Rio 2016 Marathon Qualification, whos trying?

rom · 20-04-2015 1:48pm

average_runner wrote: »

In fairness if Athletics Ireland brings up his past, they should state this before hand and not accept his membership fee, either he is in or not.

A good time considering he walk for a bit also

Why was he walking? The time is good but its possible that it could be beaten so I would expect that he will try to run a faster one in the autumn as there are a few knocking on the door. Going out in 66 would seem that he wanted to better his pb of 2:14 and make his place in no doubth. Now I am not a fan but if AI takes his money there is little that can be done other than picking him as they do everywhere else. Him losing his place is a long shot but its possible.

average_runner · 20-04-2015 1:50pm

rom wrote: »

Why was he walking? The time is good but its possible that it could be beaten so I would expect that he will try to run a faster one in the autumn as there are a few knocking on the door. Going out in 66 would seem that he wanted to better his pb of 2:14 and make his place in no doubth. Now I am not a fan but if AI takes his money there is little that can be done other than picking him as they do everywhere else. Him losing his place is a long shot but its possible.

Apparently he was suffering from a head cold all week and his legs were heavy. His last 5k was pretty bad he said!!

pistol_75 · 20-04-2015 1:56pm

average_runner wrote: »

Apparently he was suffering from a head cold all week and his legs were heavy. His last 5k was pretty bad he said!!

Pretty big positive split at that level alright. Must have run out of juice in the 2nd half :rolleyes:

tunguska · 20-04-2015 3:11pm

Someone I know ran Manchester yesterday and his Garmin had the course at 26.05 miles. That is dodgy. Its way too far off the mark to be in the realms of GPS error.

demfad · 20-04-2015 3:15pm

bazman wrote: »

I understand this view completely and I didn't post lightly. It is my current opinion and I may well be proven wrong. You will always get an odd watch with short measurement, but every single Strava measurement from multiple different types of devices over 2 years (2014 & 2015) measures short for Manchester route. This is highly unusual to say the least. Most Rotterdam routes on Strava are over 42.2k - yes, there are exceptions which could be from a faulty watch or a particular watch losing reception for a period. I've contacted the organisers, but they haven't yet provided approved course length certification. This along with the facts that it is not a IAAF sanctioned event and that it is purely commercial with no athletics club affiliation means I have my suspicions. So many people run PBs in Manchester.

We've seen examples on Irish soil where races are short (and indeed long). As a race organiser myself, I know an incorrect distance can happen easily if you are not diligent. My point is you cannot accept all races as accurate on face value - someone has to question these things. If we just accept without questioning, it simply leads to a tolerance of inaccuracy ...

From an analysis of the official results, the issue appears to be between 10m and 20m. Race results of top-2 runners:
1st 10m, 2nd 10m, Last 6.2m
0:53:25, 0:51:24, 0:32:55
0:54:16, 0:51:37, 0:32:53

This suggests that the top-2 got seriously quicker over the 2nd half or that their intermediate markers are out.

Pace 1st 10m, Pace 2nd 10m, Pace to finish
0:03:19, 0:03:12, 0:03:25
0:03:22, 0:03:12, 0:03:24

1st 10 and latter 6.2m stack up. Middle 10 does not make sense. Looks like pace is 10s/k out = 2:39 for the 10miles.
I'm now convinced. This is all the evidence I need, but thanks for making me go the extra mile (excuse the pun) to verify my suspicions :-)

I thought the odd splits (10 mile to half is superfast) could be explained by an error in intermediate marking, but there is no getting away from those 10-20 mile figures above.

Natali's split (one of the Stravas you linked) is actually a good example.

At 10 miles he is actually winning the race, yet 10 miles later he has lost almost 2 mins to the eventual race winner.

According to race results he runs the second ten mile 10 seconds faster than the first. How can that be?

The course from 10-20 miles is not run in any given direction so even if there was any wind, ther was no wind advantage. No significant changes in elevation compared to the rest of the course, so no external factors as a cause.

Its reasonable that one runner could run a blinder in this section. But they all cant, and a man who is clearly fading badly relative to his immediate competitors shouldn't run a negative split here.

Even if its short, still a massive performance by EC and hopefully more to come.

He races a good bit and has clearly used races as a part of his training. Hopefully he will tell all on JTG at some stage.

