On February 12th Ragnar Relay announced the addition of three new races to their ever-growing armada of overnight relays. These races will take place this year in Washington D.C. (Sept. 26-27), Austin, TX (Oct. 24-25), and Daytona Beach, FL (Nov. 14-15), joining their existing races in Utah, Arizona, Washington, and Wisconsin/Minnesota.

As with Ragnar’s other races, I have the pleasure of making the course maps for the new relays. From the mapping standpoint, it appears that once again Ragnar has devised three more fantastic routes that will showcase the best of the areas they go through.

I was particularly impressed with the Maryland-Washington D.C. route, about half of which consists of the C&O Trail along the Potomac River. It’s looks truly beautiful, and you can’t beat running on a designated footpath. No traffic=good running.

Cumberland, Maryland to Washington D.C. (September 26-27, 2008)

San Antonio to Austin, Texas (October 24-25, 2008)

Tampa to Daytona Beach, Florida (Nov. 14-15, 2008)

(All course maps by Marathon GIS)

The Utah USATF has released the preliminary LDR Circuit schedule for 2008. At these point, I imagine the schedule is still fairly tentative, but my initial reaction is that I hope that they either add more races or reduce the number of races we need to run from 8 down to 6 or so.

Key changes from last year:

• Only the Striders Half Marathon is on the Circuit, rather than all five Striders races. This really shortens the racing season, but increases travel time for people coming from Ogden or Logan.
• No more Salt Lake City 5K. Not big deal, especially since this wasn’t a money race, and shouldn’t have been on the Circuit to begin with.
• No Judges Run 5K this year.
• The Sandy Classic 10K has apparently been replaced by a mysterious “Provo” race on July 4th. This is probably good, because the Sandy and Murray races were only a few miles apart, whereas any race in Provo will bring in a different crowd and/or reduce the commute for Circuit members down there. In general, I’d like to see more races in Ogden, Logan, and Provo in order to extend the “boundaries” of the Circuit and invite greater participation.
• The Great Salt Lake Half Marathon has apparently been voted off the island. This race is disliked by nearly everyone, but it’s been on the Circuit forever. I disliked it mostly for the stench of the lake. Still…it is one of the few honest, certified half marathon courses in Utah. As it stands right now, 8 of the 11 races lists for this year are record-ineligible (ie - downhill). Potentially 9 of 11, since I don’t know anything about this Provo race.

We’ll see if they add more races. As it stands right now, the Circuit this year strongly favors those who get out and run every race (ie - Sasha), particularly the limited number half and full marathons. Right now there are 10 possible races to run, and you can score your top 8. Not a whole lot of wiggle room.

Well, since the new server is up and running, I can get back to blogging!

I’ve had a few weeks to mull over the USATF’s recent decision to revamp the OTQ standards for the men’s marathon. My initial blog posting was my knee-jerk reaction that I wrote a few hours after reading about the decision. Since then, I have heard many good (and bad) arguments opposing various aspects of the new standards. And it has given me a lot to chew on. Here are my current thoughts on the issue:

