| |
Main
Date: 23 Apr 2006 20:41:41
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Got up in time to catch the webcast men's finish at London. Prerace routine
and transportation etc. uneventful. It'd been raining nonstop around 24
hours and didn't let up until after I was home and showered. About 54F,
breezy, moderate steady rain.
I was dubious about matching my 4M PR of a couple months ago only because my
legs are really feeling that I've been consistently logging 10-15 more miles
each week than 2005 highs, and with three hard workouts most weeks
(sometimes plus a long run, sometimes the long run has been included in
those 3).
Course was the same loop as my earlier two Central Park 4 milers but
staggered by two miles. So it's still odd miles slower, even miles faster.
Gave it absolutely all I had throughout and especially in the last mile;
felt I paced well by effort despite somewhat uneven splits; caught the
attractive younger woman runner (certainly a better class of runner than I,
with terrific form and a palpable aura of determination) I'd tailed most of
the race - third consecutive race I've trailed different runners meeting
that description, caught them in the last two.
Sensations which seemed novel (or maybe just poor memory) included more of a
burning sensation in the legs on uphills late in the race, and slipping into
a bit of a dreamlike state for part of the last mile. which seemed clearly
related to the effort - fatigue? endorphins? other?
For all that I fell three seconds shy of my PR. And in truth I'm quite
well-pleased with that. Maybe even a bit chuffed; I am not quite sure how
to check for that. I ran a good race on less than fresh legs. Will cut
back mileage and perhaps cut or shorten a workout the weeks before my next
couple races, the Broad Street 10 miler in Philly and then the sub-40 10k
attempt in Central Park. But for this one, no such concessions.
And then after five or ten minutes of walking and bagel (untoasted as
always - I think I burned a few miles worth of glycogen chewing it) and
banana eating and putting my running pants and (newly re-waterproofed,
thanks folks the wash-in juice worked great) jacket, I ran 9+ miles home
along the Hudson River on Manhattan's west side and over the Brooklyn
Bridge. And again felt gratified by how quickly I felt recovered from the
race. From bent over gasping for air after the finish line to normal
breathing in record time, and within minutes of finishing the race my legs
felt downright eager to tackle the run home, driving rain and all. That's
all gotta mean something good.
No blisters despite unlubed, untampered feet which were very wet for 2+
hours. I took the rain as opportunity to test SmartWool socks and light
liner gloves. Both worked well - my hands stayed just warm enough. They
wouldn't have been, in similar weight poly-whatever.
Splits of 2006 4M races (same loop, different starting lines):
05 Feb: 6:54 - 6:31 - 6:37 - 6:15 = 26:17, 66.8% WAVA
25 Feb: 6:44 - 6:18 - 6:27 - 6:14 = 25:43, 68.3% WAVA
23 Apr: 6:47 - 6:09 - 6:41 - 6:09 = 25:46, 68.1% WAVA
Despite the slower time, my place was a lot higher this time out. Guess
that just means a weaker field: the Al Gordon Snowflake 4M was probably a
team pointer.
05 Feb: 26:17 = 201/4812 total, 77/969 M3039
25 Feb: 25:43 = 304/4721 total, 118/871 M3039
23 Apr: 25:46 = 135/3647 total, 45/784 M3039
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 07:27:51
From: Ed Prochak
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Got up in time to catch the webcast men's finish at London. Prerace routine
> and transportation etc. uneventful. It'd been raining nonstop around 24
> hours and didn't let up until after I was home and showered. About 54F,
> breezy, moderate steady rain.
>
> I was dubious about matching my 4M PR of a couple months ago only because my
> legs are really feeling that I've been consistently logging 10-15 more miles
> each week than 2005 highs, and with three hard workouts most weeks
> (sometimes plus a long run, sometimes the long run has been included in
> those 3).
[]
> For all that I fell three seconds shy of my PR. And in truth I'm quite
> well-pleased with that. Maybe even a bit chuffed; I am not quite sure how
> to check for that. I ran a good race on less than fresh legs. Will cut
> back mileage and perhaps cut or shorten a workout the weeks before my next
> couple races, the Broad Street 10 miler in Philly and then the sub-40 10k
> attempt in Central Park. But for this one, no such concessions.
>
> And then after five or ten minutes of walking and bagel (untoasted as
> always - I think I burned a few miles worth of glycogen chewing it) and
> banana eating and putting my running pants and (newly re-waterproofed,
> thanks folks the wash-in juice worked great) jacket, I ran 9+ miles home
> along the Hudson River on Manhattan's west side and over the Brooklyn
> Bridge. And again felt gratified by how quickly I felt recovered from the
> race. From bent over gasping for air after the finish line to normal
> breathing in record time, and within minutes of finishing the race my legs
> felt downright eager to tackle the run home, driving rain and all. That's
> all gotta mean something good.
>
> No blisters despite unlubed, untampered feet which were very wet for 2+
> hours. I took the rain as opportunity to test SmartWool socks and light
> liner gloves. Both worked well - my hands stayed just warm enough. They
> wouldn't have been, in similar weight poly-whatever.
>
> Splits of 2006 4M races (same loop, different starting lines):
>
> 05 Feb: 6:54 - 6:31 - 6:37 - 6:15 = 26:17, 66.8% WAVA
> 25 Feb: 6:44 - 6:18 - 6:27 - 6:14 = 25:43, 68.3% WAVA
> 23 Apr: 6:47 - 6:09 - 6:41 - 6:09 = 25:46, 68.1% WAVA
>
> Despite the slower time, my place was a lot higher this time out. Guess
> that just means a weaker field: the Al Gordon Snowflake 4M was probably a
> team pointer.
>
> 05 Feb: 26:17 = 201/4812 total, 77/969 M3039
> 25 Feb: 25:43 = 304/4721 total, 118/871 M3039
> 23 Apr: 25:46 = 135/3647 total, 45/784 M3039
Being able to repeat a PR (3second here represents about 0.2%) is a
good accomplishment. And given the unfavorable weather, an even
tougher job. Congratulations on a race well run!
