are trying to say but the statement does seem rather daft set against:

In 2003, a British woman ran faster than all the men not just in one race but in the whole year. However good it was, no less than 116 UK men have run faster.

Only 3 UK men beat that time in 2004 and only 2 in 2002. How UK men people could beat Kelly Holmes over 800/1500 - many hundreds.

2:15:00 was undoubtedtly the easiest Olympic standard to achieve of all the distance events yet only 2 could achieve it London.

If the "man from the Sun" looks at these sort of things, he's hardly going to conclude the men are doing well.

But only 4 british women (I think - Yelling, Morris, Lodge, Dagne) can get within 20 minutes of the world record (which just happens to be set by a freak of nature!) set against considerably more within 15 minutes of the mens WR.

Also comparing the men against Radcliffe is irrelevant.

Not saying that mens marathon running is in any sort of shape compared with the 80's but in depth it looks to be far better than the womens.

And easy though the 2-15 may have been it was much more challenging than the equivalent womens time. What was it? 2-35/2-37 or something?

Obviously the media man might compare men against Radcliffe but this brings me back to my original point about them being unable to place a performance in context.

The general fact remains that Radcliffe aside we have precious little current marathon talent on the mens or womens side. But last year things did begin to improve...

a bit much wrote:

It's a bit much to have a headline article in the athletics section of the BBC homepage about Liz Yelling running just under 1:16 for a half. According to an age-graded calculator it's equaivalent to a 1:08 for a male

And which age-graded calculator did you use?? There seems to be discrepancies between the "calculators" you use:

From what I posted on another thread using two different calculators, here's what I found for my PRs:

Mercier(http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/index.html):

17:51 female=15:01 male

36:22 female=30:42 male

Marathon Guide (http://www.marathonguide.com/FitnessCalcs/):

17:51 female=15:50 male

36:22 female=32:11 male

Why such a discrepancy? It seems that a better estimate would be to add/subtract a minute for every mile, as this seems to fit the comparison between "most" women and men winners of races. It seems there's only a select few women who defy this (a la Paula Radcliffe). So, using this concept, 1:16=1:03..... how could that be so terrible and not worthy of a headline?!

Simon

There's no point arguing the finer points because as I indicated I know what you mean.

I was just pointing out a few obvious things that Jo Public and media man will look at. Whether you agree with it or not, it is largely the way it is.

Cheers

Tim