• Adding a Half Marathon qualifier: good. No change of opinion here, and most other people agree with this one too. Also, taking away the 5K qualifier: good. I don’t think anyone took up the offer this time around anyway. So what remains is a 10K qualifier at 28:30 and a Half Marathon qualifier at 1:05:00. A lot of people still dispute allowing runners to qualify with a 10K, but I think this year’s 10K runners (Browne, Rohatinsky, Carney, Gonzales) more than proved that they belonged (not that Browne had anything to prove, but he did qualify via 10K). Yeah, 10K times are not the best indicator of marathon times, but I do think they are a good indicator of marathon potential. Tim Noakes notes in Lore of Running that most elite marathoners are elite 10K runners as well. You need to have a good amount of leg speed to go under 2:10. And 28:30 is pretty darn fast. Sub-28:30 represents our top-tier runners. Encouraging our top-tier 10K runners to move up to the marathon should produce at least a couple top-tier marathon runners. I think this year is already proof of that with Rohatinsky and others making impressive debuts.
• Getting rid of “aided” (downhill) courses as qualifiers: good. I hold to my initial assessment of this as well, with a few concerns. Interestingly, this is the least debated of all the USATF decisions, as I have read very few voices of dissent on throwing out courses like St. George, Steamtown, and CIM. Although I’m fine with qualifying somewhere other than St. George, out of love for St. George and other local downhill races, I hope that they can find a way to stay relevant among top-tier runners around the state and region. Prize money is usually a good way to stay relevant. It would be a shame if all of the sub-elites that typically run St. George abandon the race for “legit” courses. Another concern brought up by others is that USATF may be playing “god” with what courses are legit, and what courses aren’t. At first I was not too concerned about this, but now it gives me bad vibes. Although I support Boston, New York, Twin Cities, and other point-to-point courses being exempt from the new rule, I would like to see some firm protocol or criteria being set in place for other exemptions. Just being a major marathon shouldn’t be the only way in. What about all the other small, local point-to-point courses that do not traditionally produce “aided” times? Do they get the shaft, while New York gets in because…well…it’s New York? I would like to see a way for smaller point-to-point races appeal their way in or get voted in by something more democratic.
• Getting rid of the “B” standard: good. I hold to my original position. I don’t think anyone should have to pay their own way to Trials, or that runners should be treated differently because of their qualifying time. Just pick one standard, and go with it. If you make it, great, if not, tough.
• Lowering the standard to 2:19: good. I hold to my original position that this will be a good thing for American running…with an asterisk. If we can qualify 200 people in 1984, we should be able to do the same in 2012. And most arguments stating, “so and so wouldn’t have qualified with this standard, and that would have ruined their careers” are garbage. For instance, Jason Lehmkuhle (of 2008) and Brian Sell (of 2004) would have qualified with their half marathon times. The most famous dark horse, Trent Briney, would have been within seconds of qualifying in 2004 with his half marathon time. However, after reading a lot of these counter arguments, I do have some concerns.
  • Runners need a reachable “carrot” hanging in front of them to keep motivated. The USATF just took away many peoples’ carrot and moved it far out of current reach. This would be a major blow to the motivation of many. I could go on a tangent about the “quitter mentality”, but in truth people need sets of intermediate goals to step to in order to establish themselves and move on to the next goal. Where is the “intermediate” goal for the 2:25-2:30 marathoners? How do we get a guy who ran 2:23 to keep going, when the “big carrot” is still 4 minutes off?
  • Marathon training takes extreme dedication and sacrifice; there needs to be some sort of incentive. In short, we need more “carrots”. I am totally fine with a 2:19 standard, and potentially fewer participants, if the incentive provided by the “B” standard can be replaced by other races and events. That way the USATF would meet their goals of making the Trials be a truly “elite” group that can push for medals, but still continue development of younger runners, sub-elites, and regional runners using proper, sustainable incentives. With more “carrots” to chase after, the Brian Sell’s, the Peter Gilmore’s, and the Trent Briney’s can continue their development from sub-elite to elite, and be able to make the push up front. Take away those carrots, and I am a little afraid of what could happen. Probably 4-8 more good years of American running, and then when Hall and Ritz get old, we may be back to 1996.

So the crux of the whole matter is replacing the incentive of Trials with new incentives that are reachable to 2:22+ runners. Easier said than done, right? But let’s think of it this way: the Trials occurs every four years, and it is the focus of many aspiring marathoners. This has been “taken away” for a lot of people. But if develop “big races” that occur every year, there could be a world of opportunity.

For instance, the US Marathon Championships occur every year. Well, this year it happened to be Trials, but every other year it is more accessible. “US Marathon Championships” sounds pretty cool, but the problem is that most people don’t even know about it! I think one potential solution is to market and make the US Champs into a “big deal”. Make it highly visible, give it more press, make prize money 20-deep. Make it something notable to put on your resume. Make a time standard of 2:30 to get in the race, and make that known to everyone. Perhaps make it a team event, like US XC Club Nationals, where the best USATF-sanctioned marathon teams can win bonus money with cross country-style scoring. I believe that adding prestige and innovating scoring to the existing US Championship race(s), including the Marathon, Half Marathon, 25K, 20K, and others, could provide the incentive to continue development for a lot of runners.

