Breaking: Nike admits that its sub-2 hr attempt won't come on a legitimate course and won't count for a WR

If you are going to do it on an illegitimate course, why stop there? Steroids and EPO won't invalidate a non-world record attempt either.

Hell Robert Young / Mike Rossi might have a shot at it if they could drive 25 miles in about 1:53. They might be able to run the final 1.2 in sub 7.

-Rojo

Does anyone besides me think it's ironic that in their press release they marketed by mention that Bill Bowerman, Nike’s co-founder and legendary track coach, once said, “The real purpose of running isn't to win a race, it’s to test the limits of the human heart."

How is doing it on a gimmicky course testing the limits of anything? We already know a human can easily travel 26.2 miles in under 2 hours. It's not hard at all on a bike, roller skates, etc.

rojo wrote:

If you are going to do it on an illegitimate course, why stop there? Steroids and EPO won't invalidate a non-world record attempt either.

Exactly. There will be a NEW Mr. 63% at the end of it.

No officially sanctioned race? Then f them. It's a marketing stunt versus an Apollo Mission type endeavor. "Hey, we flew to the moon and back on a simulator..."

Will there be in-competition testing?

So how much do you suppose the pimp in this comical set-up (that would be Nike) is paying its trio of grade-A whores to toss any plans for a genuine spring marathon out the window in favor of this X-Games-style mockery? $100K to show up and $500K to anyone who ducks under two hours?

It must be noted that especially fast runners don't benefit to the same degree, in both absolute and percentile terms, as pack runners do on even generously downhill courses. maybe they'll have a specially designed mega-fan blowing a 30-MPH wind at the leaders' backs just to be on the safe side.

I went from so much excitement to so much disappointment in one day. It's been an emotional rollercoaster

So.......St George 2017?

rojo wrote:

Does anyone besides me think it's ironic that in their press release they marketed by mention that Bill Bowerman, Nike’s co-founder and legendary track coach, once said, “The real purpose of running isn't to win a race, it’s to test the limits of the human heart.".

I think what Nike is going is the equivalent of Nike pissing on the sport in the shower.

Or maybe this idea is the equivalent of Pre driving 26 miles 385 yards while drunk?

Come up with your own analogy....

rojo wrote:

If you are going to do it on an illegitimate course, why stop there? Steroids and EPO won't invalidate a non-world record attempt either.

I'd actually be more interested to see it on a legit course, but where PEDs were allowed. That would finally settle the debate about how much they actually help elite athletes.

It's all nonsense (to use a polite word!).

Nike virtually admitted that it is all a promotional stunt to try and sell some more product - they will probably launch a new range of shoes and clothing on the back of this "record attempt". Nike needs this; several other companies now make better gear for runners than Nike. they maintain their profile by paying big names big money to wear their stuff but there is a limit to how far this takes them commercially.

By the way, don't we already know that running downhill can be faster than running on the flat? Hasn't someone run a mile in something like 3:30 downhill?

Dingler wrote:

I'd actually be more interested to see it on a legit course, but where PEDs were allowed. That would finally settle the debate about how much they actually help elite athletes.

No. This would only settle that debate if we all believed that the current world record was achieved without doping.

But, why do most letsrunners think that nobody can improve the world record from 2:02 to 1:59 without doping on a legitimate course? After all, PR improved the world record from 2:18 to 2:15.

casual obsever wrote:

Dingler wrote:

I'd actually be more interested to see it on a legit course, but where PEDs were allowed. That would finally settle the debate about how much they actually help elite athletes.

No. This would only settle that debate if we all believed that the current world record was achieved without doping.

But, why do most letsrunners think that nobody can improve the world record from 2:02 to 1:59 without doping on a legitimate course? After all, PR improved the world record from 2:18 to 2:15.

Because the men's event is more competitive and so the records are relatively stronger. Many more men compete in the marathon than women and so more men have come along with the talent to lower the marathon WR and have dedicated their lives to doing so.

Uh, Rojo, as a journalist your reading comprehension is abysmal:

Sara Germano wrote:

The company says that while the run won’t be world record-eligible on a sanctioned course, the attempt will “show the potential to break it and enable future times to fall.”

So there you have it. Nike admits what we've been saying all day. Humans are nowhere near running a sub-2 attempt without assistance.

Nowhere does Germano say anything about runners receiving assistance. Until Nike explicitly states what the course will be, you can surmise, but making up facts doesn't help at all. Especially with your credibility as a legitimate news source.

Try reporting on fact. Then condemn when you have the details.

Until Nike explicitly states what the course will be

26.2 miles up in a balloon. 26.2 miles of free fall.

BullSlacker wrote:

Many more men compete in the marathon than women and so more men have come along with the talent to lower the marathon WR and have dedicated their lives to doing so.

Interesting point. I found

In 2013, 43% of the marathon runners in the US were female, thus 57/43 = 1.3 times more men; and in 2000, it was 38%, so 62/38 = 1.6 times more men.

So you are correct to state that "more men have come along...", but it's not even twice as many.

Maybe all we need for a sub-2 is a talented man to come along, and use ostrich blood and Müller-Wohlfahrt's expertise.

Do you even internet? wrote:

Uh, Rojo, as a journalist your reading comprehension is abysmal:

Nowhere does Germano say anything about runners receiving assistance. Until Nike explicitly states what the course will be, you can surmise, but making up facts doesn't help at all. Especially with your credibility as a legitimate news source.

Try reporting on fact. Then condemn when you have the details.

What part of "the run won’t be world record-eligible on a sanctioned course" do you not understand?

If you are running the course on a non-records eligible course, then you are receiving assistance - either by wind, elevation drop , etc.

I have a buddy that went to Dartmouth. He was like a 4:05-4:10 miler on the track. Every year they'd run a mile down a mountain for kicks and giggles. He ran 3:53. By your logic, he's one of the best guys in NCAA history. In reality, he couldn't even make the NCAA meet and this was back in 1996.

I thinking about offering $100,000 to the first women to break 4 in the mile on that very same course. Imagine how much publicity I'd generate.

the attempt will “show the potential to break it and enable future times to fall.”[/quote]

So there you have it. Nike admits what we've been saying all day. Humans are nowhere near running a sub-2 attempt without assistance.

You just hate nike. When Bannister broke for it wasn't in a sanctioned race or part of a meet. It was basically a time trial and he had pacers that some people complained about.

Since there is no "standard" course for a marathon I don't get what you beef is.

His story was about to make yo wrote:

Since there is no "standard" course for a marathon I don't get what you beef is.

Stop with the semantics. There is no standard marathon course but there is a well-defined standard of what is 'records-eligible' and what is not.

"The start and finish points on the course, measured along a straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance."

"The decrease in elevation between start and finish shall not exceed an average of 1m per km."

By your logic, since Justin Gatlin once ran 9.45 for 100m, he should be the WR holder for 100?

Boy Rojo, your Ivy League eddication is showing.

Until they actually show what sort of "assistance" will be given you're just sounding off as usual.

People actually going for sub 2 over any kind of course will push the boundaries currently existing.

The biggest thing is not hydration or course selection or shoes but actual athletes trying to do it.