Must be a really great feeling to be ready to run so quickly after the
race.
BTW is there a web site for calculating the WAVA score? I'd like to
check how I'm fairing which is probably pretty low right now 8^)
and congrats again
ed
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 15:48:50
From:
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Ed, you twat.
On 24 Apr 2006 07:27:51 -0700, "Ed Prochak" <edprochak@gmail.com >
wrote:
>
>Charlie Pendejo wrote:
>> Got up in time to catch the webcast men's finish at London. Prerace routine
>> and transportation etc. uneventful. It'd been raining nonstop around 24
>> hours and didn't let up until after I was home and showered. About 54F,
>> breezy, moderate steady rain.
>>
>> I was dubious about matching my 4M PR of a couple months ago only because my
>> legs are really feeling that I've been consistently logging 10-15 more miles
>> each week than 2005 highs, and with three hard workouts most weeks
>> (sometimes plus a long run, sometimes the long run has been included in
>> those 3).
>[]
>> For all that I fell three seconds shy of my PR. And in truth I'm quite
>> well-pleased with that. Maybe even a bit chuffed; I am not quite sure how
>> to check for that. I ran a good race on less than fresh legs. Will cut
>> back mileage and perhaps cut or shorten a workout the weeks before my next
>> couple races, the Broad Street 10 miler in Philly and then the sub-40 10k
>> attempt in Central Park. But for this one, no such concessions.
>>
>> And then after five or ten minutes of walking and bagel (untoasted as
>> always - I think I burned a few miles worth of glycogen chewing it) and
>> banana eating and putting my running pants and (newly re-waterproofed,
>> thanks folks the wash-in juice worked great) jacket, I ran 9+ miles home
>> along the Hudson River on Manhattan's west side and over the Brooklyn
>> Bridge. And again felt gratified by how quickly I felt recovered from the
>> race. From bent over gasping for air after the finish line to normal
>> breathing in record time, and within minutes of finishing the race my legs
>> felt downright eager to tackle the run home, driving rain and all. That's
>> all gotta mean something good.
>>
>> No blisters despite unlubed, untampered feet which were very wet for 2+
>> hours. I took the rain as opportunity to test SmartWool socks and light
>> liner gloves. Both worked well - my hands stayed just warm enough. They
>> wouldn't have been, in similar weight poly-whatever.
>>
>> Splits of 2006 4M races (same loop, different starting lines):
>>
>> 05 Feb: 6:54 - 6:31 - 6:37 - 6:15 = 26:17, 66.8% WAVA
>> 25 Feb: 6:44 - 6:18 - 6:27 - 6:14 = 25:43, 68.3% WAVA
>> 23 Apr: 6:47 - 6:09 - 6:41 - 6:09 = 25:46, 68.1% WAVA
>>
>> Despite the slower time, my place was a lot higher this time out. Guess
>> that just means a weaker field: the Al Gordon Snowflake 4M was probably a
>> team pointer.
>>
>> 05 Feb: 26:17 = 201/4812 total, 77/969 M3039
>> 25 Feb: 25:43 = 304/4721 total, 118/871 M3039
>> 23 Apr: 25:46 = 135/3647 total, 45/784 M3039
>
>Being able to repeat a PR (3second here represents about 0.2%) is a
>good accomplishment. And given the unfavorable weather, an even
>tougher job. Congratulations on a race well run!
>
>Must be a really great feeling to be ready to run so quickly after the
>race.
>
>BTW is there a web site for calculating the WAVA score? I'd like to
>check how I'm fairing which is probably pretty low right now 8^)
>
>and congrats again
> ed
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 10:59:43
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Ed wrote:
> BTW is there a web site for calculating the WAVA score?
I'm sure there is, and google would know it. NYRR always lists it as part
of their race results so I haven't had to go searching. Donovan and others
have mentioned that the WAVA tables were revised not terribly long ago, so
you might even find two sites give you slightly different results depending
on which each uses.
> and congrats again
Thanks. The result wasn't my high water mark of this season, but it's not
supposed to be at this stage of my training. It gives me a lot of
confidence that if I stick with the program, it'll have me where I want to
be in another few months.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 17:32:15
From:
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Please forgive my this posting. I forgot per Doug F, I am an
underachiever despite having a BMI of 26 and being more disntinguished
in my age group as a runner than Donovan is in his.....forgive me. I
know not what I speak.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 02:12:14
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1145925135.253652.303120@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Please forgive my this posting. I forgot per Doug F, I am an
> underachiever despite having a BMI of 26 and being more disntinguished
> in my age group as a runner than Donovan is in his.....forgive me.
Just think how distinguished you would be if you shed some of the lard
and stopped using BMI as a crutch in every posting(or genetics when you
really want hit the whacked out extremes) and resort to simple age.
Shall we have a fat, black, 42 YO group. Eat just a little more and you
can compete in the Clydesdale category.
So now you're looking to be "distinguished?" Yes, yes, it has a
scintillating ring to it. Do you thump your chest at work while shouting
look at me, I'm great? Shall we address you as Sir Lance? There are
people available to talk about this type of behavior.
> I know not what I speak.
Finally a true statement. You are on your way to recovery.
-DF
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 09:19:13
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1145925135.253652.303120@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Please forgive my this posting. I forgot per Doug F, I am an
> underachiever despite having a BMI of 26 and being more disntinguished
> in my age group as a runner than Donovan is in his.....forgive me. I
> know not what I speak.
