Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
What I find hilarious about every instance when some of you guys fall for malmo's bait and the discussion starts to degrade, there is usually a reference to malmo's alleged use of some substance. Isn't that precisely what some of you guys are railing against? Can you spell hypocrisy... malmo wrote: RICHARD MCCANN: None shall pass.
Re: Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
Seems to me that far from suffering from narcolepsy Malmo is cursed by the opposite. He clearly can't sleep, judging by the length of the Monty Python pastiche. Either that or he spends far too long in front of the computer thinking up smart arse replies. Randall Northam On Saturday, Nov 1, 2003, at 16:47 Europe/London, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is usually a reference to malmo's alleged use of some substance If memory serves me right as to darkwing list topics over the past few years, Malmo has admitted to a brief experimentation (which provided no discernable benefit according to Malmo) during his training days in Eugene MORE than two decades ago. There are probably people on this list who weren't even born then. But at this point it is quite ancient history, and I suspect that it has little if any relevance to the current narcolepsy / MLB home runs / Balco / Conte brouhaha. RT
Re: Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
Any 7 year old can find that Monty Python bit on google in about 47 seconds(that was me-a 7 year old would likely be faster). Couple of minutes with cut and paste and you're done. Randall Northam wrote: Seems to me that far from suffering from narcolepsy Malmo is cursed by the opposite. He clearly can't sleep, judging by the length of the Monty Python pastiche. Either that or he spends far too long in front of the computer thinking up smart arse replies. Randall Northam
t-and-f: Buffs roll to sweep in Big 12
http://www.thedailycamera.com/bdc/cu_cross_country/article/0,1713,BDC_2450_2394590,00.html CU's Ritzenhein, Florence win individual titles By Camera staff report November 1, 2003 AUSTIN, Texas While temperatures dipped below freezing in Boulder, the Colorado cross country team continued its dominance of the Big 12, and did so in 80-degree weather. The fourth-ranked Colorado men's team and ninth-ranked women's team successfully defended all four of their titles Friday at the Big 12 Championships at the Barton Creek Lakeside Golf Course here Friday morning. It was the Buffs' fifth-straight sweep of both team and individual titles. Sophomore Dathan Ritzenhein and Natalie Florence won the individual titles for the Buffs. It was the first conference title for both. The men had four of the race's top-10 finishers, and the women had all five scorers in the top-20. Overall these are tough conditions for us, CU head coach Mark Wetmore said. We had to modify our race plan. It's not our intention to run conservative, but we had to today. But despite the weather, we ran very well today. Ritzenhein extended CU's streak of individual men's titles to seven when he crossed the finish line in 24 minutes, 11 seconds. He was 14 seconds ahead of runner up and pre-race threat Paul Morrison (24:25) of Texas. Morrison finished nine seconds ahead of Buff sophomore Billy Nelson (24:34). Ritzenhein was the individual runner-up two years ago and Nelson was fifth last year. It feels great to win after finishing second two years ago and taking last year off, Ritzenhein said. The Buffs took the team title with 38 points with four runners in the top-10 and five in the top 16. Freshman Brent Vaughn (24:57) finished eighth, followed by Bret Schoolmeester (25:09) in 10th and Casey Burchill (25:21) in 16th. Florence won her first collegiate race Friday in 25:11. She broke away from roommate and Big 12 Newcomer of the Year Renee Metivier after the 4-kilometer mark when Metivier dropped a few places but came back to finish second in 21:34. Kalen Toedebusch was fourth in 21:41 while Laura Zeigle finished 18th (22:33) in her first race. Christine Bolf was 20th in 22:35. The Buffs continue their postseason schedule at the NCAA Mountain Region Championships Nov. 15 in Riverdale, Utah. It is the qualifying race for the national championships. Big 12 Championships MEN Team scores 1. Colorado 38; 2. Oklahoma State 91; 3. Texas AM 119; 4. Kansas 135; 5. Baylor 141; 6. Texas 150; 7. Oklahoma 154; 8. Missouri 161; 9. Kansas State 231; 10. Texas Tech 252; 11. Iowa State 282; 12. Nebraska 341. Top individuals 1. Dathan Ritzenhein, CU, 24:11; 2. Paul Morrison, UT, 24:25; 3. Billy Nelson, CU, 24:34; 4. Mindaugas Pukstas, OSU, 24:45; 5. Matthew Chesan, KSU, 24:51; 6. Jason Woolhouse, OSU, 24:53; 7. Siverus Kimeli, OU, 24:56; 8. Brent Vaughn, CU, 24:57; 9. Matt Chance, BU, 25:00; 10. Bret Schoolmeester, CU, 25:09. Other CU finishers: 16. Casey Burchill, 25:21; 20. Jon Severy, 25:31; 26. Payton Batliner, 25:40; 33. Jared Scott, 25:55; 69. Matt McCue, 27:17 WOMEN Teams scores 1. Colorado 45; 2. Baylor 76; 3. Missouri 88; 4.Texas Tech 117; 5. Texas 124; 6. Nebraska 149; 7. Kansas State 171; 8. Texas AM 194; 9. Oklahoma 211; 10. Kansas 223; 11. Iowa State 310; 12. Oklahoma State 358. Top finishers 1. Natalie Florence, CU, 21:25; 2. Renee Metivier, CU, 21:34; 3. Amanda Bales, MU, 21:36; 4. Kalen Toedebusch, CU, 21:41; 5. Stefanie Murer, KSU, 21:43; 6. Angela Marvin, BU, 21:56; 7. Kristin Walter, UT, 21:59; 8. Brittany Brockman, BU, 22:01; 9. Talis Apud-Martinez, UT, 22:02; 10. Jessica Eldridge, OU, 22:05. Other CU finishers 18. Laura Zeigle 22:30; 20. Christine Bolf 22:35; 37. Kendall Grgas-Wheeler, 23:13; 52. Jackie Zeigle, 23:53. === I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past. Patrick Henry _ Sign up for a 6mb FREE email from http://www.spl.at Join the buzz, chat with us! http://chat.spl.at
