| |
Main
Date: 21 Apr 2006 08:37:46
From: dwjones45
Subject: coverage of the london marathon
|
i realize that there will be no television coverage here in the united
states of the london marathon. the marathon is shaping up to be quite an
interesting race particularly on the men's side. therefore i am wondering if
there is going to be an internet feed of the marathon?
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2006 10:44:16
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
dwjones45 wrote:
> i realize that there will be no television coverage here in the united
> states of the london marathon. the marathon is shaping up to be quite an
> interesting race particularly on the men's side. therefore i am wondering
> if there is going to be an internet feed of the marathon?
Yes, there is. Initial indicators were that it'd only be available within
the UK but then they (BBC, I think) said the US/North American audience
would be able to access it too.
The field was even more interesting before Tergat dropped out with an
injury... but still, it's a fairly awesome array of the world's best.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2006 16:53:23
From:
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
Charlie Pendejo <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> dwjones45 wrote:
>> i realize that there will be no television coverage here in the united
>> states of the london marathon. the marathon is shaping up to be quite an
>> interesting race particularly on the men's side. therefore i am wondering
>> if there is going to be an internet feed of the marathon?
>
> Yes, there is. Initial indicators were that it'd only be available within
> the UK but then they (BBC, I think) said the US/North American audience
> would be able to access it too.
That's what it said too on letsrun.com, i.e., bbc.com should have it online.
Hope so. Here's a link from BBC's website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/4900076.stm
jobs
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2006 03:12:52
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1145630687.291020@nntp.acecape.com...
> dwjones45 wrote:
> > i realize that there will be no television coverage here in the united
> > states of the london marathon. the marathon is shaping up to be quite an
> > interesting race particularly on the men's side. therefore i am
wondering
> > if there is going to be an internet feed of the marathon?
>
> Yes, there is. Initial indicators were that it'd only be available within
> the UK but then they (BBC, I think) said the US/North American audience
> would be able to access it too.
>
> The field was even more interesting before Tergat dropped out with an
> injury... but still, it's a fairly awesome array of the world's best.
Starts a bit early... 4:30 am NY time with DST, right? Worth taping. Getting
ready to tape the Giro next month from either RAI TV (via a feed from
http://wwitv.com [some interesting channels in there]) or the paid
($20/month) OLN online feed (via http://cycling.tv), and haven't quite
figured out whether I'll use the s-video output to tape on a VCR, or just
use a capture program to record it to the PC hard drive. The quality from
cycling.tv varies, but when output to the TV, it usually looks almost as
good as the normal OLN broadcast. Anyone have a favorite capture program for
recording TV off the net? I was just googling around and saw a few, but
would appreciate hearing what's worked for others.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 08:24:47
From:
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
Go Deena, Helluva year for the XC superstar....rocking Chicago now
London.
My autographed poster is perhaps apprecaiting in value :) Asics
trumps Nike for a change in a big stakes race.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 13:37:20
From: dwjones45
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
lanceandrew@aol.com wrote:
> Go Deena, Helluva year for the XC superstar....rocking Chicago now
> London.
>
> My autographed poster is perhaps apprecaiting in value :) Asics
> trumps Nike for a change in a big stakes race.
i watched the internet feed of Deena's run this morning in the london
marathon. it was a wonderful effort. however the fact that she had a couple
of men to help pace her did not sit well with me. am i alone in my opinion
or does anyone else find this wrong?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 20:17:32
From: steve common
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
"dwjones45" <dwjones45@comcast.net > wrote:
>however the fact that she had a couple
>of men to help pace her did not sit well with me. am i alone in my opinion
>or does anyone else find this wrong?
It's OK as long as they have two separate official records and rankings -
one for mixed races and one women-only ones.
There'd be nothing wrong with her having female pacers though.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 14:40:13
From: Piedmont Donald
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
"steve common" wrote
> "dwjones45" wrote:
>
> >however the fact that she had a couple
> >of men to help pace her did not sit well with me.
> >am i alone in my opinion
> >or does anyone else find this wrong?
>
> It's OK as long as they have two separate official records and
> rankings - one for mixed races and one women-only ones.
>
> There'd be nothing wrong with her having female pacers though.
According to the race schedule the elite women started 45 minutes before
the elite men. Where did these male pacers come from?
I doesn't seem quite right to me either.
Piedmont Donald
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 14:41:58
From: Brian Baresch
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
>According to the race schedule the elite women started 45 minutes before
>the elite men. Where did these male pacers come from?