>
I don't think the BMI tables are applicable across the board. According to
these tables some of the people I run with are "overweight". One in
particular was a very good college wrestler and still looks like one at 48.
http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/smmc.JPG
He ran 38:31 on that day on this course:
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=29485
I'm not sure of my weight then but I probably either was or was on the edge
of "overweight" when this was taken (same race) according to the BMI charts.
http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/prmc.JPG
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 14:26:56
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
On 2006-04-25, Parker Race <prace@nycap.rr.com > wrote:
><lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1145925135.253652.303120@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Please forgive my this posting. I forgot per Doug F, I am an
>> underachiever despite having a BMI of 26 and being more disntinguished
>> in my age group as a runner than Donovan is in his.....forgive me. I
>> know not what I speak.
>>
>
> I don't think the BMI tables are applicable across the board. According to
Depends on how one "applies" them.
> these tables some of the people I run with are "overweight". One in
> particular was a very good college wrestler and still looks like one at 48.
> http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/smmc.JPG
38:31 is a good time for a 48 year old, but he looks a bit bulky for running.
I'd say he'd probably run faster at a lighter body weight.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 15:37:32
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2006-04-25, Parker Race <prace@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>><lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1145925135.253652.303120@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Please forgive my this posting. I forgot per Doug F, I am an
>>>underachiever despite having a BMI of 26 and being more disntinguished
>>>in my age group as a runner than Donovan is in his.....forgive me. I
>>>know not what I speak.
>>>
>>
>>I don't think the BMI tables are applicable across the board. According to
>
>
> Depends on how one "applies" them.
>
>
>>these tables some of the people I run with are "overweight". One in
>>particular was a very good college wrestler and still looks like one at 48.
>>http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/smmc.JPG
>
>
> 38:31 is a good time for a 48 year old, but he looks a bit bulky for running.
> I'd say he'd probably run faster at a lighter body weight.
>
How should he achieve that? I remember asking him how many times a week
he was lifting last Winter and he replied "I'm not lifting".
It's his body type, his 14 year old son has the same physique.
The course he ran that time on isn't easy, he was 45 at the time, he was
hoping to improve on that last Saturday but had a cold, he was only a
minute ahead of me:)
He also has a couple of sub 3 Marathons under his belt.
> Cheers,
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 16:12:40
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
On 2006-04-27, Parker Race <prace@internal.int > wrote:
>> 38:31 is a good time for a 48 year old, but he looks a bit bulky for running.
>> I'd say he'd probably run faster at a lighter body weight.
>>
> How should he achieve that?
He *could* achieve that by training like a pro endurance athlete -- either
more miles on the road, or adding some bike time or similar. Or by dieting.
Whether he *should* do that is an entirely different matter.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 16:34:02
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2006-04-27, Parker Race <prace@internal.int> wrote:
>
>
>>>38:31 is a good time for a 48 year old, but he looks a bit bulky for running.
>>>I'd say he'd probably run faster at a lighter body weight.
>>>
>>
>>How should he achieve that?
>
>
> He *could* achieve that by training like a pro endurance athlete -- either
> more miles on the road, or adding some bike time or similar. Or by dieting.
My point is that he doesn't have much in the way of fat to lose.
You want him to lose muscle? I think that will hurt him as he would have
to starve himself.
>
> Whether he *should* do that is an entirely different matter.
If I looked like that and could run the times he does I wouldn't change
a thing!
>
> Cheers,
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 17:09:40
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
On 2006-04-27, Parker Race <prace@internal.int > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On 2006-04-27, Parker Race <prace@internal.int> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>38:31 is a good time for a 48 year old, but he looks a bit bulky for running.
>>>>I'd say he'd probably run faster at a lighter body weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How should he achieve that?
>>
>>
>> He *could* achieve that by training like a pro endurance athlete -- either
>> more miles on the road, or adding some bike time or similar. Or by dieting.
>
> My point is that he doesn't have much in the way of fat to lose.
I was about as lean as he is (well as far as I can tell from that pic anyway)
at a weight of 180lb, and my running weight is more like low 150s.
You can always drop more weight than you think.
I'm sure one could run some calculation on his theoretical number of pounds of
body fat, and say "he doesn't have much fat to lose", but it just doesn't work
like that. Someone in that sort of shape can usually drop several pounds,
without getting considerably weaker.
> You want him to lose muscle?
Not all lean weight is "muscle". It consists of a whole lot of things. When a
typical "fat person" loses weight, about 1/4 of the weight loss is lean, and
yet they don't suffer a loss of strength. For someone in decent shape, it will
be more like 1/3 with a modest loss in explosive strength.
The best way is usually to just lose weight, and not cry too much about
"losing muscle" (usually something the FFIDs do a lot!), at least not until you
get rid of the excess body fat. When you drop weight, some of it will be lean
weight, but you end up at a lower percentage body fat.
> I think that will hurt him as he would have
> to starve himself.
I don't agree. It's just not consistent with my experience with weight loss or
my observations of others with the same. People often end up weighing less than
their theoretical "lean body mass" at the starting point, which supposedly
means they "lost muscle", yet they are in vastly superior shape post weight
loss.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 22:06:29
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrne51umk.1kc.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-04-27, Parker Race <prace@internal.int> wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>> On 2006-04-27, Parker Race <prace@internal.int> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>38:31 is a good time for a 48 year old, but he looks a bit bulky for
>>>>>running.
>>>>>I'd say he'd probably run faster at a lighter body weight.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How should he achieve that?
>>>
>>>
>>> He *could* achieve that by training like a pro endurance athlete --
>>> either
>>> more miles on the road, or adding some bike time or similar. Or by
>>> dieting.
Do you do much biking? Our coach discourages it, he says it hurts speed
based on everything he's seen and read.
I was slower at the end of last Summer than I am now and I weighed less
then. I was doing a significant amount of biking due to the heat.
>>
>> My point is that he doesn't have much in the way of fat to lose.
>
> I was about as lean as he is (well as far as I can tell from that pic
> anyway)
> at a weight of 180lb, and my running weight is more like low 150s.
