Length matters: Here's why I believe the Abu Dhabi course was short

The 30-35 k split 5k seemed about 1 fast in both the Men's and Women's races, could they have the entire course correct, but misplaced some of the km splits? Hopefully they remeasure the course, I still think those runners are capable of those times LEGITIMATELY, and I also think Rupp and Farah in the right race could run 2:04 and possibly dip under 2:04, time will tell, but absolutely remeasure the course.

Could be that clocks ran slow from 30k-35k.

un minuto for pavor wrote:

Could be that clocks ran slow from 30k-35k.

They would literally need to be running a good chunk of the speed of light and the pace car carrying the clock would need to be very powerful and fueled by francium and uranium.

Looking at other runners split, it does look a little bit short, but not by much. It does look however that the 5km split times might not have been put exactly at the 5-10-15...km mark. The course could be legit but the markers misplaced.

Just buy some data from strava or something

get the user accounts

or cross ref the results with strava and see if anyone wants to give your their data.

I found a bunch of strava accounts who raced. This was the distances reported:

42.59

42.28

42.06

42.08

42.03

42.02

42.06

42.35

42.66

41.98

42.72

41.48

42.04

42.72

42.31

42.01

42.86 - saw some gps jumping there near a building

42.08

42.08

42.20

42.27

The average is 42.23 amongst that group but there are clearly a lot in the 42.05 range and some big outliers.

Take it for what you will

I think it proves that Strata is almost as dubious as Global Warming in data quality.

psyentist wrote:

I found a bunch of strava accounts who raced. This was the distances reported:

The average is 42.23 amongst that group but there are clearly a lot in the 42.05 range and some big outliers.

Take it for what you will

For me, the proof that it’s short is right there. A marathon can be no shorter than 42.17 while taking the tangets. Watches always come up with a longer course due to the turns and people weaving. For the average to be .05km (.02 miles) off, means something is sketchy.

My own gmaps guestimation of the course has it at 26.3 miles, so there's a good chance it was actually accurate.

Proofinthenumbers wrote:

For me, the proof that it’s short is right there. A marathon can be no shorter than 42.17 while taking the tangets. Watches always come up with a longer course due to the turns and people weaving. For the average to be .05km (.02 miles) off, means something is sketchy.

The only thing you prove is your ignorance. From coaching, I get to look at ~10 sets of watches of the same run whenever I go onto strava. Usually ~3 are long, ~3 are short, and ~4 are very close to actual distance.

[/quote]Watches always come up with a longer course due to the turns and people weaving.[/quote]

Always is a terrible word, and completely incorrect in this case. Half the time watches have me running through houses and over lawns when I turn on streets. My watch is almost exclusively short on distance. Online measuring tools with straight lines and accurate turns might give me 6.15 miles while my watch will give me 5.99.

had-crut wrote:

I think it proves that Strata is almost as dubious as Global Warming in data quality.

What is Strava gotta do with anything? You know those data come from the watches....

Proofinthenumbers wrote:

psyentist wrote:

I found a bunch of strava accounts who raced. This was the distances reported:

The average is 42.23 amongst that group but there are clearly a lot in the 42.05 range and some big outliers.

Take it for what you will

For me, the proof that it’s short is right there. A marathon can be no shorter than 42.17 while taking the tangets. Watches always come up with a longer course due to the turns and people weaving. For the average to be .05km (.02 miles) off, means something is sketchy.

You are right about the effect of tangents but the location accuracy in GPS watches is not designed to be accurate to 0.2% which is what we are talking about here.

Proofinthenumbers wrote:

A marathon can be no shorter than 42.17 while taking the tangets.

Nope, it has to be at least 42.195 or it's not legitimate. And that's by the shortest route.

The course measurer will add 0.1% to his own measurement 42.195 meters to ensure accuracy.

Banana Bread wrote:

OP MAN wrote:

What do you expect from queers?

I was thinking of applying for a job on letsrun. I could write articles. I hope to become president of the IAAF someday and becoming a running journalist could literally be a stepping stone for me.

You have to make sure you literally apply for the job.

If we look at the 10 km between 30 and 40, the time can be correct (28'54" is fast but possible with two athletes fighting together at the level of Kipserem and Kiptum).

The same for women (32'39" is fast but possible).

Probably, we had a mistake in the position of the post of 35 km (about 150 meters shorter), and of course the nest space was about 150m longer.

I'm not surprise for the final time. With the new mentality widespread inside the top runners, situations like this can be almost normal, of course when the courses are fast and the weather is ok.

I think that also spectators of athletics have to change their mind, giving to those performances a different importance.

Still very good, but no more exceptional.

Bro Really Like wrote:

My watch is almost exclusively short on distance. Online measuring tools with straight lines and accurate turns might give me 6.15 miles while my watch will give me 5.99.

My watch does this too. It always gives a shorter distance than all of my teammate’s watches.

Yes, I'm jaded. But I just don't believe a 2:06 guy is going ot run 2:04 in his 16th career marathon unless something is off.

But I'm now thinking it may be legit but we may have just experienced a rare WIND-AIDED loop marathon.

I was writing the piece at 1 am. What I hadn't considered was perhaps the records eligible course was wind-aided. When I checked the weather 40 minutes into the race, the wind was 2 mph so it didnt' really cross my mind to see if wind my have helped like it did at World Half in Valencia. But then I got this email over night from Helmut Winter who often is helping set the pace/record the splits in Berlin for the WR attempts.

I can't believe I didn't think to look at the wind as we are known for our Boston wind predictions. I'll look into it now and compare it to the course map.

Strava actually adjusts (I won't say corrects) GPS data based on their global heat map. Essentially, they use all of the data for a particular route to find and adjust your data to the most likely path. https://labs.strava.com/slide/ Some other notes on accuracy and adjustments ... https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216919737-Why-is-Strava-showing-different-data-than-my-Garmin- Garmin's page on accuracy claims, "Garmin GPS receivers are accurate to within 15 meters (49 feet) 95% of the time with a clear view of the sky. Generally, users will see accuracy within 5 to 10 meters (16 to 33 feet) under normal conditions." https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=IcyYpjUzRZ8vwH6C107CE8 The bottom line is that making any kind of conclusions based on gps data is a fool's errand. Garmin and Strava are good for logging, but not accurate or reliable enough for undeniable conclusions.

KAV wrote:

had-crut wrote:

I think it proves that Strata is almost as dubious as Global Warming in data quality.

What is Strava gotta do with anything? You know those data come from the watches....