They were provided by race management. London has done that before.
--
Brian P. Baresch
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Professional editing and proofreading
If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 07:14:24
From: thehick
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
I was happy just to watch it live. No interest in who wins. I like
to see the aid station activity (whoops, that's slippery), and I
follow the race on the course map. The sights interest me a lot.
That goofball priest that interrupted a race last year was
supposed to be there but I didn't see him. maybe that was when
the feed was suffering. also, the real player feed was twice the
bit-rate of the media player. still terrible.
not to complain to much. live feed, however poor, with
commentary is far better than pictures with text.
...thehick
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 09:24:16
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
So, they've changed the meaning of the word "interesting"?
I missed that memo.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 02:19:03
From: thehick
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
> Yes, there is. Initial indicators were that it'd only be available within
> the UK but then they (BBC, I think) said the US/North American audience
> would be able to access it too.
viewing from canada right now (early morning here). the quality stinks
but for free and as the only chance to see it, it'll do. 38Kbps is not
enough. when i watch cycling.tv from the uk, it's fabulous.
watching the bbc coverage. mens or womens is available
but bbc is covering it all.
incidently, it's raining there.
...thehick
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 07:27:02
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
thehick wrote:
> viewing from canada right now (early morning here). the quality stinks
> but for free and as the only chance to see it, it'll do. 38Kbps is not
> enough. when i watch cycling.tv from the uk, it's fabulous.
Yeah, I caught the last mile of the men's race and video quality was pretty
bad. If not for the audio, I wouldn't have been able to tell much beyond
"blurry blob #1 edged out blurry blob #2 in what looked like a terrific
finish".
Big congrats to Deena for her sub-2:20 finish!!
Were you pulling for anyone in particular, Frank? I really like Deena. In
the men's race I guess I kinda like Ramaala and also was hoping to see
Khalid K run well again.
> incidently, it's raining there.
As it is here, about 47.5 hours of this weekend if real life continues to
match the forecast. It'll be rainy, breezy, and fairly cool as I warm up,
race my four miler in Central Park, then jog back home to Brooklyn so I can
claim double credit for VO2 work and a long run.
I'm not feeling terribly confident about achieving my goal - beating my 4
mile PR set last time out - because my legs are really feeling the miles and
the workouts of recent weeks. Not brink-of-injury, not sore per se, just a
bit stiff and fatigued. I'll give it my best shot though, and wouldn't be
too surprised by a surprise, good or bad. Just so it's not shoes coming
untied or a dodgy stomach...
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 17:21:18
From:
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
>Drossin had two pacers most of the way, one of them her
regular training partner
_
Damn, I'm a big Drossin fan but this is simply uneven playing field on
numerous parameters. You can't measure the edge derived from the
familiarity & comfort zone she could have benefitted from by having her
person there.
Even if this was a possible benefit of 0.0001% and even if she won by
10 minutes, that's not the issue. The issue is it's an uneven playing
field, plain and simple. The integrity of the event is tainted.
You simply can't have an employee of one of the elite favorites (coach
or trainer) function as a pacer for the elite field. It's
indefensable. To say otherwise would be to say the pacer has no
influence on the pace & field.
You can't parse or diminish the impact of allowing one runner to enjoy
a unique edge. You eliminate even questioning the integrity of the
event by hiring unafilliated pacers, that's not so hard to do.
Usually when these elite win these races, they are paid bonuses from
their sponsors and that trickles down to their team. I am 100%
certain some measure of winning prize money and sponsor bonus for Deena
trickled down to the pacer who is affiliated with her.
This really opens up a whole can of worms and compromises the event. I
guarantee you this scenario would not fly in NYC or Boston for
_reasons_. New York City Road Runners are trying to bring together a
Radcliffe v. Drosson-Kastor Showdown for NYC in the Fall.
For some reason, I don't think this would have happened if Paula
Radcliffe ran in the race. Can you imagine the British Outrage if
Paula ran and was edged out by Deena with Deena's employee functioning
as the pacer?
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 12:34:13
From: thehick
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
Two men were assigned as pacers for the elite women. beats
me why. funny part is one of them was deena's training
partner! he's the one that fell back towards the end.
hardly seems right and now that BIG money is on the line
with the World Marathon Major, I'd say that Susam
Chepkemei should see a good lawyer.
...thehick
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 21:36:16
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
On 2006-04-23, thehick <thehick@canada.com > wrote:
> Two men were assigned as pacers for the elite women. beats
> me why. funny part is one of them was deena's training
> partner! he's the one that fell back towards the end.
