Forums >General Running>Farah vs Bolt 600m race
Rethinking this, I think DB and I were too optimistic at 69-70, for sure, but 79 is way too conservative. As you say, he can run a :50 kick after 13 minutes of suffering. Wouldn't take nuthin' for him to tack a 0:29 200 onto a 50-second quarter run fresh. I'm sure he could do better than that. This distance makes my head hurt!
Well, Farah finished that race in ~14:00, he can run a 5k in ~13:00, keep in mind that minute is a lot tougher than the minute between say 17:00 and 18:00 5ks, so that 400 kick was pretty "fresh" (MTA: I'm saying that his 14:00 5k pace is a lot slower/easier for him than someone else running a minute off their pr 5k pace)
but yeah, 79 felt really slow when I was crunching the numbers, I had him coming through in 52, and adding a 27 (adding another 27 would give him a 1:46 800 which is a fair bit south of his 10 year old 800m [pr?]).
Know thyself.
Brian - You seem to have taken a 180 turn and turned completely cynical after the L A saga. Running can use some drama and hopefully this event will provide that.
Feeling the growl again
Is this going to be a clean race, or will Bolt be allowed PED's? Ya, I'm not a believer in his performance. It seems enhanced beyond normal. Basically, why would anybody care if somebody like Bolt would be beat by (or would beat) somebody else in a made up promotional race? Why do we get excited about high performance athletes up until they get caught doing what they're doing?Then, we quickly throw stones. We should all see the writing on the wall with this guy. Cheers,
Is this going to be a clean race, or will Bolt be allowed PED's?
Ya, I'm not a believer in his performance. It seems enhanced beyond normal.
Basically, why would anybody care if somebody like Bolt would be beat by (or would beat) somebody else in a made up promotional race?
Why do we get excited about high performance athletes up until they get caught doing what they're doing?Then, we quickly throw stones.
We should all see the writing on the wall with this guy.
Cheers,
I think T&F can use all the attention and money it can get. I don't see how this race is any more made up that the the All Star Game or Pro Bowl. Those aren't even real teams playing each other...yet millions of people seem to think they are interesting to watch.
I'm a little confused why you seem so hostile to Bolt when you stood behind Armstrong so long. Or is it because of what happened with Armstrong that you are so suspicious? When they have some evidence that Bolt dopes, I'll be the first to throw stones. Until then, yes his performance is freaky and should draw extra scrutiny but I for one am not one to immediately assume every good person is doping. I do not believe every high performance athlete is on drugs. In fact I think sports like T&F are actually cleaner than ones like MLB and the NFL, where there are many millions on the line and in the way of keeping it clean...and where players' unions have too much control in keeping athletes from being punished for their transgressions.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
I'm cynical. Yes, I guess I've been duped before (Armstrong and Ben Johnson).I'm a big baseball fan as well, and the sport was ruined in the late 1980s.I'm willing to watch a sport like T&F, but I'm not going to sing any athlete's praises. Especially one like Bolt. His events aren't the cleanest events within T&F.
His times are beyond natural.
He could be like Wayne Gretsky, Jesse Owens, Tiger Woods, Richard Petty, or Ted Williams.
Or, he could be like Lance Armstrong (or A-Rod or Ben Johnson or Roger Clemens or Mark McGuire or ...).
It's hard to idolize a baseball player or a sprinter or a bike racer in today's era.I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to idolize them.
And I'm somewhat surprised that many do.
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
I'm cynical...I'm willing to watch a sport like T&F, but I'm not going to sing any athlete's praises. Especially one like Bolt. His events aren't the cleanest events within T&F. He could be like...Tiger Woods...
I'm cynical...I'm willing to watch a sport like T&F, but I'm not going to sing any athlete's praises. Especially one like Bolt. His events aren't the cleanest events within T&F.
He could be like...Tiger Woods...
I'm just as cynical as anyone, but if you're going to be cynical, let's spread that cynicism around fairly. I mean, sprinting probably isn't the cleanest event, but it's not like distance running is either. So, if we're going to say Bolt is PED-loaded, then I think we can add Farah to that category, too.
As for Tiger, I'm willing to bet he didn't get that big eating skinless chicken breasts and lifting weights.