A more revealing shot:
http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/ILTR2003/John2.jpg
> You can always drop more weight than you think.
Get back to me when you turn 45 or older and see how easy it is to drop
weight. :(
I'm trying to slim down for a Marathon, I'm waking up an hour or so earlier
in the morning because I'm hungry.
>
> I'm sure one could run some calculation on his theoretical number of
> pounds of
> body fat, and say "he doesn't have much fat to lose", but it just doesn't
> work
> like that. Someone in that sort of shape can usually drop several pounds,
> without getting considerably weaker.
>
>> You want him to lose muscle?
>
> Not all lean weight is "muscle". It consists of a whole lot of things.
> When a
> typical "fat person" loses weight, about 1/4 of the weight loss is lean,
> and
> yet they don't suffer a loss of strength. For someone in decent shape, it
> will
> be more like 1/3 with a modest loss in explosive strength.
>
> The best way is usually to just lose weight, and not cry too much about
> "losing muscle" (usually something the FFIDs do a lot!), at least not
> until you
> get rid of the excess body fat. When you drop weight, some of it will be
> lean
> weight, but you end up at a lower percentage body fat.
>
>> I think that will hurt him as he would have
>> to starve himself.
>
> I don't agree. It's just not consistent with my experience with weight
> loss or
> my observations of others with the same. People often end up weighing less
> than
> their theoretical "lean body mass" at the starting point, which supposedly
> means they "lost muscle", yet they are in vastly superior shape post
> weight
> loss.
That may be true in a lot of cases but I think you're generalizing, I
believe that some can be "overweight" based on the tables without being fat.
I'm not including myself in this group, though I come close due to the size
of my frame, (long arms and legs, broad shoulders) not due to muscle mass.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 17:29:05
From:
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
>Per Lance, since you are pushing 147# at 5'8-ish, you are positively obese
compared with the world class guys,
________
Not really. Most of the serious runners Charles was competing against
share his BMI, he had a level playing field all the way and they were
not elites, this was not a significant race in NYC.
This signficant race is next month when Charles will get to race
against Craig Mottram. You're wrong Dan in characterizing Charles as
significantly disadvantaged compared to the world class guys (as you
said).
Charles enjoys a BMI of 22. Craig Mottram enjoys a BMI of 20.9. A BMI
margin of less than 2.0 steps of measure is note worthy but in fact
Charles enjoys more than DOUBLE that margin over me with my 26.0 BMI.
When I raced a 10K last year, Mottram smoked me thoroughly, but I did
manage to clock a 39:27 10K in Central Park and Finish in the top 20 in
my AG. I'm not certain if Donovan can finsih in the top 20 in his Age
Group in this race....
Last time I saw Donovan race a 10K he finished 30th in his Age
Group..............
Now the fact that in this race that had Mottram, Meb, and several world
class guys...the fact that I finished in the top 20 in my AG....and the
last time I saw Donovan race a 10K he finished 30th in his AG?...I am
not suggesting I am a more distinguished runner in context with my age,
feel free to draw your own conclusions...hahahhahahahahahahaha
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 14:23:08
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
On 2006-04-25, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote:
> This signficant race is next month when Charles will get to race
> against Craig Mottram. You're wrong Dan in characterizing Charles as
I don't think Mottram is scared of either Charles or you.
> Charles enjoys a BMI of 22. Craig Mottram enjoys a BMI of 20.9. A BMI
> margin of less than 2.0 steps of measure is note worthy but in fact
Whatever. You make way too much of a big deal of this.
> Now the fact that in this race that had Mottram, Meb, and several world
> class guys...the fact that I finished in the top 20 in my AG....and the
> last time I saw Donovan race a 10K he finished 30th in his AG?...I am
> not suggesting I am a more distinguished runner in context with my age,
It's a good thing you're not suggesting such a thing, since you finished 19th
out of 326, while I finished 30th out of 873. BTW, that *was* your best race of
the year. In my best race last year, I ran 34:33, finished third *overall*, and
won prize money.
> feel free to draw your own conclusions...hahahhahahahahahahaha
(-;
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 23:24:22
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote
> 05 Feb: 6:54 - 6:31 - 6:37 - 6:15 = 26:17, 66.8% WAVA
> 25 Feb: 6:44 - 6:18 - 6:27 - 6:14 = 25:43, 68.3% WAVA
> 23 Apr: 6:47 - 6:09 - 6:41 - 6:09 = 25:46, 68.1% WAVA
According to my calculations (see www.wetracingshoe.com for a more detailed
analysis):
2 * pi * r, taken to the 3.2 power of the lane number times inches of rain
per hour, yields 4.6 seconds/mile per dry-pound of running shoes.
In layman's language: your wet shoes slowed you down a lot more than 3
seconds. So congratulations on a strong run.
Per Lance, since you are pushing 147# at 5'8-ish, you are positively obese
compared with the world class guys, so deduct another 90 seconds for all
those extra gravitons you're fighting.
Good race in poor conditions,
Dan
(who *might* have raced it -- although why break my streak of never running
a race in the rain?)
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 22:38:15
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Dan wrote:
> congratulations on a strong run.
Thanks Dan. Seems to me that you often have good insight into relating the
experiential to the physiological when it comes to running. You got
anything on either of these, and why they might be coming up for me now?
>> Sensations which seemed novel (or maybe just
>> poor memory) included more of a burning sensation
>> in the legs on uphills late in the race, and
>> slipping into a bit of a dreamlike state for part
>> of the last mile. which seemed clearly related to
>> the effort - fatigue? endorphins? other?
> since you are pushing 147# at 5'8-ish, you are positively
> obese compared with the world class guys
Even though it's 146 and closer to 5'9", yes, I'm quite the lard-tub next to
the greats, the goods, and the merely competents of distance running.
Although I promise ya, when I'm at home and not in vacation mode, I don't
routinely and obscenely stuff my face to the extent you may have witnessed.