And what if the USATF doesn’t do anything to “replace” Trials? Do we just sit on our hands and complain? Do we wait for the “government” to help us out? Do we quit because it’s too hard? No way! During the mid-90’s when two brothers in eastern Michigan noticed that U.S. distance running was in a wretched state, they didn’t just complain and wait for the USATF to fix things! They took things into their own hands, started supporting, coaching, and developing young runners, and now the Hansons are sending a runner to the 2008 Olympics! I firmly believe the development of American runners will come from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In other words, it is up to us, the grassroots; it is not up to the USATF to trickle down money to the little guy. I think the Hansons program is a model of what can happen on the grassroots level, when people just decide they want to help with the development of distance runners. Brian Sell going to the Olympics is about the best thing that could happen for American distance running. He may not win a medal (although I won’t count him out), but the Hansons will grow stronger, and more “Hanson-clone” teams will spring up, because the model works.

So my final point is that we can either sit around on our hands moaning, complaining, and waiting for the USATF to do “right”, or we can get up and do right ourselves. Don’t like how races are administrated? Join a race committee or start a new race doing things how you see it. Want to develop runners? Join a club, mentor a runner, get into coaching, or financially sponsor a developing runner. Want to run fast yourself? Find other like-minded people, support each other, and train your butt off.

End of rant. As usual, discussion and dissent are welcome. That’s what keeps the wheel turning, right?

For those of us thinking we need to get under 2:22 to qualify for 2012 Olympic Trials, think again! And for those of us “borderline” runners thinking we can get an OTQ at St. George, think again! Race Results Weekly recently posted an article about the official new OTQ Marathon standards for 2012.

Here’s the kickers in a nutshell (or maybe a kick in the nuts, based on your opinion):

• No more “A” and “B” standards. One time fits all now.
• New time standard: 2:19.
  • Can also get in with 10K (28:30) and Half Marathon (1:05)
• “Aided” courses no longer acceptable
  • New “approved” list with all “acceptable” marathons (to be released shortly).
  • Elevation loss of no more than 1 meter per kilometer
  • Start and finish of point-to-point courses have to be separated by less than 30% of the race distance (ie - <7.9 miles for marathon)
  • Special provision to be made for Boston, New York, and other point-to-point or non-record eligible courses that do not traditionally produce fast times

I am sure this will be a controversial subject for many. My opinion? (this is a blog, after all) I think these are all good things. That may surprise my three readers, since I myself qualified at St. George this year, and am not currently capable of breaking 2:19. But here’s why I like the changes:

• It’s for the good of America. I’m a patriotic dude. Tougher time standards will challenge American runners and stimulate improvement. 2:19 is the new 2:22. 2:15 will become the new 2:18. 2:11 will become the new 2:15. And increasing the number of guys in the 2-teens will push the very top guys even more. As a result, I predict we will see more American runners under 2:10 and contending at major marathons.
• No more “B” qualifiers. This equals fair treatment for all runners that qualify. Everyone who makes it will receive comp travel. Everyone will receive elite fluid service. Everyone gets the same living and racing conditions.
• Half marathon qualifier standards equals more opportunities. Most people can only do a couple good marathons per year, so opening up half marathons as qualifying venues should open more doors. Halfs are easier to recover from, so they can be attempted more often, and if you get bad luck with your marathons for the year…well, better luck with the half!
• No more debates about downhill courses. They are a non-issue now. Forget about it. The writing was on the wall anyway. I love St. George and Top of Utah as much as anyone, but again, I think this is for our own good. This will also take tailwinds (or headwinds) out of the equation, since most true point-to-point courses will be “banned”.

What does this mean for those of us dreaming to break 2:22? Well…recalibrate those dreams to 2:19! I am basically a 2:20-2:21ish marathoner right now. Four years from now I sure better be 2:18 (or faster)! And that is what I train and dream for. The bar has been raised; let’s go after it and be part of the American resurgence of marathoning. See you on the roads.

Back in early January, The Final Sprint began a series of podcasts featuring in-depth interviews with various high-profile runners, coaches, and companies. During the last 8 weeks they have released 24 podcast interviews (and growing!), that range in duration from 20 to 40 minutes.

