casual obsever wrote:
rojo wrote:If you want to be good at 26.2, you don't want to be in good 5000 shape.
Really? How do you then explain Radcliffe's 5000 m PR at age 30, which came after her 2:15 marathon world record?
If you are hinting towards her suspicious blood values as an explanation, indicative of "likely doping", then wejo won't like it...
You are helping me make my point.
Radcliffe did indeed run a 5000 pb in 2004, at age 30. She ran 14:29 that year in June (and she'd run 2:15 in 2003). Guess what her next marathon was? She was a DNF in Athens in August. So she was super super fit for 5k a few months out before the marathon at the Olympics and then bombed the Olympics. Thanks for helping prove my point.
I've always thought traning for the marathon helps you at 5k/10k in the long term. Just in the short term, it's not good to be in great 5k shape if you are training for a marathon. My brother ran great at 10k when in reality he was training for half the year to be a good marathoner. He never ran a good marathon but all of that strength work benefitted him when he returned to the track.
You certainly aren't making a point for drugs. If Radcliffe was doped to the gills (and perhaps she was but your argumetns aren't helping make that case) I'd think she's have run under 14:00. 2:15 is WAY WAY better than 14:29.