Stupid_Private · 20-04-2015 4:49pm

I'm not fully up to speed on when a race measurement certificate requires renewal in the UK. But the Manchester Marathon was measured by the Association of UK Course Measurers and certified as accurate in 2013 URL="http://www.coursemeasurement.org.uk/detail.php?area=North&no=2013069"]http://www.coursemeasurement.org.uk/detail.php?area=North&no=2013069[/URL. It looks to be the same route yesterday as it was in 2013.

theotherone · 20-04-2015 9:47pm

pistol_75 wrote: »

Pretty big positive split at that level alright. Must have run out of juice in the 2nd half :rolleyes:

Stffl block head wind on the 2nd half can't have been fun, if one was under the weather. All times where a little slower than expected

shels4ever · 20-04-2015 10:33pm

pistol_75 wrote: »

Pretty big positive split at that level alright. Must have run out of juice in the 2nd half :rolleyes:

Like the choice of words there

menoscemo · 20-04-2015 10:59pm

Interesting Interview with Feidhlim Kelly on Midalnds radio about the whole Fagan issue.

Interestingly he also mentions that Martin now does accept prize money at road races which has been the subject of debate on here.

https://soundcloud.com/midlandssport/feidhlim-kelly-on-martin-fagans-olympic-standard-marathon

DocQismyJesus · 21-04-2015 1:28pm

I love a good troll but coming on the internet the day after a lad goes out and runs the race of his life and calling the course short isn't trolling it's just being a prick. I'm sorry but it needs to be called out. Irish begrudgey at its worst

youngrun · 21-04-2015 1:36pm

DocQismyJesus wrote: »

I love a good troll but coming on the internet the day after a lad goes out and runs the race of his life and calling the course short isn't trolling it's just being a prick. I'm sorry but it needs to be called out.

Great run by EOC . And by KS who qualified for Euros via same marathon last year ran a 2.20 subsequently.
But.- Is it not worth asking the question re the course ? Why is it not on the IAAF list ? Valid questions surely , especially in a qualification scenario where times and selections may depend on it ? probably should be done with AI rather the boards but the point has to be raised somewhere .

DocQismyJesus · 21-04-2015 1:38pm

youngrun wrote: »

probably should be done with AI rather the boards but the point has to be raised somewhere .

This.

Sacksian · 21-04-2015 1:40pm

youngrun wrote: »

Great run by EOC . And by KS who qualified for Euros via same marathon last year ran a 2.20 subsequently.
But.- Is it not worth asking the question re the course ? Why is it not on the IAAF list ? Valid questions surely , especially in a qualification scenario where times and selections may depend on it ? probably should be done with AI rather the boards but the point has to be raised somewhere .

Thought Bazman's post was fine. It wasn't personal and the follow-up evidenced why he made the comment in the first place.

Certainly not sure why it'd warrant abuse!

DocQismyJesus · 21-04-2015 1:43pm

Sacksian wrote: »

Thought Bazman's post was fine. It wasn't personal and the follow-up evidenced why he made the comment in the first place.

Certainly not sure why it'd warrant abuse!

Ha. I love what people term "abuse" raining on someone's parade publicly the day after a huge acheivement= fine . Using a silly word to point out begrudgey = abuse. We live in a messed up world.,.

Pherekydes · 21-04-2015 1:44pm

From the Manchester Marathon website:

Course Measurement

The ASICS Greater Manchester Marathon in Trafford has been officially measured as accurate by the Association of UK Course Measurers. The licence is available via the link on the homepage.

DocQismyJesus · 21-04-2015 1:46pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

From the Manchester Marathon website:

I suppose Strava overrides that body though..

pistol_75 · 21-04-2015 2:00pm

DocQismyJesus wrote: »

I suppose Strava overrides that body though..

As far as I know, and after seeing the comments which I found strange I checked a couple of reports from last year. It does mention that there are a few 180 degree turns as well as passing through a tunnel at some point in the race. This is bound to play havoc with GPS measurement.

If the course is officially measured then I think that has to be taken as fact that it is measured correctly.

Eoin is a real example of a guy suited to endurance over speed.

menoscemo · 21-04-2015 2:10pm

bazman wrote: »

From an analysis of the official results, the issue appears to be between 10m and 20m. Race results of top-2 runners:
1st 10m, 2nd 10m, Last 6.2m
0:53:25, 0:51:24, 0:32:55
0:54:16, 0:51:37, 0:32:53

This suggests that the top-2 got seriously quicker over the 2nd half or that their intermediate markers are out.

Pace 1st 10m, Pace 2nd 10m, Pace to finish
0:03:19, 0:03:12, 0:03:25
0:03:22, 0:03:12, 0:03:24

1st 10 and latter 6.2m stack up. Middle 10 does not make sense. Looks like pace is 10s/k out = 2:39 for the 10miles.
I'm now convinced. This is all the evidence I need, but thanks for making me go the extra mile (excuse the pun) to verify my suspicions :-)

Just to play Devils advocate here, but could this not be explained by the 10 mile marker/timer being in the wrong place? I have seen this kind of thing happen in several marathons before.