And these are not little wimpy interviews with “nobodies” either. We’re talking running superstars such as Jack Daniels, Alan Culpepper, Todd Williams, Ryan Hall, Jim Ryun, Deena Kastor, Gail Devers, Dean Karnazes, Alan Webb, Jeff Galloway, and more.

This is a refreshing breath of fresh air for our sport, which is often reduced to 10-second sound bytes and fragmented TV coverage of two laps of the Olympic 5K, or bits and pieces of the marathon. In this case, a specialty internet site has stepped in where mainstream media has failed, and TFS has done a great job promoting the sport of running and its professional athletes. The sports of track and field, cross country, ultra running, and road running can only stand to benefit from thorough media coverage in general. Hopefully other running sites will follow suit.

I’ve been listening to these podcasts consistently over the last two months, and they have served me well by:

1. Inspiring the pursuit of greatness. It’s amazing hearing about how these people seek after their dreams with relentless zeal. The interview with Ryan Hall was truly something else.
2. Creating an interest in the key figures of U.S. running. Too often I only think about my own racing. There is a revival going on in U.S. distance running, and these interviews have raised my awareness of it. I’m a true fan now. Hopefully the overall fanbase of professional running will grow too.
3. Creating an awareness of how people are living their dreams, not just through professional running, but also through other marketable avenues within the sport. Interviews with Dean Karnazes, Todd Williams, Perry Romanowski, Don Kern, and others were all about people living out their passions (running), and finding ways to make a living doing it! Whether it be motivational speaking, coaching, fundraising, or creating a really cool product to sell to runners, these people aren’t satisfied working 9-to-5 at some “ho-hum” job their entire lives. They are running “entrepreneurs” and innovators who are doing what it takes to live their dreams. As an entrepreneur selling a running product myself, I found this extremely encouraging and motivating.

So if you haven’t checked out these podcasts already, do so now. The Final Sprint is pumping out about 2-3 interviews each week, so stay tuned for more as well!

What is the mathematical limits of human speed? That question was addressed in an interesting article yesterday on The Final Sprint website.

John Einmahl, a Dutch mathematician and professor at Tilberg University in Germany, claims to have recently discovered that the world record in the 100m sprint can be lowered by another half-second. Einmahl claims that Asafa Powell’s current record of 9.77 seconds mark can be reduced to 9.29 now, and Paul Tergat’s record of 2:04:55 can only be improved by 49 seconds…

…Paula Radcliffe’s current marathon mark of 2:15.25 could drop by 8:50…

…He stated that in his field the unbelievable can be accepted; but the impossible is not recognized. Despite his results, the mathematician acknowledged that extraordinary performances may come along, contradicting his findings.

This is interesting to me. The article does not go into detail into how exactly he computed this, and the link to more information and sources was broken. Bummer to math and running geeks alike. Oh well.

Personally, I’ve always been optimistic that the men’s marathon record would be improved by several minutes still. It would seem that given enough training improvements, enough time, and enough prize incentive, that eventually someone would come along and break the 2:00:00 marathon barrier. Adeel speculates similarly on the Complete Running Network. For the record, 2-hour pace comes out to about 4:34/mile, but hey, didn’t people once say that the 4-minute mile was beyond human limits? And if a million moneys could type Hamlet over enough time, surely someone will break 2:00:00 at some point.

Okay, but let’s say for fun that John Einmahl the mathematician is correct, and that someday a runner, let’s call him “Super-Tegat” reaches the human genetic potential of running and busts out a 2:04:06 on a flat, sea-level course. End of story, he can go no faster right? Nonsense, Super-Tergat sold himself short. He should have ran the St. George Marathon. Not to speculate too much, but St. George is most likely the fastest certified course on earth, as long as you are trained for downhill and altitude. And Super-Tergat is all of that. No, St. George is not record-eligible (has a downhill gradient greater than 1%), but let’s just speculate here. The idea is no worse than the Steroid Olympics.