Re: Re: t-and-f: Hope Still Exists - join the club
Montana does have a big sky over a sparsely populated land so I understand what Tony says below. The next question is whether team concepts can work nationally where the sky is even bigger? What will it take? Tom Derderian Greater Boston Track Club I'm not complaining. I choose to live here and I recognize the limit on uppper level competition. It's just that team concepts that can work in high density areas like the east coast, the upper midwest, certain regions of California, etc. just don't work in sparsely populated rural states. Tony Banovich Billings, Montana
Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout
I'll take your word for it that the runners are polled - but the key question, of course, is who is polled. You acknowledge you don't know. You also assert your 100% certainty that a majority of the 2:22-2:30 men would not be bothered that less deserving women make their Trials. There is, of course, one way to find out. ASK THEM. I'm 66 years old so pretty far detached from my fast, competitive days, but I'm equally (i.e.100%) certain that the majority of 2:22-2:30 guys I knew back then would NOT have been pleased. We trained our asses off, loved just the doing of it and the various races we ran, but also would have LOVED to make the Trials. It mattered! I helped pay the way of one of our group, a 2:24 guy who often ran 140/week, so he could fly to Ottawa for a May last chance effort in '76. Clearly he/we cared a lot. This issue bothers me because it parallels the Title IX impact on college runners. I LOVE the fact that women are participating in large numbers and that the discrimintaion - and societal opposition - of the past are largely overcome. But I HATE it that high school boys, like several I coached, who loved being on a team were denied that chance in college because of Title IX. They weren't looking for a scholarship or any guarantees, just the chance to go out every day and run with the team. In a prep school of roughly 500 kids (250 boys) I had 30-35 on the team every year, butwhen the better kids went to college the team rosters were far smaller and they just weren't fast enough - even kids who were pretty decent (4;35 milers, 9:55 2 milers). The authorities accept this injustice, despite the wishes of the males, and I think it's the same with the marathon. I'm convinced it would not be tolerated if it were happening to women. From: edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: \Athletics\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:33:01 -0500 You assert that the men and women each set their own qualifying standards. Do they? Are the actual aspirants polled? Yes - both the women's and men's committees have sent out questionnaires to the athletes on several occasions. I don't know their criteria - certainly anyone under the current trials standards are asked. It is possible that the 2:23-2:30 type marathoners are not asked and possibly they should be. But knowing plenty of those type of people myself, I am 100% sure that the majority would not have a problem with the difference. Your first sentence totally confuses me. Aren't you saying that women WOULD be up in arms thus preventing the unfair scenario I described from existing. Yet you don't think the men should rebel. What I'm saying is that this is a chicken and egg problem. The problem is that one group of athletes belives in tougher standards. So the reverse senario that you are describing is not possible - if the group of women belived in tougher standards and the men did not, there would be no hue and cry from the athletes because they are the ones making the decision in the first place. You are mistaken, aren't you, about the rest of track being less rewarded (yes, race walkers are, simply because race walking doesn't generate the money that road racing does). Track athletes get expenses paid to the Trials if they qualify just like marathoners. And elite track athletes, like elite marathoners, win some money. Far less money for the track trials than the marathon trials. And yes, you could argue that the events are different and marathoners don't have as many opportunities. Then I'd argue that men's marathoning is different than women's marathoning in several ways (most notably depth relative the world record). Look, if you think it's a big deal, do the following: 1.Write a letter to Craig Masback, Bill Roe and the two LDR committe chairs 2.Contact the elite marathoners you know - men under 2:30, women under 2:48 and get them to contact Bill, Craig and the chairs. 3.See what happens - it will be reflected in the minutes of the LDR committee meetings. I'm telling you, not that many people affected have a problem with it and the reason is because the athletes have spoken. Whether a reverse situation would cause people with nothing better to do and no direct stake in it to claim gender discrimination doesn't seem important to me at all. - Ed Parrot _ Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout
