Breaking News: Employee 1.1 didn't actually break 5:00 mile on Monday

if you have no idea what I'm talking about, here is the previous thread:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9770713

And here is a video of the race:

https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/1211749690972233730

He doesn't know how short it was but it could be a lot like 100 meters or something.

Can't believe the sleuths didn't catch this.

Maybe he flipped the start and finish line? He said it was 255.8 meters per lap (6.29 laps to a mile) but he ran more like 5.75. His first and last lap splits (67 and 68) are suspiciously fast while the middle 800 is slow (2:45). The splits make sense if you add another ~70 meters (the distance between the start and finish) to the first and last 400.

Yeah, like Rojo said, I realized yesterday that the way we ran it, it couldn't have been accurate. I haven't had the chance to go back and measure the exact distance, but I'd estimate it was at least 100m short, so maybe a 5:20 effort. So ultimately, nowhere close and pretty pathetic (for someone as young as I am who has run a much faster pace/mile than that in the half-marathon).

I was extremely bummed about it when I realized yesterday and am embarrassed that I'm in such bad shape that I can't even tell the difference between a 5-flat effort and a 5:20 effort. Although I did say immediately after the race that I didn't think we were anywhere close to sub-5, so I was shocked to see the 4:59 on the watch. But it's so awkward running in the Civic Center it's hard to tell what the hell you're doing. My pacer Alex is actually in good shape and he thought we did it as well. When I told him yesterday he's like, "What are the odds that we ran the wrong distance and still ran exactly 4:59?"

I wish we had run 5:01 because what sucks is since I genuinely thought I did it on the 30th, I didn't even give myself the chance to run downhill sub-5 on the 31st as my backup plan. Not that I would have considered it "legitimate," but would have liked to get it just to say I did. Now the streak is over for good. Rojo made the point that I can make sure I at least run a sub-5 every decade, so I guess I still have that. I'll try to do a legit sub-5 sometime this winter whenever the weather/snow allows it just for my own peace of mind.

Anyway, I expect to get plenty of shit for this and that's fine, but I certainly wanted to come clean with the truth. Thanks again to everyone who got into it the other day. It was fun regardless.

-Steve

letsrun should actually have a couple of current runners on the payroll. Even the youngest guys are washed up

Thanks for the honesty.

Suppose you flew to somewhere warm that day (Florida?) and had the chance to run with a pacer on an outdoor Mondo track wearing spikes. Do you think you could have run sub 5 in those conditions at that time?

TBH he looked pretty spent after the run. Probably couldn’t have run much faster. So if it was 100m short, and he was at 4:59.xx, odds are slim to none that he could’ve threatened sub 5 the next day

He’s still probably got a sub 5 1500 m streak going though

Start time: 3:45 on the video

Lap 1: 4:31 (46")

Lap 2: 5:22 (51")

Lap 3: 6:16 (54")

Lap 4: 7:13 (57")

Lap 5: 8:09 (56")

Finish: 8:44

Alternatively:

Lap 0.7: 4:18

Lap 1.7: 5:07 (49")

Lap 2.7: 6:01 (54")

Lap 3.7: 6:57 (56")

Lap 4.7: 7:54 (57")

Lap 5.7: 8:44 (50") - finish

This might warrant a black page.

It's like finding out Santa Claus isn't real.

What’s the joke?

Soprano wrote:

I was extremely bummed about it when I realized yesterday and am embarrassed that I'm in such bad shape that I can't even tell the difference between a 5-flat effort and a 5:20 effort.

-Steve

Cheer up, Chum. I used to be really fast. I took about 3-4 years off of zero exercise of any kind but I only put on 5-10 pounds and decided to enter a local mile race. I thought I could breeze a 5:30 and with a little effort run close to 5 flat. I ran 6:27 after going out way too fast and completely blowing up. 9 year old girls were kicking past me the final 200 meters and I had no say in it.