So let’s assume that Super-Tergat spent a good year training in Salt Lake City at elevation, running up and down the Cottonwood Canyons to calibrate his legs to the hills. He is ready to race in Utah. Weather conditions at St. George are perfect, 45 deg F at the start with no wind. My course profile calculations indicate that the course has a cumulative elevation gain of 410 feet and cumulative elevation loss of 2976 feet. Over the marathon distance (138375 feet), this equates to 0.296% uphill gradient and 2.151% downhill gradient.

Tim Noakes in the Lore of Running summarized a study that indicated that energy savings of running downhill was about half of the energy cost of running uphill at the equivalent gradient. For each 1% increase in gradient, running speed would decrease by 0.65 km/hr; for each 1% decrease in gradient, running speed would increase by about 0.35 km/hr. Given the total uphill and downhill gradients of St. George, how much faster will Super-Tergat run? The time of 2:04:06 converts to 20.4 km/hr. His net energy savings due to the given gain and loss converts to an increase in speed of 0.56 km/hr, increasing his overall speed to 20.96 km/hr. This equates to just over 4:36/mile and an overall time of about 2:00:40. Rats, just missed it! I’m assuming no effects on altitude either for the sake of this fun. Runworks.com has a great running calculator that uses the Noakes formula and comes up with results that confirm my own math (which is reassuring). Sasha’s Utah Race Predictor is based more on empirical data and observation, as I understand it, but is known to be uncannily accurate. Sasha’s calculator comes up with a time of 2:02:03, so is a bit more conservative, but may indirectly factor in the effects of altitude.

If St. George offered a huge purse to break 2:00:00, I imagine it would happen sooner rather than later, despite the fact that the course isn’t record eligible. Super-Tergat will come some day.

The Stride Racing winter NUTS series in Ogden has been a winter tradition for several years now. However, this year, there had been no mention of the 2007 series on the Stride Racing website, but in the meantime Striders Running Store announced the “Striders Series“, which looked like the same thing. I assumed that the Striders Series was replacing the NUTS series, but was still curious about the fate of NUTS. Well, today I checked the old Stride Racing website, and they have posted an update very recently:

The Stride Racing catalog of races have been sold to Strider’s Running Store. Because of this, there will not be a Northern Utah Training Series (N.U.T.S.). There will, however, be a Strider’s Winter Racing Circuit to replace the N.U.T.S. races. You can get more information by visiting Strider’s web site.

Thank you to everyone who has run N.U.T.S. in the past. We had a blast putting it on and hope that you enjoyed yourselves in the bitter cold as much as we did. Who knew that frostbite could be so much fun. Thanks again and we’ll see you at the races.

Well thank YOU, Mark and Kurt, for putting on the NUTS series! Myself and several running buddies from Logan did it last year and had a great time. More than anything, it was an excuse climb out of the murky netherworlds of Cache Valley, but it also featured pretty good competition, a laid-back, mellow atmosphere, lots of comraderie, ample donuts, and yes, plenty of frostbite. The 15K in Eden was amazingly cold! I talked to Mark several times, and he’s a heck of nice guy and did a great job managing the races. Kudos.

I’m planning on running the new Striders Series this year, and quite looking forward to it. By being managed by Striders Running Store, it may have increased exposure, but more importantly the entire series is part of the USATF LDR Circuit. This will bring in prize money, more competition, certified courses, and other benefits. It may also encourage more people who live north of Salt Lake City to do the LDR circuit, as driving to SLC every Saturday gets a little old if you are coming from Logan or Ogden. It also expands the duration of the LDR Circuit, which could help people to get in more races and make the circuit feasible to those who were doubting they wanted to race that often. Finally, the already-growing Ogden Marathon will further benefit from this. The main change between the NUTS Series and the new Striders Series is the addition of a 30K race (18.6 miles). By the time people have completed the entire series, including the 30K, they will be very tempted to go ahead and run a marathon, if they haven’t already signed up. And those who do run the entire training series will be very fit and have a better chance of running a good race at Ogden.

The series schedule is below. Pre-registration costs for the entire series is $60, which is a great deal for Circuit races.

February 10th 5k
February 24th 10k
March 10th 10 miler
April 7th 1/2 marathon
April 28th 30k