U.S. Olympic Trials (Read 1539 times)

Here is the teevee schedule: Click

http://www.nbcolympics.com/liveextra/help/index.html#Q2

Q: What is NBC Olympics Live Extra?
A: A video experience featuring live streams of select U.S. Olympic Trials (June 23-July 2) and every sport on the London Olympic program, including Swimming, Gymnastics, Track & Field, Basketball and more. It’s available exclusively online at NBCOlympics.com and via the NBC Olympics “Live Extra” mobile/tablet App (available early July).

Q: What is required for accessing Live Extra content?
A: You will need to verify that you subscribe to a cable, satellite or telco video tier that includes CNBC and MSNBC. There is no additional charge.

According to the info, they are going to stream "select" trials events.  I'm sure to test this exact thing.

Today is 6/22 (I know, it's my birthday! woot!)

They are advertising events starting 6/23.

It is possible everything will be working tomorrow and the stuff is intentionally not there at the moment.

Holy crap Richards!  Way to make what otherwise could have been a very boring women's 10,000m.

I was a bit irritated by the whole Rupp "helping" Ritz thing though.  Typically if you are trying to help someone achieve a certain time, you actually get in front of them and do some of the work.  Rupp followed on his shoulder almost the whole race, and never took a step in front until he passed and immediately pulled away.  Ritz earned that A standard all by himself.

I thought I saw Rupp & Ritz changing off every 800, at least in the first half -- and only when it wasn't showing commercials, of course.

Perhaps I missed it?  The commercial cutaways were annoying.  But at least it was on TV.

That was a gutsy run by Richards.

 

I don't know anything about this stuff so here's what I'm trying to figure out... Wouldn't it stand to reason that Uhl, Cheron-Bawcom, or even Flanagan had a disincentive to run the A standard yesterday and strategically not push that slightly faster pace earlier on in the race when it would have been necessary?

Yes and no.

Yes, it was to their advantage that noone hit the standard in that race who didn't already have it.  However, even with them moving to the front, any chance at more than the solo effort we saw by one runner (whose name I can't remember) was put out of possibility early in the race due to the slow pace.  I didn't see them really trying to take a group into contention for the standard.

No, if one of them wanted to add a Trials Champion credential to their resume.  That's really the only reason for Flanagan to be there, to compete for a win/place there as she already said she wasn't running it in London.  In that case, you want to burn out the people with good kicks before you get into the closing laps where they can use that kick even if capable of a slower overall time.

That was a gutsy run by Richards.

 

I don't know anything about this stuff so here's what I'm trying to figure out... Wouldn't it stand to reason that Uhl, Cheron-Bawcom, or even Flanagan had a disincentive to run the A standard yesterday and strategically not push that slightly faster pace earlier on in the race when it would have been necessary?

Yes, that's why they didn't push the pace early on in the race.  At no point were they on pace to beat the A standard.  Even when the girl with the Cal singlet (Maier?) went out front alone, she was never quite on A standard pace.

Yes, that's why they didn't push the pace early on in the race.  At no point were they on pace to beat the A standard.  Even when the girl with the Cal singlet (Maier?) went out front alone, she was never quite on A standard pace.

Deb Maier of Cal from letsrun thread