There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.
We are always running for the thrill of it
Always pushing up the hill, searching for the thrill of it
It's hard to idolize a baseball player or a sprinter or a bike racer in today's era.I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to idolize them. And I'm somewhat surprised that many do.
What do you consider idolizing? I don't idolize any of them. I'm not really seeing a lot of people here who strike me as idolizing them. We're track fans. That's quite different.
If I WERE going to idolize a runner, it would not be such a partying, self-aggrandized personality like Bolt. But I do admire his accomplishments (assuming they are clean).
Am I the only one who still says turning his name into $500 million for cancer research is something respectable?
I also think that ok, maybe track athletes on a world class level aren't clean, but they still need the work ethic to take advantage of the drugs/doping and turn that into performances, I think that's something that gets forgotten... Maybe I'll feel differently when I'm raising kids
He subsequently used that goodwill to sell a similarly-named website for a bunch of cash, to confuse people into thinking they were interacting with the charity rather than a for-profit entity (.org vs .com is the only difference). He also leaned on the "but I survived cancer and raise money though this charity" crutch as a way to try and boost his perception; completely self-serving.
Also, for the umpteenth time, do your research; Livestrong DOES NOT fund cancer research, has not given a cent in years, and never did give a significant amount. They certainly never gave anything near $500 million. If that is what they have raised total, I would virtually guarantee that the percent that went to cancer research before they stopped doing that many years ago is in the low single-digit percentage of that.
Armstrong used Livestrong as a publicity shield for his bad behavior. I see nothing to respect in that. Not to mention intimidating and steamrolling the lives of multiple people who only tried to tell the truth.
Options,Account, Forums
Am I the only one who still says turning his name into $500 million for cancer research is something respectable? ...
...
You're talking about Lance and his drugs, right (not Bolt anymore)?
I thought he turned his name into a huge moneymaker, that invested pennies on the dollar, or less, into cancer research -- and in recent years quit giving any money at all to cancer research??
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
I kind of have a low opinion of cancer research charities compared to research into other issue like Alzheimer's, autism etc. maybe because I am personally affected by the issues mentioned. Even through multiple family members suffered various cancers, they were in their seventies, their passing away while tragic was as not as disruptive as having to raise an autistic child( not me personally but a family member)
The problem here is that all of the world class athletes with a good work ethic are competing against each other and when certain ones dope to get an easy shortcut ahead of the others (ie cheat), it isn't exactly fair to the ones who followed the rules and didn't dope. If doping is against the rules then no one should be doping. If it's legal, then they can all dope if they want. All I really want is a fair playing field. Just imagine if you were a cyclist racing clean and you were edged out by Lance Armstrong because you followed the rules and he doped to gain the edge. I think you'd be pretty upset at how unfair it was, especially while he is getting rich off of winnings and endorsements.
WordPress Speed Guides: my personal website with speed and seo guides
vincoding.com: repository of useful code snippets that I've saved over time
Alzheimer's strikes later in life, on average, than cancer.
Not all cancers are diseases of the elderly. Melanoma, one of the deadliest (once it spreads) commonly strikes in the 30s and 40s. I have a coworker who lost his wife to melanoma while she was not yet 30. I have been to more than one fundraiser for kids under age 2 with cancer. I recently lost a high school classmate to breast cancer at age 34.
The pediatric cancer survival rate has skyrocketed over the past 20 years, largely due to the amount of money that has been poured into research.
The other causes you mention are also devastating and also deserve attention and funding. They are all terrible diseases.
Fair playing field aside, no sport should be allowed to devolve to the point where athletes must accept the massive health risks that come with doping in order to compete.
You mean like cycling in the 90's.
No I agree with you, I'm just trying to stress that fair competition is paramount so that the good rule abiding athletes don't get screwed. The only way to ensure this is to have the set rules fully enforced. The problem that we've seen is really the inability of drug testing to keep up with the new methods of doping and the sneaky dopers get away with breaking the rules. It's like a 5 year delay before they are publicly shamed, but sadly the athletes they stepped over probably missed their time to shine by then.
Sorry Span, guess you've had that convo 500 million times already...