>
> hardly seems right and now that BIG money is on the line
> with the World Marathon Major, I'd say that Susam
> Chepkemei should see a good lawyer.
If pacers are required to stay on pace for the whole race, that's
news to me. This certainly doesn't happen with pacers in mens
races.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 21:47:44
From: Tim Downie
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
thehick wrote:
> Two men were assigned as pacers for the elite women. beats
> me why. funny part is one of them was deena's training
> partner! he's the one that fell back towards the end.
>
> hardly seems right and now that BIG money is on the line
> with the World Marathon Major, I'd say that Susam
> Chepkemei should see a good lawyer.
Not sure it would do much good but you had to feel sorry for her struggling
on her own with pacers ahead and behind her. Of course she could have opted
to drop back to the slower pacer's speed and then maybe would have had a bt
more left for the finish.
I can't help feeling though that as pace judgement is one of the fundamental
skills required for distance running, having pacemakers is tantamount to
cheating.
Tim
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 21:44:21
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
On 2006-04-23, Tim Downie <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> thehick wrote:
>> Two men were assigned as pacers for the elite women. beats
>> me why. funny part is one of them was deena's training
>> partner! he's the one that fell back towards the end.
>>
>> hardly seems right and now that BIG money is on the line
>> with the World Marathon Major, I'd say that Susam
>> Chepkemei should see a good lawyer.
>
> Not sure it would do much good but you had to feel sorry for her struggling
> on her own with pacers ahead and behind her.
Poor thing. The men *always* have to make do without the rabbits after about
half way. Even Sir Roger had to do the last lap alone.
> I can't help feeling though that as pace judgement is one of the fundamental
> skills required for distance running, having pacemakers is tantamount to
> cheating.
Pace makers generally don't have substantially better pace judgment than the
typical competitor. The main functions they perform are
(1) to encourage a fast pace since the presence of a rabbit reduces the chance
that you get a slow tactical race, because everyone goes after the rabbit and
(2) to spare the fastest contender the mental effort of leading (which makes it
easier to lead, which again encourages a fast pace)
I don't think it's reasonable or even possible to ban rabbits. I mean, what's to
stop one runner from taking it out at a fast pace to set up a world record
attempt or a fast race for a teammate ?
But having rabbits who aren't actually participants in the race (men in a womens
race, running the whole thing) is another matter.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 16:38:24
From: Tim Downie
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2006-04-23, Tim Downie <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> thehick wrote:
>>> Two men were assigned as pacers for the elite women. beats
>>> me why. funny part is one of them was deena's training
>>> partner! he's the one that fell back towards the end.
>>>
>>> hardly seems right and now that BIG money is on the line
>>> with the World Marathon Major, I'd say that Susam
>>> Chepkemei should see a good lawyer.
>>
>> Not sure it would do much good but you had to feel sorry for her
>> struggling
>> on her own with pacers ahead and behind her.
>
> Poor thing. The men *always* have to make do without the rabbits
> after about half way. Even Sir Roger had to do the last lap alone.
I was only feeling sorry for her comparitively as runners ahead and behind
her had pacers..
>> I can't help feeling though that as pace judgement is one of the
>> fundamental skills required for distance running, having pacemakers
>> is tantamount to cheating.
>
> Pace makers generally don't have substantially better pace judgment
> than the typical competitor. The main functions they perform are
>
> (1) to encourage a fast pace since the presence of a rabbit reduces
> the chance that you get a slow tactical race, because everyone goes
> after the rabbit and
>
> (2) to spare the fastest contender the mental effort of leading
> (which makes it easier to lead, which again encourages a fast pace)
Surely deciding whether you want to run slow & tatical or have the
confidence to push yourself ahead of the pack is what running is about.
It's a race *and* a game. Put pacemakers in and you've instantly diminished
the event.
> I don't think it's reasonable or even possible to ban rabbits. I
> mean, what's to stop one runner from taking it out at a fast pace to
> set up a world record attempt or a fast race for a teammate ?
It would be hard to prevent but I don't think that's a justification for
officially sanctioning cheating.
>
> But having rabbits who aren't actually participants in the race (men
> in a womens race, running the whole thing) is another matter.
At least we can agree on that. Ban them all I say and disqualify any team
suspected of using a sacrificial rabbit.