You quote my previous posting which says you failed to answer my question, BUT YOU STILL DODGE IT. So let me try again (hope springs eternal that I can get an answer). If women were the victims of the disparity in Trails qualifyiing and winning money, and as a result you were going to the Trials and winning Chicago Marathon awards while women marathoners who were better than you were not, can you serioiusly say you would defend such discrimination as fair? From: edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:02:58 -0500 BUT you failed to answer my question about fairness at least as to what you would say if women were the victims of the disparity instead of men. If you were going to the Trials and winning money, and women who were better than you (i.e.proportionally closer to the world and Amerixcan records) were not similary rewarded, can you seriously say you would defend such discrimination as fair? Geoff Actually, am I wrong, or is there more money at the men's trials this time around? If not, hasn't there been a time or two where that has been the case? Another function of two different committees, two different races. - Ed Parrot _ Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout
It seems to me that the issue in not whether the men's and women's LDR Committees have the right to set disparate standards for the Marathon Trials. Of course they do. I don't think the men care what standard Women's LDR picks. They can pick an A of 4 hrs. if they like. What is unfair is that the Chicago Marathon pays the same for much weaker women's standards. It is as if the organizers of the meet either don't realize or don't care that the standards are disparate, but have just blindly gone along with the two LDR committees as if the standards were equivalent. edndana wrote: You quote my previous posting which says you failed to answer my question, BUT YOU STILL DODGE IT. So let me try again (hope springs eternal that I can get an answer). If women were the victims of the disparity in Trails qualifyiing and winning money, and as a result you were going to the Trials and winning Chicago Marathon awards while women marathoners who were better than you were not, can you serioiusly say you would defend such discrimination as fair? You actually never asked ME that specific question about fairness in any posts before the post I cited where you claimed that I failed to answer it. Instead you said something like wouldn't people or the athletes would be up in arms? And I DID answer the question, evenb though you didn't ask the specific question of me. I said that if the women's LDR committee - based on athlete surveys of all current athletes of trials caliber - chose to make the standard say 2:40 and the men based on athlete surveys made it 2:30, I most assuredly would believe it was fair and I would ridicule those who claimed that it should be changed despite the athletes' wishes. Now, I can respect your difference of opinion about what the men running between 2:22 and 2:30 think. You are correct that the only way to find out is to ask them, and I do not know if that has been done. I agree that perhaps it should be. I do know that some of them have been in attendance at USATF meetings where the issue has been discussed and have not felt that it was unfair. The votes at these meetings (at least for the last two trials) tend to be at least 80% in favor of the tighter standards. It's pretty much a few coaches and the occasional athlete who vote to loosen the standards. I figure I know somewhere between 10 and 20 guys who have run in that range in the past five years well enough to know what they think of the issue and not one of them feels strongly that the current setup is unfair. Some feel that they would be fine either way and some specifically do not want it changed because it would make qualifying less meaningful - even if it means they will never qualify. The bottom line is that many of these athletes LIKE the fact that the standad is harder. This is because they know that it means more with the harder standard, and 2:25-2:30 marathoners do not tend to think that they somehow deserve to make the trials just because the women have a bit easier standard. They certainly don't tend to think of themselves as elite athletes, although many of them are supremely motivated to take it to the next level. We've heard from - I think - 3 guys in that time range on this list (not counting me, who doesn't quite fit the profile) who agreed with my thoughts on what these athletes think. One would think that if you were correct about how they feel, we would have heard from some who disagree with you, although maybe there aren't many on the list. - Ed Parrot From: edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Olympic Payout Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:02:58 -0500 BUT you failed to answer my question about fairness at least as to what you would say if women were the victims of the disparity instead of men. If you were going to the Trials and winning money, and women who were better than you (i.e.proportionally closer to the world and Amerixcan records) were not similary rewarded, can you seriously say you would defend such discrimination as fair? Geoff Actually, am I wrong, or is there more money at the men's trials this time around? If not, hasn't there been a time or two where that has been the case? Another function of two different committees, two different races. - Ed Parrot _ Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx (TM) 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com Know the difference between right and wrong... Always