Followed the other thread wrote:

Start time: 3:45 on the video

Lap 1: 4:31 (46")

Lap 2: 5:22 (51")

Lap 3: 6:16 (54")

Lap 4: 7:13 (57")

Lap 5: 8:09 (56")

Finish: 8:44

Alternatively:

Lap 0.7: 4:18

Lap 1.7: 5:07 (49")

Lap 2.7: 6:01 (54")

Lap 3.7: 6:57 (56")

Lap 4.7: 7:54 (57")

Lap 5.7: 8:44 (50") - finish

Thanks. Assuming a 255.8m lap, splits would be:

Time Distance Overall Pace

00:46 255.8 04:49.4

01:37 511.6 05:05.1

02:31 767.4 05:16.7

03:28 1023.2 05:27.2

04:24 1279 05:32.2

04:59

Interpolating between laps to estimate 400 splits we get 1:15, 2:38, 4:07

Assuming my hypothesis is correct that he flipped the start and finish then he covered 1460m in 4:59 or 5:29 pace which matches up with those splits. The question is where he got the odd 400m splits. If the markers were placed using the correct start line, that would explain the 1200m split and the 400m split (accidentally using the 1200m line) but that doesn't explain how he got an accurate 800m split.

Followed the other thread wrote:

Start time: 3:45 on the video

Lap 1: 4:31 (46")

Lap 2: 5:22 (51")

Lap 3: 6:16 (54")

Lap 4: 7:13 (57")

Lap 5: 8:09 (56")

Finish: 8:44

Alternatively:

Lap 0.72: 4:18

Lap 1.72: 5:07 (49")

Lap 2.72: 6:01 (54")

Lap 3.72: 6:57 (56")

Lap 4.72: 7:54 (57")

Lap 5.72: 8:44 (50") - finish

If one lap was 255.8 meters, you can interpolate and get:

0m - 0 laps - 3:45 on video, 0:00 elapsed time

400m - 1.56 laps - 4:59 on video, 1:14 elapsed time (74" lap)

800m - 3.13 laps - 6:23 on video, 2:38 elapsed time (84" lap)

1200m - 4.69 laps - 7:52 on video, 4:07 elapsed time (89" lap)

1463m - 5.72 laps - 8:44 on video, 4:59 elapsed time (79" lap pace for 1200-1463m)

1609.3m - 6.29 laps - 5:29 if he kept up that 4:59 1463m pace for the full mile

Hardloper wrote:

Interpolating between laps to estimate 400 splits we get 1:15, 2:38, 4:07

Followed the other thread wrote:

you can interpolate and get:

0m - 0 laps - 3:45 on video, 0:00 elapsed time

400m - 1.56 laps - 4:59 on video, 1:14 elapsed time (74" lap)

800m - 3.13 laps - 6:23 on video, 2:38 elapsed time (84" lap)

1200m - 4.69 laps - 7:52 on video, 4:07 elapsed time (89" lap)

1463m - 5.72 laps - 8:44 on video, 4:59 elapsed time (79" lap pace for 1200-1463m)

1609.3m - 6.29 laps - 5:29 if he kept up that 4:59 1463m pace for the full mile

Beat me to it, but I guess this will be a doublecheck!

Ahem I believe I called it suspect in the original post! I think my call for marathon investigation to check it out was the tipping point

Word on the street is that Mike Rossi is offering $10,000 if employee 1.1 can run a mile under 5.

I trust that Employee 1.1 has been fired by now. This is an outrage and a travesty.

the448miler wrote:

I trust that Employee 1.1 has been fired by now. This is an outrage and a travesty.

He is still their fastest employee, they won't fire him. This thread was for his public apology.

The red flag was running the alleged 65 last 409. Nobody out of shape and without supreme talent could do that, and it’s not something that would sneak up on you either. You’d feel like you were on a jailbreak, not oh I kicked it in.

Apologies and admission of guilt don't mean crap to me.

I've already contacted Derek aka "Doubler" and expect a lengthy write up on his site soon. How do we know any of these alleged 5 minute miles the previous years were, in fact, both sub 5 and a full mile?

Come clean now Employee 1.1. The truth shall set you free!! ;)