;-)
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 20:22:45
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote
> Thanks Dan. Seems to me that you often have good insight into relating
> the experiential to the physiological when it comes to running. You got
> anything on either of these, and why they might be coming up for me now?
Since you asked...Although I should give fair warning that this is based on
my experience, and we have totally different running styles:
I'm a long-stride clomper, and I bounce a lot. Power versus form.
You're a very efficient, quick strider. Like the elites (except a tad
slower!).
So this might not apply to you...
>>> Sensations which seemed novel (or maybe just
>>> poor memory) included more of a burning sensation
>>> in the legs on uphills late in the race,
My typical strategy is to keep it just below the burn (except for a 5k --
and a 4 miler qualifies), and to plan ahead for a surge at the crest and
really blast the downhill. It should hurt aerobically (in the chest/torso),
not in the legs. Leg burn = code word for anerobic == vastly increased
glycogen consumption. But at the end, you know you can gut out the last
1/2 - 1 mile no matter what, so it's devil-may-care.
>>> ... and slipping into a bit of a dreamlike state for part
>>> of the last mile. which seemed clearly related to
>>> the effort - fatigue? endorphins? other?
You lost concentration. This happened in a very tough hill race when the
three of us in our little group slowed down just a tad to a very comfortable
endorphin-intoxicated, dream-like pace -- a break from the pain. I said
"Hey guys, this is supposed to be a race, how about picking up the pace, or
let me pass." They picked it up.
The fact that you could run 10 miles home and feel pretty good means that
you had way too much glycogen in your legs after the race. When you deplete
your glycogen, even 100% fat-burning 9-10 min/mile jogging is a real chore.
For me, it would mean that I sandbagged the thing. After a hard 10k, I
usually jog 4-5 miles afterward, and I feel like total crap!
What could this mean? You report that you were going as hard as possible --
does that mean real aerobic pain + borderline leg burn + 3 and 2 step
breathing?
If so, then you're not yet fit enough to empty out the tank, which means
lots of untapped potential.
If not, then you have levels of pain you have yet to explore. I have a
friend who in HS cross-country lost his first few races. He was
dissapointed, and his dad suggested "just stop caring how much it hurts".
He did that, and was undefeated in dual meets after that. He eventually won
a big 2-mile indoor at the Garden, ran a 4:08 mile, a 2:2x at Boston, and
other goodies. This was ~35 years ago. I talk to him (he's retired now)
about strategy, and he still stresses that being mentally tougher than
anyone out there helps a lot.
For what it's worth (only what you paid for it!)
-- Dan
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 00:23:44
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:pyv3g.6745$BS2.5101@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ......
> The fact that you could run 10 miles home and feel pretty good means that
> you had way too much glycogen in your legs after the race. When you
deplete
> your glycogen, even 100% fat-burning 9-10 min/mile jogging is a real
chore.
> For me, it would mean that I sandbagged the thing. After a hard 10k, I
> usually jog 4-5 miles afterward, and I feel like total crap!
>
> What could this mean? You report that you were going as hard as
possible --
> does that mean real aerobic pain + borderline leg burn + 3 and 2 step
> breathing?
>
> If so, then you're not yet fit enough to empty out the tank, which means
> lots of untapped potential.
Is it just glycogen depletion, or is it also pushing-the-limit muscle
damage? One reason I very rarely run short races is that most fall on a
weekend, and if it's Saturday, my legs don't want to go anywhere Sunday, let
alone after the race. If it's Sunday and I want to do well, I have to hold
back Saturday to do my best. So, if I want to get any kind of distance in on
the weekend, short races directly conflict with that.
Since I've never trained for short races I guess I've never become
accustomed to the hard efforts they require in training. For example, I
recall Donovan talking last year about his Deeks workout, completing the
entire 5k distance as intervals but just 20-30 seconds slower than an
all-out 5k time. To me that sounded ludicrous because it seems like much too
fast a workout to recover from if done weekly (or twice a week). The
question I have is: for a very well trained (let's say) 5k racer, how doe he
feel after a truly all-out PR effort, and how long does it take him to
recover?
-Tony
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 01:12:15
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com > wrote
>> If so, then you're not yet fit enough to empty out the tank, which means
>> lots of untapped potential.
>
> Is it just glycogen depletion, or is it also pushing-the-limit muscle
> damage? One reason I very rarely run short races is that most fall on a
> weekend, and if it's Saturday, my legs don't want to go anywhere Sunday,
> let
> alone after the race.
I think that if your legs feel really, really sore, and that's the limiter,
then it's muscle damage. If you just feel crappy all over, and it hurts,
you've run out of glycogen. Remember that fat burning (eg, jogging)
requires some glycogen.
> If it's Sunday and I want to do well, I have to hold
> back Saturday to do my best. So, if I want to get any kind of distance in
> on
> the weekend, short races directly conflict with that.
In my case, even at age 54, I can run a 5k or 10k on Saturday, and have a
good long run the next day (at an easy pace). I may be a bit sore, but if I
eat enough after the race, I can enjoy myself the next day.
Way back when I could run fast, I used to race most Saturdays, and do my
long run with the boys on Sunday, and it was no problem for me.
> Since I've never trained for short races I guess I've never become
> accustomed to the hard efforts they require in training. For example, I
> recall Donovan talking last year about his Deeks workout, completing the
> entire 5k distance as intervals but just 20-30 seconds slower than an
> all-out 5k time. To me that sounded ludicrous because it seems like much
> too
> fast a workout to recover from if done weekly (or twice a week). The
> question I have is: for a very well trained (let's say) 5k racer, how doe
> he
> feel after a truly all-out PR effort, and how long does it take him to
> recover?
I ran 5k at the same point level as my marathon (16 flat). My hardest
workouts were 10 x 440, full recovery@71 secs, and 3 x 1, full recovery, at
just about 5k pace. The day after the race I could run a long run with my
buds without problem.
