But that wasn't the comparison. Blue Dog said, very few people, not very few runners, or very few competitive athletes, or very few Olympic-level competitors. And it's true: very few people can run a 6:30 mile (why are we discussing this in miles anyway? Schwazer does 50k, the relevant measure is his time per K or K per hour). And you know what, even among runners and physically fit people, that pace would be a good one for many distance runners - and they, unlike race walkers, are allowed to have both feet off the ground. You can't compare 10Ks and 50Ks.Not really. I mainly run 5k and 10k, so I'm not a ultra-marathoner, but a 6:30 mile for a male who competitively runs is regarded as average. Maybe not average for the Joe Schmoe who doesn't exercise, but then again, that Joe might have trouble knowing which gyms are in his city. Why would you compare a world record speed to someone who doesn't exercise? If you did that, a 10:00 mile would be impressive. If you were fair, you would compare to runners and the physically fit.
But nobody was talking about running 2-3 km. The point was about longer distances, so the example is not relevant. Few people can do 10 miles in an hour (it's actually more like 9, I think, but never mind that). Most people who do not train regularly for longer distance running cannot run 9 miles/14k in an hour*, or ten miles at all. And as for the comparison to cross country runners and fitness tests, you can't go all out for 5 or 10 km when there are another 40-45 to go. This leaves aside the fact that race walking requires a different technique from running and regular walking.A 6:30 mile is par for most fitness exams for the military, police, and firefighting. Granted, it's not an easy exam and people have to train up their cardio, but marines and police and firefighters are not that rare, so at least at one time they could run that pace for 2 miles. The runners I know do distances between sprints and marathons. I don't personally know any ultra-marathoners, so I can only comment on the shorter distances. And are runners rare? It's one of the easiest sports to get into, and the treadmills gyms are always crammed full of people.
Like I said, I don't consider the entire population. People who are sedentary have no standards of fitness. Moving around the house doing chores is probably their daily exercise. Why would you even put that kind of person in your equation? It's like asking comparing a kindergarteners' play to a Broadway musical. So I only think of people who do regular, vigorous exercise.
You responded to the following statement by blue dog:You're right, it's deliberately misleading to say, look at people who zumba classes and yoga/pilates and say - *they* can't run a very specific distance at this speed so it must be an amazing speed. The comparison should be between other people who run long distances and people who racewalk long distances. I'm sure racewalkers are going to come out at the losing end with that one too, but I feel it's their own fault they refuse to pick up their knees. My problem is with racewalking is that it's pointless as a sport. It requires the cadence of sprinting and the stamina of a marathoner, yet provides neither the speed of the former nor the efficient travel of the latter. In fact, one of its "advantages" is that it burns more calories than walking or running at the same speed. Did someone on the Biggest Loser come up with this?
I suspect Carolina's boyfriend was roiding at Beijing as well, but I don't think the samples will show anything. No steroid has that kind of half life.
You seem to deliberately be missing the point. Most people, even reasonably fit ones, can't run 10 miles in an hour. That is objectively true and I've no idea why you have any problem with it. And really, go out there, race walk 50k - or even 20k - and tell us how it went. Sure, you can narrow it down so that you only compare race walkers high level distance runners, but that's not blue dog was talking about, and it would be like saying that people who swim 200m breaststroke suck because 200m freestyle swimmers are faster.Very few people can run ten miles in an hour, let alone WALK it.
According to the WaPo article I linked to yesterday, they keep samples from the Olympics for eight years. So there isn't going to be a conclusive answer regarding Flo Jo.Wait--I missed that part. They keep old samples, and they're checking them? That would be an amazing piece of forensics.
Can someone tell me, did they ever prove anything against Florence Griffith-Joyner? She always maintained that she was clean. I always wanted to believe her.
Thanks, Buttercup. I guess they keep the samples for eight years in case they find better methods of detection, and when they find someone who has transgressed, they go back and review previous samples to see whether this has been going on all along. Then they rescind medals further back.
I always felt bad over the suspicion against FloJo. Maybe I'm naive.
I do have some sympathy for the predicament that athletes face. The thing about doping is, it works. If you take steroids you will go higher, faster, stronger. If you don't, you will lose to competitors who do.
I feel the same way about swimming as well. Why do we have so many strokes, when some are obviously so slow and not at all functional? It's ridiculous that an athlete like Michael Phelps can get so many medals in the same sport. How many medals are there available in swimming? Multiple each stroke by a distance, and you get way too many medals. It should be like track and field - you get a set number of distances, and that's it. There is no 200 m skipping, 200 m grape vining, 200 m potato sack hopping, and then a 200 m freestyle.
I like that there are different disciplines in swimming. My only issue is that I think people have to keep that in mind when comparing the medal counts of swimmers with those of athletes in other disciplines. I was watching the marathon today, and thought that Stephen Kiprotich's win was pretty cool - the first OGM for his country in 40 years. He might not get the chance to compete for more than a couple more medals at the Olympics during his career, but how's that for impact?For me freestyle swimming would be enough. Luckily there are no disciplines like running backwards or having to use all four limbs etc. I can accept hurdles though. It's like an original way to run in the nature, jumping over logs and stones tripping in water
Of course most of us wouldn't care beyond the usual "doping sucks" comments. Her name is in the thread title and the connection is what makes it interesting to skating fans, because you can also speculate about the effect on Caro (oh please let it be minimal).I think people here wouldn't care about race walk or Schwazer if he wasn't Kostner's boyfriend. Or does everyone here know the famous guys who medaled at the 50 km race in London :sarcasm: I'll reveal that the Irish walker Heffer, who was happy to see the back of Schwazer, was fourth.
As for Heffernan, he finished 4th in both his events, ouch. I kind of had a feeling that it would end this way. An athlete should focus on his own race, not on the fortunes of his competitors. At least not until he's done with the competition.
I like that there are different disciplines in swimming. My only issue is that I think people have to keep that in mind when comparing the medal counts of swimmers with those of athletes in other disciplines. I was watching the marathon today, and thought that Stephen Kiprotich's win was pretty cool - the first OGM for his country in 40 years. He might not get the chance to compete for more than a couple more medals at the Olympics during his career, but how's that for impact?
Of course most of us wouldn't care beyond the usual "doping sucks" comments. Her name is in the thread title and the connection is what makes it interesting to skating fans, because you can also speculate about the effect on Caro (oh please let it be minimal).
As for Heffernan, he finished 4th in both his events, ouch. I kind of had a feeling that it would end this way. An athlete should focus on his own race, not on the fortunes of his competitors. At least not until he's done with the competition.
If the only criterion to determine whether something should be a sport is efficiency in getting from point A to point B, we'll have to do away with a lot of events.