In this example could the 10 mile marker be wrongly placed at 10.15 miles meaning that in the results the first 10 miles is actually 10.15 miles and the second is therefore 9.85?

TRR_the_turd · 21-04-2015 2:27pm

menoscemo wrote: »

Just to play Devils advocate here, but could this not be explained by the 10 mile marker/timer being in the wrong place? I have seen this kind of thing happen in several marathons before.

There also seems to be a slight drop in elevation in second 10 mile segment! Not much but in conjunction with other possible factors!!!

I thought people were a bit quick to come out of the blocks and call it a short course myself!

menoscemo · 21-04-2015 2:54pm

menoscemo wrote: »

Just to play Devils advocate here, but could this not be explained by the 10 mile marker/timer being in the wrong place? I have seen this kind of thing happen in several marathons before.

In this example could the 10 mile marker be wrongly placed at 10.15 miles meaning that in the results the first 10 miles is actually 10.15 miles and the second is therefore 9.85?

Ok so I checked Natali's offical 10 mile split against his strava there and it certainly backs up this theory.

According to strava he went through 16k in 52:21, but his 10 mile splits on the results is 53:08, so it certainly looks like the 10 mile marker was a bit further on than it should be....when you think that the course came up 'strava short' (so to speak) this makes the discrepancy even greater as the actual 10 mile mark should have probably been around 15.8k.

pistol_75 · 21-04-2015 3:01pm

I looked at Eoin's splits yesterday. His average pace at each point is below.

10K 5:25
10M 5:25
1/2M 5:18
20M 5:17
Fin 5:17

demfad · 21-04-2015 3:08pm

It wouldn't be the first course that they have got wrong.

Massive bubu here in the Newport marathon as recently as last month:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/devastated-marathon-runners-told-course-short...5422095

When you have 10 mile segments with average speed differences of 10 seconds every kilometer (and more for slower runners) on a packake flat course eyebrows should be raised. Any runner knows that's a huge difference in pace. You'll get the odd runner having splits like that but not nearly everyone. Even a guy who blasted into the lead too hard and lost 2 mins to the winner between 10 and 20 miles, ran a negative split for the second 10 miles according to the official race times. How can that be?

Such big differentials are the characteristics of slow courses like Dublin not so called fast courses.

Edit: First 10 miles elevation drops 2 metres, second 10 miles it drops 9 metres so nothing significant there bar literally a few seconds.

menoscemo · 21-04-2015 3:18pm

demfad wrote: »

Even a guy who blasted into the lead too hard and lost 2 mins to the winner between 10 and 20 miles, ran a negative split for the second 10 miles according to the official race times. How can that be?

Because his 10 mile time split was actually further than 10 miles. As simple an error as someone putting the timing mat in the wrong place...

Wexford1996 · 21-04-2015 4:22pm

menoscemo wrote: »

Ok so I checked Natali's offical 10 mile split against his strava there and it certainly backs up this theory.

According to strava he went through 16k in 52:21, but his 10 mile splits on the results is 53:08, so it certainly looks like the 10 mile marker was a bit further on than it should be....when you think that the course came up 'strava short' (so to speak) this makes the discrepancy even greater as the actual 10 mile mark should have probably been around 15.8k.

10 miles is more than 16 kms though, almost 16.1k.

menoscemo · 21-04-2015 4:36pm

Wexford1996 wrote: »

10 miles is more than 16 kms though, almost 16.1k.

90 meters at 3 min/km is 16 seconds which still leaves a good margin. Also if we are to assume that the GPS lost equal distance over the first 10 miles as the other 16.2 then the 10 mile marker should have come well before the 16k 'bleep' of the watch...

Ghost in Cratloe · 21-04-2015 5:37pm

It should be noted that those who measured the marathon in Manchester have also measured a number of European courses including Hannover in Germany. So if Manchester is short so is Hannover and the rest. I doubt this to be the case.