-- Dan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 03:33:33
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:PNz3g.3483$DT5.2259@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ....
> I think that if your legs feel really, really sore, and that's the
limiter,
> then it's muscle damage. If you just feel crappy all over, and it hurts,
> you've run out of glycogen. Remember that fat burning (eg, jogging)
> requires some glycogen.
> ...
> Way back when I could run fast, I used to race most Saturdays, and do my
> long run with the boys on Sunday, and it was no problem for me.
I would think also that the difference in muscle fiber makeup would
determine the amount of muscle fatigue. Guys like you, who probably have a
higher % slow-twitch than the average person, might be able to run long the
next day more easily since you were motoring fast mainly on those
slow-twitch. OTOH if you're dipping heavily into type IIb, IIc, and even IIa
in a short effort like a 5k, you're much more likely to be sore the next
day, no matter what your training level.
Now I haven't had a biopsy, but I know I was born more sprinter than
distance runner. The proof is that I was among the fastest kids in my town,
as wide-receiver in football, and on the soccer field, but always struggled
to run laps, and I always had poor recovery from distance races -- though
when I was young I could run 100's of quick sprints in an afternoon playing
football. Back when I was a teen it was funny, I could outrun the faster
runners who ran around the lake by doing 200's and some walking. I used to
get pissed off that I couldn't keep up with them at a steady pace, so I
would just do the sprint thing; the adolescent mind...
-Tony
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 13:43:33
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:PNz3g.3483$DT5.2259@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In my case, even at age 54, I can run a 5k or 10k on Saturday, and
> have a good long run the next day (at an easy pace). I may be a bit
> sore, but if I eat enough after the race, I can enjoy myself the next
> day.
I think the basic difference between you or Donovan and Tony is you tend
to do higher mileage and more quality.
This alone gives you more recuperative power and you can race and still
do a long run. Tony's mileage is lower albeit has some cross-dressing
and his recovery will be much slower. Personally I can't go long
Saturday and race Sunday. I could race Saturday and go long Sunday but I
would likely start off nice and slow. I prefer to do my "racing" mid
week and leave my weekends to long Saturday and easy Sunday.
-Doug
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 12:14:27
From: Teresa Bippert-Plymate
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Big congrats Charlie! Three seconds is practically the same, especially
with the weather thrown in. And also great that you felt so good so
soon, that feels wonderful. I think you're about ready for a big
breakthrough. Next time taper some, and I'll bet you'll break that
old PR!
Teresa in AZ
Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Gave it absolutely all I had throughout and especially in the last mile;
> felt I paced well by effort despite somewhat uneven splits; caught the
> attractive younger woman runner (certainly a better class of runner than I,
> with terrific form and a palpable aura of determination) I'd tailed most of
> the race - third consecutive race I've trailed different runners meeting
> that description, caught them in the last two.
>
> For all that I fell three seconds shy of my PR. And in truth I'm quite
> well-pleased with that. Maybe even a bit chuffed; I am not quite sure how
> to check for that. I ran a good race on less than fresh legs. Will cut
> back mileage and perhaps cut or shorten a workout the weeks before my next
> couple races, the Broad Street 10 miler in Philly and then the sub-40 10k
> attempt in Central Park. But for this one, no such concessions.
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 08:45:54
From:
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
> Shall we address you as Sir Lance
_
Charles said, "Next race is 23 April, a reunion with the 4 mile
distance which I've already
PR'd twice in 2006. I hope to make it a trifecta - the speedwork sure
ought
to help"
_
Not one of you soft peddlers has been honest w/Charles. His 3 weeks of
training bared no fruit. I, and most of you, if you're honest, have
higher standards than that. We expect gain, advancement in this
context. The weather means nothing, we train in this weather.
Now Charles has accepted his performance. I would not not nor would
many of you. I have said it several times and I will say it again.
Charles lacks the mindset of a competitor, mentally he's not prepared
to accomplish his self-defined goals. It does not helped that he
dodged racing against the areas best at the same distance a couple of
weeks ago.
Now he says, " I fell three seconds shy of my PR. And in truth I'm
quite
well-pleased with that".
Are you also pleased with not hitting your goal of 70% AG again
Charles? C'mon....Accepting lowered performance? Not just accepting
but "quite pleased" with it? This is not the posture or attitude of a
champion. This is simply unacceptable for the goal oriented achieving
person. He has to become mentally tough and expect to win. The
reason I can do what I do at 43 and BMI of 26 is not due to training,
it's a bit of natural talent but mostly I am the most mentally tough
bastard on the course on race day. Now whether that's true or not is
not the issue. The issue is that's my mindset on race day.
You guys can stroke Charles all you want. Charles will gain and
possibly out perform me once he developes a mental edge. Now what I am
saying is tough, but it's for his own betterman and gain. He should
browse some books centered around psychology & performance, some
Csikszentmihalyi and the book Mind Gym.
...and Doug, the name is Lancelot, and yes, Sir Lancelot will be fine,
thank you.
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 12:22:50
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1145839332.503745@nntp.acecape.com...
...
> 05 Feb: 6:54 - 6:31 - 6:37 - 6:15 = 26:17, 66.8% WAVA
> 25 Feb: 6:44 - 6:18 - 6:27 - 6:14 = 25:43, 68.3% WAVA
> 23 Apr: 6:47 - 6:09 - 6:41 - 6:09 = 25:46, 68.1% WAVA
> ...
> 05 Feb: 26:17 = 201/4812 total, 77/969 M3039
> 25 Feb: 25:43 = 304/4721 total, 118/871 M3039
> 23 Apr: 25:46 = 135/3647 total, 45/784 M3039
Good job Charlie, that you could run 9 miles home after with no ill-effects
is remarkable to me. After any short races I've done my legs are in no shape
to run 5 miles let alone 9. I do think the placing shows something; though
less may have showed for the race, in wet conditions the more die-hard are
likely to show anyway.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 13:18:22
From: steve common
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> and slipping into
>a bit of a dreamlike state for part of the last mile. which seemed clearly
>related to the effort - fatigue? endorphins? other?
