Nike sub 2 Hour Marathon attempt in 2017 & Nike ruins dream Bekele vs. Kipchoge London matchup

SadFace wrote:

http://www.runnersworld.com/marathon/nikes-audacious-plan-break-the-2-hour-marathon-barrier-in-2017

Sad he's wasting his time with this rather than real racing. I'm not sure what Nike are trying to achieve with this. I'm no marketer but throwing all your "tech" at something and failing miserably can't be a good look, surely?

"Real racing"? He's won every single marathon he's entered, including Berlin, Chicago, London, and the Olympics. I'd say he's just looking for new goals.

rojo wrote:

You don't just take 3 minutes off a marathon world record legitimately.

2:18:47 to 2:15:25. It can and did happen.

Tadese??? A 34 year old 2:10 guy? They cannot be that stupid.

jhhjhhh wrote:

It wouldnt be legal. There has to be a loop for the course to be legal, or else a tailwind could let them float a sub 2.

Also, any optimal course they find could have a windy day to shoot down their efforts.

fishy wrote:

rojo wrote:

You don't just take 3 minutes off a marathon world record legitimately.

2:18:47 to 2:15:25. It can and did happen.

Oh boy.

This is a conundrum.

pointer out of things wrote:

Middling in Distance wrote:

It says Nike aren't that interested in the course being record eligible. So it seems all they need is a point to point downhill course?

Could do it tomorrow surely?!

If you don't use a record eligible course what is the point? As been mentioned, there are downhill courses in use today that a top marathoner could probably break 2 hours on. If they pick or create some big downhill course this whole thing turns out to be a bigger joke than what it sounds like.

My guess is technical eligibility won't be their concern but they'll still want a format that people view as legitimate in the unlikely event they break 2. So I could see them using a point to point course but would be shocked if they used one with too much net drop. I could see the three of them running in a tight and planned formation but would be shocked if Nike recruited a phlanx of fast milers to jump in along the course and give them a short draft. Lots of examples but the bottom line is there's no way Nike's going to invest all this money and run the risk that they break 2 and everyone views it as a contrived non-event.

BoneHawk wrote:

Super glad Nike will be beating those losers (besides Bekele) over at the sub-2hr project. That group seemed odd to me

Hahahahaha half the posts in this thread got deleted now I look like a fool for starting a new thread about something with no evidence

Yea. You are right. Nike does not like any bad PR.

For example:

1) Marion Jones

2) Regina Jacobs

3) Justin Gatlin

4) Tyson Gay

5) Lance Armstrong

6) Joe Paterno

7) Jama Aden

8) Maria Sharapova

9) Dennis Mitchell

10) Mary Decker Slaney

11) Rita Jeptoo

12) etc….

What a pointless post. Nike does not like bad PR. IT finds Nike regularly because they operate in a sleazy sport and, many would say, are a sleazy company, but they don't actively court bad PR - no-one does.

Bretom wrote:

What a pointless post. Nike does not like bad PR. IT finds Nike regularly because they operate in a sleazy sport and, many would say, are a sleazy company, but they don't actively court bad PR - no-one does.

Duh.

It is obvious that Nike does not go after bad PR on purpose.

I said Nike does not like bad PR. They deal with any bad PR just like any other business.

You are an idiot.

fishy wrote:

rojo wrote:

You don't just take 3 minutes off a marathon world record legitimately.

2:18:47 to 2:15:25. It can and did happen.

That's women's running. We still don't know really what women are capable of genetically because there isn't nearly as much world wide competition as their is on the men's side due to sexism.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about -- what a human being is capable of?

The world record at 5,000/10,000 and 26.2 are all very simlar on the men's side on an equivalency chart. It's not happening.

Can't wait for Eliud to become even more of a hero by pulling out of this stupidity at the last minute and leaving this heap of nonsense in ruins.

fishy wrote:

rojo wrote:

You don't just take 3 minutes off a marathon world record legitimately.

2:18:47 to 2:15:25. It can and did happen.

Ms. Paula Radcliffe was a Nike runner:

Ms. Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 is equivalent (Purdy tables) to a 4:00 mile, 8:00 3K, 13:53 5K, and 29:03 10K. Paula is way beyond Almaz Ayana, Wang Junxia, and the Dibabas. Paula is the best long distance athlete that has ever lived on this planet.