Case Closed

tunguska · 21-04-2015 6:19pm

DocQismyJesus wrote: »

I love a good troll but coming on the internet the day after a lad goes out and runs the race of his life and calling the course short isn't trolling it's just being a prick. I'm sorry but it needs to be called out. Irish begrudgey at its worst

I do enjoy your wind ups and piss-takery in general, but I think you've jumped to a few assumptions here. Its not about just one persons result. Its that one person and all the other people who ran that race. If theres the suspicion that the course is short then I think its a good thing to call it into question and have it sorted either way. It may turn out that the course is 100%, indisputably accurate. Great if it is. But on the other hand what if it turns out to be genuinely short? Then it was worth calling it out so the organisers can remedy the situation and make absolutely certain that the course is bang on. Which is a good thing for future participants.

bazman · 21-04-2015 6:23pm

I may have been too quick to post publically, but it wasn't begrudgery. Call it more taper anxiety :-) I've run with Eoin a few times and he's a credit to the sport and I genuinely want to see the guy succeed. I remain a stickler for accuracy (this is in our nature as athletes) and believe it is right to question and not accept things at face value if there is evidence of an issue. This course was accepted by AAI as a selection race last year, despite not being on the IAAF approved list, so accuracy is important.

The course was fully certified in 2013 and the route hasn't changed since - this is the organisers valid position. Since I raised the query I now feel obliged to see it to a definitive conclusion, so I've asked the UK certification authority to verify the course. They were quick to respond and are now looking into it. I'll let you guys know when they get back to me.

This is the actual course plan that was used by race organisers:
http://www.mapmyfitness.com/routes/fullscreen/185187498/

When you actually look at the detail of the course you can see several areas for tight corners / a good racing line that could have a cumulative impact. Certification should take racing line into account and hence why you frequently see 42.5k+ for marathon using GPS. If the course turns out to be genuine, I'll eat my words, apologise publically, and simply run a good racing line on the course next year ;-)

pistol_75 · 21-04-2015 10:33pm

I believe AI have also asked for details around course measurement so they can verify the time.

adrian522 · 22-04-2015 12:24pm

I was looking at the GPS maps for the strava links posted earlier and even apart from the out and backs there are places where the GPS track seems to cut corners or not follow the road which would seem to indicate that the actual route run would be slightly different from what is mapped on the GPS.

I think this is quite normal when looking at GPS particularly in built up areas.

I wouldn't like to say the course is short because of GPS logs, they are just to inaccurate to base any conclusions on.

Krusty_Clown · 22-04-2015 12:31pm

pistol_75 wrote: »

I believe AI have also asked for details around course measurement so they can verify the time.

Why? Nobody ran a qualifying time?

Wexford1996 · 22-04-2015 12:34pm

adrian522 wrote: »

I was looking at the GPS maps for the strava links posted earlier and even apart from the out and backs there are places where the GPS track seems to cut corners or not follow the road which would seem to indicate that the actual route run would be slightly different from what is mapped on the GPS.

I think this is quite normal when looking at GPS particularly in built up areas.

I wouldn't like to say the course is short because of GPS logs, they are just to inaccurate to base any conclusions on.

Taken from thread on runners world which probably explains somewhat "My Garmin measured 26.02 but I don't think it was short. As many have said they can't be 100% accurate and there was plenty of corner cutting to be had in places."

pistol_75 · 22-04-2015 1:33pm

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Why? Nobody ran a qualifying time?

From a statistics point of view with relation to performances in 2015

Krusty_Clown · 22-04-2015 1:58pm

pistol_75 wrote: »

From a statistics point of view with relation to performances in 2015

So... The AI also checked all of the other courses on that list? All AIMS certified/IAAF approved?
Reading? Wokingham? Ringtown? Larne? Omagh? Meath? Dundalk? Bath?

Seems odd...

menoscemo · 22-04-2015 2:22pm

It doesn't really matter if they show the course was measured properly anyway tbh.
The problem with these things is normally a question of if the certified course was used correctly on the day....you have to ensure all the turning cones etc are placed in extactly the right spot, there'd be no way of verifying that I'd say...

running coach pacer · 22-04-2015 3:21pm

menoscemo wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if they show the course was measured properly anyway tbh.
The problem with these things is normally a question of if the certified course was used correctly on the day....you have to ensure all the turning cones etc are placed in extactly the right spot, there'd be no way of verifying that I'd say...

Fair point on the course used last Sunday . We have seen in three marathons in recent years in Ireland (Waterford 2013 + 2014 and Kinnity Castle FULL 2010)

In relation to Manchester I have ran the course twice - 2013 and on Sunday. The 2 two turning points that potentially could be in the wrong place are located within the first 4 miles - these did not not appear to me to be out on Sunday.

All the other points with change of direction on the course follow the natural pathway of a road.

To base suspicion ON GPS-Strava based data that remains erroneous (for a no of reasons) in validating and certifying a course length is mis-guided IMO.

Bahanaman · 22-04-2015 3:23pm

menoscemo wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if they show the course was measured properly anyway tbh.
The problem with these things is normally a question of if the certified course was used correctly on the day....you have to ensure all the turning cones etc are placed in extactly the right spot, there'd be no way of verifying that I'd say...