That's the most dangerous bit of the race for me, just after 3/4 mark. I
tend to loose focus there, but doesn't look like you did.
>Splits of 2006 4M races (same loop, different starting lines):
>
> 05 Feb: 6:54 - 6:31 - 6:37 - 6:15 = 26:17, 66.8% WAVA
> 25 Feb: 6:44 - 6:18 - 6:27 - 6:14 = 25:43, 68.3% WAVA
> 23 Apr: 6:47 - 6:09 - 6:41 - 6:09 = 25:46, 68.1% WAVA
Hmmm. Quicker on flats, same or slower hills. Did the shifted start put a
bit of each hill across the mile boundaries or was it an exact 2 mile
shift?
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 01:07:38
From: anders
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
lanceandrew@aol.com kirjoitti:
> When I raced a 10K last year, Mottram smoked me thoroughly, but I did
> manage to clock a 39:27 10K in Central Park and Finish in the top 20 in
> my AG.
I know you like to call many of the Central Park courses quite hilly
and tough, but frankly, I have to call any (non-mountain) 10K race
(with a serious-sized field) where 39:27 gets you a top 20 in M40
piss-weak. It strikes me that there must be a wide yawning gap between
the absolute AG elite and the rest and that the field of decent but not
quite brilliant runners must for some reason or another be unusually
thin in N.Y.C. (or the U.S.A.?).
> Now the fact that in this race that had Mottram, Meb, and several world
> class guys...the fact that I finished in the top 20 in my AG
Did I just hear the words "non sequitur"?:-)
Anders
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 13:06:18
From: steve common
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
"anders" <hop.allez@suomi24.fi > wrote:
>I know you like to call many of the Central Park courses quite hilly
>and tough, but frankly, I have to call any (non-mountain) 10K race
>(with a serious-sized field) where 39:27 gets you a top 20 in M40
>piss-weak.
If AGs are 5 years thick, a 39:27 would have got 57th AG in Selestat, for
example (9th 2005, winning time 31'01).
On Sunday I did 38'51 (winning time 30'02) and came 1st in my peer group
(M Jan1959 BMI 23 :-)
Perhaps we should (re?)-define some geek codes for rec.runners so we can
all tell how fast, old and chubby our balls are (sorry ladies, but we
don't see you wavin' 'em around much) :oP
http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html#appearance
--
x-- a47 bmi:22.9 10k:38'51
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 00:57:33
From: anders
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:
> Gave it absolutely all I had throughout and especially in the last mile;
> felt I paced well by effort despite somewhat uneven splits;
The splits don't strike me as too uneven, given the nature of the
course, and I especially like that both two of the fast miles have
become faster. With further improvement - and possibly 3-4 sessions of
short (10-15s) uphill sprints, if you think you can squeeze them into
your current plan - the slow miles should easily come down to the
6:30s, IMHO.
> caught the
> attractive younger woman runner (certainly a better class of runner than I,
> with terrific form and a palpable aura of determination) I'd tailed most of
> the race - third consecutive race I've trailed different runners meeting
> that description, caught them in the last two.
Are there more attractive young female runners in races this time of
year or do young female runners look more attractive this time of year?
(I'm wondering because I seem to have observed the same phenomenon in
this part of the globe, too, albeit outside of races.)
BTW what is the NYC etiquette for these sort of situations? Does a
gentleman sprint past a lady in the last forty yards or so (if he
cannot disguise it as a side-effect of a duel against a male rival)? Is
it considered proper to express one's thanks or would that run a risk
of beinging interpreted as a sexist remark or a lame pickup line?
> Sensations which seemed novel (or maybe just poor memory) included more of a
> burning sensation in the legs on uphills late in the race, and slipping into
> a bit of a dreamlike state for part of the last mile. which seemed clearly
> related to the effort - fatigue? endorphins? other?
You are getting the hang of it, son! If you don't absolutely detest the
idea of racing another hilly course while pounding the asphalt uphill
during the third quarter of your race, you aren't truly racing!
You should dread it even as you approach the uphill - just enough to
make you close your eyes and accelerate a bit on the last meters of
flat in an effort to give you some carry-over speed into the uphill -
but you should resist the urge to stop the burning long enough to take
you over the crest of the hill.
As for the dreamlike state, I can attest to being in it - on one
occasion to the point that I couldn't afterwards tell which turn the
course had taken in a particular corner during the 8-9Ks or the 17-20Ks
in some of my better-raced 10Ks and HMs. At those stages the fatigue
(and pain) level has already risen considerably and matched, but not
surpassed, the top of my current (physiological and mental) ability;
when the match has been perfect, running has been very hard and in some
strange way very easy at the same time.
Physiologists probably find the explanation in rapidly increased
endorphin secretion, but I'm inclined to think along the lines of the
psychology of the "flow" experience as described by Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi.
> And then after five or ten minutes of walking and bagel (untoasted as
> always - I think I burned a few miles worth of glycogen chewing it) and
> banana eating and putting my running pants and (newly re-waterproofed,
> thanks folks the wash-in juice worked great) jacket, I ran 9+ miles home
> along the Hudson River on Manhattan's west side and over the Brooklyn
> Bridge. And again felt gratified by how quickly I felt recovered from the
> race. From bent over gasping for air after the finish line to normal
> breathing in record time, and within minutes of finishing the race my legs
> felt downright eager to tackle the run home, driving rain and all. That's
> all gotta mean something good.
That post-race cooldown is important, no?:-)
> Despite the slower time, my place was a lot higher this time out. Guess
> that just means a weaker field: the Al Gordon Snowflake 4M was probably a
> team pointer.
