He "ran over 10 years without missing a day, averaging close to 15 miles." So, conservatively, averaging 14 miles/day, he ran 98 miles per week for a decade. Very impressive.
Positive Contribution wrote:
https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a20854435/the-chief-geek/
malmo wrote:
Wejo, Kathy Mills was a genuine badass. She had more talent then all those girls who stuck with it back in the day.
I read the new Marc Bloom book "Amazing Racers" recently. Kathy Mills Parker was a top runner at Fayetteville-Manlius in the seventies.
Positive Contribution wrote:
He did win the Johnstown Marathon in 1978 running 2:32:55.
https://www.arrs.run/HP_JhnMa.htmAlso.
https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a20854435/the-chief-geek/
That was the marathon I was thinking of. I knew he was a bit either way of 2:30. Thanks.
Nike will ALWAYS promote shareholder value (i.e. increasing cash flows and profits) over taking the side of anti-doping. There's big money in supporting doped athletes.
Look at how much money Nike made off Lance Armstrong. After Lance was busted Nike wasn't penalized at all. Lance was, but Nike didn't have to repay all the profits they made off Lance. It would be naive to think Nike didn't know Lance was doping the whole time.
Same story for the NOP. Nike was aware of the doping regime and once it was uncovered they closed the doors on the NOP. Again, it would be naive to think otherwise.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
Nike will ALWAYS promote shareholder value (i.e. increasing cash flows and profits) over taking the side of anti-doping. There's big money in supporting doped athletes.
Look at how much money Nike made off Lance Armstrong. After Lance was busted Nike wasn't penalized at all. Lance was, but Nike didn't have to repay all the profits they made off Lance. It would be naive to think Nike didn't know Lance was doping the whole time.
Same story for the NOP. Nike was aware of the doping regime and once it was uncovered they closed the doors on the NOP. Again, it would be naive to think otherwise.
I'm not saying Nike wasn't aware of the doping, but how much is NOP really driving shareholder value? NOP - as I understand it - was Phil's (and Mark's it seems, maybe others') passion project. I cannot imagine it returned shareholder value. If sponsoring a running group does, I can't imagine its because of one group over another. NOP existed because Phil wanted to see an American medal in distance events, just like he wanted to see Oregon return to its glory days. I'm not sure there is big money in supporting doped track athletes, especially American distance runners.* Just big egos.
Lance on the other hand made money for Nike. No dispute there.
* This may be changing with the 4%. They were everywhere in Chicago. This may be the first racing shoe that moves a needle for Nike beyond driving long-term brand loyalty. So, in theory, the hype for the 4% could be increased if those running in it are doped and their times are attributable only to the shoes in the mind of the common consumer.
Positive Contribution wrote:
He did win the Johnstown Marathon in 1978 running 2:32:55.
He did get better than he was in Malmo's results above through the early 80s while I was there.
He and Tom Clarke (future Nike senior exec as well) and Fritz were doing the whole biomechanics lab thing with Cavanaugh and grinding out the miles, sometimes with the team, but usually not.
Who'd have thunk it at the time, that those two hit the jackpot?
(No idea where Fritz ended up.)
And yes, Kathy was tough as nails, unfortunately too tough to let her PF heal, so it was over far too soon.
big tent guy wrote:
Positive Contribution wrote:
He did win the Johnstown Marathon in 1978 running 2:32:55.
He did get better than he was in Malmo's results above through the early 80s while I was there. .
Except that he was in Exeter in 1979.
"A couple questions. 1) Article says he ran at Penn State. How good of a runner was he? What years? I did find another LetsRun thread where some guy years ago said he ran with Parker at Penn State."
Good researching, LetsRun. Way to get into the archives and dig in.
"Are the words "topical male hormone" often used by doctors? I just did a google search for the term and tried to exclude the Salazar article and came up with almost nothing for it."
google + website = profit
deletethethirdone? wrote:
"They erred on the wrong side of the line on anti-doping but clearly got a lot else right while he was ceo (growing the company)."
Ivy League. Where your grammar dreams become reality.
Yale clearly isn't what it once was. Read the quote over 3 times and can't figure out what is wrong with it.
wejo wrote:
deletethethirdone? wrote:
"They erred on the wrong side of the line on anti-doping but clearly got a lot else right while he was ceo (growing the company)."
Ivy League. Where your grammar dreams become reality.
Yale clearly isn't what it once was. Read the quote over 3 times and can't figure out what is wrong with it.
It's perfect.
Let’s just all take a moment to visualize Alberto making Galen leave the others in the living room of some Park City condo and taking him upstairs for a closed door massage session where he rubs androgel (in just the right amounts) on the poor kid.
Was it all a dream?
How do you go from running a 5mile xc race in college in 29 minutes to a 2:32 marathon? A 2:32 marathon is like 547 pace.
something isn't right wrote:
How do you go from running a 5mile xc race in college in 29 minutes to a 2:32 marathon? A 2:32 marathon is like 547 pace.
I should have mentioned this in my post. Although "fixie" was not in usage back then, Parker was known to be a fixie. He literally had one gear.
More like 30 minutes than 29 for 5 miles. Don't think that I cherry-picked the results. Those were the only ones where his name pops up on the radar.
something isn't right wrote:
How do you go from running a 5mile xc race in college in 29 minutes to a 2:32 marathon? A 2:32 marathon is like 547 pace.
You do loads and loads of training. I did a fairly similar thing.
HRE wrote:
something isn't right wrote:
How do you go from running a 5mile xc race in college in 29 minutes to a 2:32 marathon? A 2:32 marathon is like 547 pace.
You do loads and loads of training. I did a fairly similar thing.
Or you run on an uncertified course with an 800ft elevation drop. It could have been a different course back then, but if it is uncertified now what are the chances of it being certified back then? Maybe the results of those other 30 marathons would clear the air.
https://www.findmymarathon.com/race-detail.php?zname=Johnstown%20MarathonMore results please wrote:
HRE wrote:
You do loads and loads of training. I did a fairly similar thing.
Or you run on an uncertified course with an 800ft elevation drop. It could have been a different course back then, but if it is uncertified now what are the chances of it being certified back then? Maybe the results of those other 30 marathons would clear the air.
https://www.findmymarathon.com/race-detail.php?zname=Johnstown%20Marathon
That was the course he ran. They used the same course until a couple years ago and I'm not sure they even had the race this year. The actual drop is 896 feet but the distance from the start to the finish line in a direct line is about 200 yards. I found it a killer course. That big drop is of no help because about 800 or so feet of it happens in less than half a mile around seven miles into the race. By eight miles your legs can be pretty trashed and from there the course rolls until the last three or so miles which are totally flat. It is NOT a course I would choose if I was looking for a fast time unless I was the world's best downhill runner. Steve Molnar was a 2:16 guy and has the record for that course set a few years before Parker's win. It was 2:23 and change.
I do not believe the concept of certified courses existed back then. You'd just hear that course was short or not. There was never any question of the accuracy. There were no people finishing at the front with times far better than their normal performances that I ever heard of. I've never seen any other marathon times for Parker but there is no reason to question its legitimacy because of that course.