From wiki:

She has previously asked for the results of a blood test taken at the London Marathon to be made public, saying that she had "absolutely no objection to my test being released".[115]

In 2015, in the wake of revelations of widespread doping in athletics,[116] Radcliffe said that, unlike some other prominent British athletes, she would not be releasing her blood-test history, and discouraged other athletes from doing so.[117] She was later indirectly identified as a suspected doper by MP Jesse Norman during a parliamentary inquiry into blood doping.[118][119] In response, Radcliffe issued a statement in which she "categorically denied" cheating in any form and said she has "nothing to hide".[120] Shortly afterwards, her three suspect test results were leaked, though Radcliffe still refused to release her complete blood-test history.[121] In late November 2015, the IAAF declared that the accusation were "based on the gross misinterpretation of incomplete data". The UK Anti Doping Agency, having received Radcliffe's blood test history via the IAAF, stated that "Ukad has come to the same conclusion as the IAAF review that there is no case to answer".[122]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Ross Tucker has Paula as a 7 on his "suspicious" scale.) Here are some OFF scores from blood test results at his website:

The OFF score= hemoglobin(g/dL) x 10 - 60 x (square root of the reticulocyte%).

Here is the information I used to come to a conclusion on Ms. Radcliffe:

On Oct. 2, 2003…two days before the World Championship Half-Marathon that she won…Paula had a blood test result which had a hemoglobin value of 12.8 g/dL, and a reticulocyte score of 0.59% (of RBCS), which make up an OFF score of 82 pre-race.

On Oct. 4, 2003…Paula had a blood test result which had a hemoglobin value of 15.6 g/dL, and a reticulocyte score of 0.47% (of RBCs), which make up an OFF score of 114.87 post-race.

That is a 21.88% increase in hemoglobin value in 2 days, from 12.8 g/dL to 15.6 g/dL.

To get a rough estimate of hematocrit score (which many people are more familiar with), the hemoglobin score can be multiplied by 3, so the 12.8 Hb would be roughly equivalent to a hematocrit value of 38.4%. A 21.88% increase in hematocrit value in 2 days, from 38.4% to 46.8% is a very large magnitude increase... in a very short amount of time.

Even severe dehydration, which causes a loss of plasma volume, and elevates Hb values, does not increase hemoglobin values more than 15%…even in extreme dehydration after running for 2.5 to 3 hours and losing 4% of bodyweight. Paula ran for 1 hour 7 minutes and also won the race.

Altitude training can increase Hb values by 5 to 10%…and takes 3 to 6 weeks to work. All types of EPO take weeks to work. Cobalt chloride takes weeks to work. Inhalation of xenon or krypton gas to increase erythropoiesis also takes weeks to work. Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers such as FG-4592 also take weeks to work. No other drug or substance that I know of can work in 2 days to increase hemoglobin values by that much.

The only plausible explanation for an increase in hemoglobin values by 21.88% in 2 days is:

1) An autologous blood transfusion by Ms. Paula Radcliffe.

(The reticulocyte score also shows a 20% decrease (from 0.59% of RBCs to 0.47% of RBCs), which is also consistent with a blood transfusion, since the reticulocytes are diluted by the infusion of the old stored blood.)

My conclusion is:

Ms. Paula Radcliffe is a Brit Doper-Cheater-Liarâ„¢.

For more reading on the mechanism of action:

Paula is OFF the charts in every way.

Paula is having a good time at the IAAF gala.

Go Paula.

All calculators are not created equal. Tinman's is the most generous converting half marathon to marathon times. It says Tadese's 58:23 half marathon is equivalent to a 2:01:34 marathon. Still not sub-2.

I wonder if Tadese's economy (supposedly best ever tested by far) is legit. Also wonder if his training has been wrong for the marathon or if he's just way better at the half marathon and always will be.

rojo wrote:

fishy wrote:

2:18:47 to 2:15:25. It can and did happen.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Hahahahahahahaha.

Nike press release says they want to not just break a record, but inspire confidence in others and "within one year, 24 more runners had followed Bannister's lead" running sub-4. That's a complete lie!

Within the first year, Bannister and Landy were the only two to break 4. Within the second year, four more: Tabori, Chataway, Hewson and Bailey. In the third year only three more: Delany, Nielson and Ibbotson.

Does whoever does PR for Nike not realize the internet exists? It literally took me 2 minutes to look up.

There's no possible way to do this at this point in history, with these runners, on any course that isn't a crazy downhill, or without a truck following them with a propeller fan blasting, or a sequence of track stars jumping in every mile or so, or a 4 mile loop with gentle corners prepared with the best track surface ever and a wind breaker treatment surrounding it.

Then again, it is Nike going for this, before an Adidas race pushed the record closer to 2:01.

They'll back out the day before, though, claiming weather or something.

And also, it IS Nike:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03457/Eliud_Kipchoge__3457027b.jpg

Jim Freakin Peters

rojo wrote:

fishy wrote:

2:18:47 to 2:15:25. It can and did happen.

That's women's running. We still don't know really what women are capable of genetically because there isn't nearly as much world wide competition as their is on the men's side due to sexism.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about -- what a human being is capable of?

The world record at 5,000/10,000 and 26.2 are all very simlar on the men's side on an equivalency chart. It's not happening.

http://www.letsrun.com/2007/jkconversion.pdf

In a related story, check out last 2 sentences of 2nd to last paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Watts