That was the problem with Waterford the last two years! Supposedly the course was measured and certified both times but on both days the course did not match what was measured. In 2013 road works interfered and caused the race to be too long and last year a mistake was made with a turning point causing the race to be too short!

22-04-2015 3:37pm

Heard about this thread and as I ran the race it did kind of ruin my post race feeling. I hope it doesn't knock Callaghan's confidence even a little. If it was short it was probably only 300 to 400 meters anyway. Hopefully he can get the time he needs in Berlin or somewhere flat in the autumn..
But let's hope the Garmin experts here are all wrong because I still feel like I ran a marathon on Sunday..we don't know which way these watches act in certain winding shaped courses, so let's wait and see.
Can I ask if anyone claims a pb from Enfield 5k and if they've run it more than once,each time dismissing their stupid Garmin measurement....

robinph · 22-04-2015 3:53pm

menoscemo wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if they show the course was measured properly anyway tbh.
The problem with these things is normally a question of if the certified course was used correctly on the day....you have to ensure all the turning cones etc are placed in extactly the right spot, there'd be no way of verifying that I'd say...

It is normally the case that a cone gets put in the wrong place. Was unusual with the Newport Half Marathon last month where it was actually admitted to having been measured incorrectly in the first place:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-32031105

Krusty_Clown · 22-04-2015 3:53pm

183 wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone claims a pb from Enfield 5k and if they've run it more than once,each time dismissing their stupid Garmin measurement....

Don't go there - the Enfield 5k PBs are sacred.

adrian522 · 22-04-2015 3:57pm

Well my 10K PB from 2 weeks ago came in at 6.17 miles on the garmin but I'm still counting that, no reason to believe the course was short.

TRR_the_turd · 22-04-2015 4:03pm

183 wrote: »

Heard about this thread and as I ran the race it did kind of ruin my post race feeling. I hope it doesn't knock Callaghan's confidence even a little. If it was short it was probably only 300 to 400 meters anyway. Hopefully he can get the time he needs in Berlin or somewhere flat in the autumn..
But let's hope the Garmin experts here are all wrong because I still feel like I ran a marathon on Sunday..we don't know which way these watches act in certain winding shaped courses, so let's wait and see.
Can I ask if anyone claims a pb from Enfield 5k and if they've run it more than once,each time dismissing their stupid Garmin measurement....

what time did you run on Sunday?

I've only heard of a small number of people grumble about the Enfield course!

menoscemo · 22-04-2015 4:47pm

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

what time did you run on Sunday?

I've only heard of a small number of people grumble about the Enfield course!

Hands up!!

In fairness the guys said it was officially remeasured again last year due to one of the roads being relaid/altered. Even though the garmins normally measure it slightly short I kind of have to take the measurement for granted now

youngrun · 27-04-2015 10:52am

Breege Connolly ran 2.37 London not sure if she is GB/NI or ROI ? Great run anyway. Any other elites go at weekend further afield?

tHE vAGGABOND · 27-04-2015 10:54am

I love that Paula ran an Olympic qualifying time and the media are talking like she was jogging around high-fiving people and having a laugh

Chivito550 · 27-04-2015 11:10am

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I love that Paula ran an Olympic qualifying time and the media are talking like she was jogging around high-fiving people and having a laugh

But she was jogging around, high giving and having a laugh. She could run that Olympic standard blindfolded, it's that soft.

rom · 29-04-2015 9:22am

Sergio dnf in Düsseldorf last weekend. He plans to compete for Ireland should he get the A standard. Dnf at 23k as in was off pace. Would have to be favourite after fagan to get on the team. Don't know if he was mentioned earlier on the thread.

youngrun · 29-04-2015 9:35am

rom wrote: »

Sergio dnf in Düsseldorf last weekend. He plans to compete for Ireland should he get the A standard. Dnf at 23k as in was off pace. Would have to be favourite after fagan to get on the team. Don't know if he was mentioned earlier on the thread.

Any more left in the spring marathons or will the rest of Irish hopefuls hold fire now till Autumn season?

TRR_the_turd · 29-04-2015 9:55am

rom wrote: »

Sergio dnf in Düsseldorf last weekend. He plans to compete for Ireland should he get the A standard. Dnf at 23k as in was off pace. Would have to be favourite after fagan to get on the team. Don't know if he was mentioned earlier on the thread.

I'd have Paul Pollock ahead of him!

tang1 · 29-04-2015 10:01am

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

I'd have Paul Pollock ahead of him!

Then Mick Clohissy ahead of Sergio.

Rio 2016 Marathon Qualification, whos trying?

Comments