GWEN JORGENSEN: Letsrun's was 100% wrong about 0% chance

LetsRun is full of a bunch of old, worn out losers who try and put down others. Their oppinion doesn't mean sh1t. I hope she wins Gold.

The odds of me winning the lottery are also non-zero, but I feel comfortable saying that they are approximately zero.

RejectRunner wrote:

LetsRun is full of a bunch of old, worn out losers who try and put down others. Their oppinion doesn't mean sh1t. I hope she wins Gold.

Not quite full. Still room for young losers who put down others.

You're not a publication stating inappropriate personal opinions about someone else. I myself don't think she will win Olympic Gold because by 2020 Almaz Ayana may be in the marathon and the WR maybe 2:13. Top 10 on the year list may take sub 2:19; however, with all that being said my educated opinion I still think Gwen has a much higher chance st Olympic Gold than 0%. Until the marathon gun goes off and she isn't on the starting line her chance is better than zero.

The lady opened up with 15:15 indoors a few months after pregnancy and then a 31:55 where she just ran to win. This year her on could be sub 15 and sub 31:10. By 2020 all the way down to sub 14:50 and sub 30:40. Let's support our emerging stars in their dreams without printing such negativity for all to read and trashing their dreams

VIPAM wrote:

This year her on could be sub 15 and sub 31:10. By 2020 all the way down to sub 14:50 and sub 30:40.

Vipam, I usually like your posts, but in this case you're entirely dreaming.

Plus she'd have to run 14:30 / sub 30 to have any chance.

It must be said that the Olympic Marathon is much more chaotic and unpredictable than London or Berlin.

While there are numerous sub 2:20 runners among the medalists below, it is often the case that the medalists do not all have sub-2:20 credentials and there have been quite a few medalists in the past five cycles who have pr's over 2:20, including a 2:23. I'd think that her chances at medaling at World's would be even higher and she'd not have as much difficulty making the team, so no two peaks in the year needed.

Games Gold Silver Bronze

1984 Los Angeles

Joan Benoit (USA) Grete Waitz (NOR) Rosa Mota (POR)

1988 Seoul

Rosa Mota (POR) Lisa Martin (AUS) Katrin Dörre (GDR)

1992 Barcelona

Valentina Yegorova (EUN) Yuko Arimori (JPN) Lorraine Moller (NZL)

1996 Atlanta

Fatuma Roba (ETH) Valentina Yegorova (RUS) Yuko Arimori (JPN)

2000 Sydney

Naoko Takahashi (JPN) Lidia Șimon (ROU) Joyce Chepchumba (KEN)

2004 Athens

Mizuki Noguchi (JPN) Catherine Ndereba (KEN) Deena Kastor (USA)

2008 Beijing

Constantina Tomescu (ROU) Catherine Ndereba (KEN) Zhou Chunxiu (CHN)

2012 London

Tiki Gelana (ETH) Priscah Jeptoo (KEN) Tatyana Petrova Arkhipova (RUS)

2016 Rio de Janeiro

Jemima Sumgong (KEN) Eunice Kirwa (BRN) Mare Dibaba (ETH)

HAAAAAhahahahahaaaa wrote:

VIPAM wrote:

This year her on could be sub 15 and sub 31:10. By 2020 all the way down to sub 14:50 and sub 30:40.

Vipam, I usually like your posts, but in this case you're entirely dreaming.

Plus she'd have to run 14:30 / sub 30 to have any chance.

No Olympic gold medalist in the women's marathon has ever run under 14:30 for 5000 or 30:00 for 10,000.

RejectRunner wrote:

That would be you wrote:

Not quite full. Still room for young losers who put down others.

I don't put down anybody unless they are a55holes. If you are an a55hole, I will tell you. Like you, fvck you a55hole. .

Only online, champ.

HAAAAAhahahahahaaaa wrote:

Plus she'd have to run 14:30 / sub 30 to have any chance.

Dumbest comment on the thread award winner.

VIPAM wrote:

I still think Gwen has a much higher chance at Olympic Gold than 0%.

What is "much higher" than 0%? Because 1% is not "much higher" and 10% would be an effin joke.

macdaddy wrote:

VIPAM wrote:

I still think Gwen has a much higher chance at Olympic Gold than 0%.

What is "much higher" than 0%? Because 1% is not "much higher" and 10% would be an effin joke.

yeah...it's obvious that she has a non-zero probability. but just how much bigger than zero? 0.1%? Is it really worth starting a thread to bash LRC writers for saying the odds were 0% when they were in fact 0.1%?

RejectRunner wrote:

Everybody who knows me irl knows I act the same exact way I do online. I’m a loud mouthed retard on and off the net. If I think ur an a55hole irl, ull know. I don’t gaf. ?

You are very careful who you hang around.

HAAAAAhahahahahaaaa wrote:

VIPAM wrote:

This year her on could be sub 15 and sub 31:10. By 2020 all the way down to sub 14:50 and sub 30:40.

Vipam, I usually like your posts, but in this case you're entirely dreaming.

Plus she'd have to run 14:30 / sub 30 to have any chance.

She ran 15:15 indoors of off not a lot of training post partum. It seems very reasonable that she could run 15 seconds faster outdoors this year than she did indoors. To then improve by 10 seconds over the next 2 seasons also seems reasonable.

He isn't saying she *will* do those things, just that she *could* do those things, and I find a hard time imagining an argument that she can't possibly hit those times.

Please explain yourself.

But does LR have a 0% probability of being right about Gwen's 0% probability to win OG? Seems like VIPAM is 100% wrong about LR being 100% wrong about Gwen having 0% chance.

The only way that it can be proven is if a time machine existed so that the scenario could be played out numerous times or we could view all of the alternate parallel universes. Otherwise, LR is either going to be proven 100% correct if she loses or they will be proven 0% correct if she wins because the sample size is 1. I tend to agree with LR because she will be competing against the entire field and she will first have to qualify against the field of Americans.

You can say almost anyone has a 0% chance of winning Olympic Gold in the marathon and be right. Only one person every four years wins.

MY POINT is a running publication has a responsibility to ensure they promote the sport their followers and athletes read and to do so with intentionally writing negative remarks that could offend our elite athletes. Especially when they are wrong.

Gwen chance may not be huge but to say ZERO and knowing she does has a chance until the day the 3 placing athletes ccrosses U.S.A Olympic Trials and she isnt one of them, she could be 4th and earn a spot due injury, and then she still have a chance until the winning clean athlete crosses the Olympic finish line and it's not her.

A running website shouldnt places such remarks about elite athletes especially when it's an unwarranted PERSONAL opinion that is 100% correct!

VIPAM wrote:

A running website shouldnt places such remarks about elite athletes especially when it's an unwarranted PERSONAL opinion that is NOT 100% correct!