It was wise of your to pre-empt Lance's comment:-)
Anders
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 07:44:23
From: Dot
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
Charlie Pendejo wrote:
...
> And then after five or ten minutes of walking and bagel (untoasted as
> always - I think I burned a few miles worth of glycogen chewing it) and
> banana eating and putting my running pants and (newly re-waterproofed,
> thanks folks the wash-in juice worked great) jacket, I ran 9+ miles home
> along the Hudson River on Manhattan's west side and over the Brooklyn
> Bridge. And again felt gratified by how quickly I felt recovered from the
> race. From bent over gasping for air after the finish line to normal
> breathing in record time, and within minutes of finishing the race my legs
> felt downright eager to tackle the run home, driving rain and all. That's
> all gotta mean something good.
>
> No blisters despite unlubed, untampered feet which were very wet for 2+
> hours. I took the rain as opportunity to test SmartWool socks and light
> liner gloves. Both worked well - my hands stayed just warm enough. They
> wouldn't have been, in similar weight poly-whatever.
>
> Splits of 2006 4M races (same loop, different starting lines):
>
> 05 Feb: 6:54 - 6:31 - 6:37 - 6:15 = 26:17, 66.8% WAVA
> 25 Feb: 6:44 - 6:18 - 6:27 - 6:14 = 25:43, 68.3% WAVA
> 23 Apr: 6:47 - 6:09 - 6:41 - 6:09 = 25:46, 68.1% WAVA
Looks like you may have evened out your effort better this time
(assuming you were hitting the hills a little hard in earlier races) - a
little slower on the hills, a little faster on the flats. Nice splits.
Congratulations on a nice race AND a good run home in celebration! Yep,
I'd say things are lookin' good. I think recovery time is a really good
indicator of lots of things.
Dot
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 08:23:24
From:
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
> I prefer to do my "racing" mid
week and leave my weekends to long Saturday and easy Sunday.
-Doug
_
...and in the last 5 years, how many of these mid week races have there
been? is it not silly to speak of mid-week racing in a context wherein
it's an equivalent option to weekend racing?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 00:38:53
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1146065004.511115.170970@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> I prefer to do my "racing" mid
> week and leave my weekends to long Saturday and easy Sunday.
> -Doug
> _
>
> ...and in the last 5 years, how many of these mid week races have
> there
> been? is it not silly to speak of mid-week racing in a context
> wherein
> it's an equivalent option to weekend racing?
During the summer months we have a boat load of weekday 6:30 races.
There is a Monday night set and a Wednesday night set. I'm the RD for
one of these and co-RD two others. They are mostly on trails and
relatively short, 5-10k. but they work nicely and don't mess up my
weekend. The Wednesday night series gets 150 to 200 which for this area
and mid-week is a good turnout.
As usual you take a dumb position without asking first. Some day you
will learn to ask and then comment. Then again at 43 and a large BMI,
you probably typing, eating and not thinking. Who's your daddy?
-D
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 06:58:41
From:
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
These are not "races" Doug and you know that. Your club has collective
runs and you label them as races. Why are not these so called races
listed on www.runningintheusa.com ? There is no bib, no
sponsor.....they're informal get-togethers, but not races. You're
simply choosing to label them as something they are not. There are
very few mid-week races, I've been in about 5 in 5 years. A race doug
is something with an entry form....you know...a fee of some sort, etc.
Very few people get a chance to race mid-week.
But I see what you're doing here and now with your language. It's no
different than when "stunt" seekers claim to "race a marathon" when in
fact all they did was go on a 26.2 mile training run in an
unsanctioned, unsponsered run with a few people. The dumbing down of
the term "racing", etc...keep racing doug, you da man. (but keep your
old ass upstate with the rest of the sloths).
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 18:31:14
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: run for the parks 4M
|
<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1146146321.689549.45650@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> These are not "races" Doug and you know that. Your club has
> collective
> runs and you label them as races. Why are not these so called races
> listed on www.runningintheusa.com ? There is no bib, no
> sponsor.....they're informal get-togethers, but not races. You're
> simply choosing to label them as something they are not.
Once again you continue to make an ass out of yourself. These are races
and timed. Since the number of runners is small they use the index card
method and not formal bib numbers. They are not listed on those web
pages because no one chooses to go through the effort. They are local
trail RACES that appeal to the local people with minimal entry fees
collected to break even. There is no attempt to advertise outside the
local area since money is not an issue. I get notices to list my race in
Coolrunning but ignore them. I might get a malcontent like you show up
wondering where your award is for being a fat ass 43 YO brother and
scream racism. By the way, my race entry is $2 and there are no
awards, no shirts - nothing but a time and results listed in the local
paper and my running club newsletter which I happen to be the editor.
> A race doug
> is something with an entry form....you know...a fee of some sort, etc.
> Very few people get a chance to race mid-week.
But feel free to continue to show how much of buffoon you are. When will
you learn to insert your brain before your mouth. You are soooo easy.
To amuse you see
http://www.coolrunning.com/results/02/ny/May21_OlanaS_set1.shtml I was
not the RD at that time but I did run it that year. For more reading
take a look at http://www.milanrunning.com/mrcindff.htm and search for
Platte Clove and get to place where all three races are listed albeit
2002. Today calendar says:
May 25, 2005: Olana Star Loop 10k. 6:30 P.M. Olana Historic Site,
Greenport. Annual run over the carriage roads at Frederick Church's
estate of Olana. Course winds over carriage roads, trails and is hilly.
Entry fee is $2 and signup is on race day. For more information, Contact
Doug Freese at dfreese@hvc.rr.com
I won't humiliate you with any more calendar entries. Starting to feel
dumber than normal? Maybe Parker will come down to run and give you
first hand confirmation that it is a race and a very honest course in a
beautiful state park. By the way, I co-direct a 5k later in the year at
this same park.
-DF
|
|