Tim
>
> Cheers,
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 15:50:37
From:
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
Tim,
You irish twat.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:38:24 +0100, "Tim Downie"
<timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On 2006-04-23, Tim Downie <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> thehick wrote:
>>>> Two men were assigned as pacers for the elite women. beats
>>>> me why. funny part is one of them was deena's training
>>>> partner! he's the one that fell back towards the end.
>>>>
>>>> hardly seems right and now that BIG money is on the line
>>>> with the World Marathon Major, I'd say that Susam
>>>> Chepkemei should see a good lawyer.
>>>
>>> Not sure it would do much good but you had to feel sorry for her
>>> struggling
>>> on her own with pacers ahead and behind her.
>>
>> Poor thing. The men *always* have to make do without the rabbits
>> after about half way. Even Sir Roger had to do the last lap alone.
>
>I was only feeling sorry for her comparitively as runners ahead and behind
>her had pacers..
>
>>> I can't help feeling though that as pace judgement is one of the
>>> fundamental skills required for distance running, having pacemakers
>>> is tantamount to cheating.
>>
>> Pace makers generally don't have substantially better pace judgment
>> than the typical competitor. The main functions they perform are
>>
>> (1) to encourage a fast pace since the presence of a rabbit reduces
>> the chance that you get a slow tactical race, because everyone goes
>> after the rabbit and
>>
>> (2) to spare the fastest contender the mental effort of leading
>> (which makes it easier to lead, which again encourages a fast pace)
>
>Surely deciding whether you want to run slow & tatical or have the
>confidence to push yourself ahead of the pack is what running is about.
>It's a race *and* a game. Put pacemakers in and you've instantly diminished
>the event.
>
>> I don't think it's reasonable or even possible to ban rabbits. I
>> mean, what's to stop one runner from taking it out at a fast pace to
>> set up a world record attempt or a fast race for a teammate ?
>
>It would be hard to prevent but I don't think that's a justification for
>officially sanctioning cheating.
>
>>
>> But having rabbits who aren't actually participants in the race (men
>> in a womens race, running the whole thing) is another matter.
>
>At least we can agree on that. Ban them all I say and disqualify any team
>suspected of using a sacrificial rabbit.
>
>Tim
>>
>> Cheers,
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 11:27:17
From:
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
>however the fact that she had a couple of men to help pace her did not sit well with me
_
could you be more specific as i only have read reports that did not
mention anything like this. from what i've read, the race was over at
about the 30KM mark. i also note she ran both halves at 69:48.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 16:31:36
From: dwjones45
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
lanceandrew@aol.com wrote:
>> however the fact that she had a couple of men to help pace her did
>> not sit well with me _
>
> could you be more specific as i only have read reports that did not
> mention anything like this. from what i've read, the race was over at
> about the 30KM mark. i also note she ran both halves at 69:48.
i am only going by what the commentators were saying during the bbc's
broadcast of the race. they stated more than once that the 2 men running
along with her were there for the sole purpose of pacing her. now i not care
if this is a common practice in this particular marathon. it still does not
make it right in my opinion.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 14:41:21
From: Brian Baresch
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
>could you be more specific as i only have read reports that did not
>mention anything like this. from what i've read, the race was over at
>about the 30KM mark. i also note she ran both halves at 69:48.
The race provided pacers for both elite fields; in all cases I saw
they were men. Drossin had two pacers most of the way, one of them her
regular training partner, the other a Kenyan, IIRC. The Kenyan stayed
with her the whole way. The chase pack had pacers as well.
The BBC commenters said something to the effect that they couldn't
find women fast enough to pace the leaders who were also not
interested in competing themselves.
The men's field was at WR pace through about the half, then dropped
off pace as it became more tactical. After that happened I didn't see
pacers with the lead pack. (The pacers were all wearing white singlets
and blue shorts so it was easy to spot them; also the top elites all
wore different colors, and their names on their bibs, so the usual
spectacle of eight Africans identically clad didn't happen. Kudos to
race management for that.)
--
Brian P. Baresch
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Professional editing and proofreading
If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 22:10:32
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: coverage of the london marathon
|
On 2006-04-23, Brian Baresch <brian_news2@peacenik.removethisstuff.net > wrote:
> The BBC commenters said something to the effect that they couldn't
> find women fast enough to pace the leaders who were also not
> interested in competing themselves.
I bet they could find someone if they offered enough money. Assuming that they
weren't expecting the pace maker to run the whole way, that is.
69 minutes is pretty fast, but there are a number of women who've either done
that or are in that ballpark, who weren't in the race.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
|
