Drafting in the Olympics (Page 5)

But since you want to add another race to the "debate" then fine.  The '07 winner, Henning, had the 5th fastest 40k of the race, The runners with the 1st and 2nd fastest runs came in 2nd and 3rd respectively.  I wouldn't say the 5th(of 53) fastest run split is one of the "slower runners" would you?

Not much of an example where the "stronger" runner(S)" don't come out on top. 

As far as examples go.  Why don't you give me the statistical analysis of all ITU races instead of cherry picking a few events.  Or how about an example where a winner ran out side the top 15~20% run times. 

BTW, how did Reed do against Kemper in the OLY? 

Just step away from the computer!

You are right, there most likely isn't an example.  My point is that a top 5 runner is not "slow". 

It's getting hard to figure out what your point is!  That it helps to run fast at the end of a race?  Gee, newsflash!  Runners with strong "kicks" often win too. 

Thankfully for your agruement.  Again, I never said the fastest one runner will always win.  Why do you keep implying I did? 

So to continue this debate, then will need to agree on the term "slower" and "faster" runners.  Since you didn't like my reference point, I'll let you take a stab about it.  I will not agree to any runner slower than the fastest one however since that is not what I have stated. 

Again, I didn't say the fastest runner will win.  What I have said is the faster runnerS (see there is an S meaning mulitple people) will win.   A top 5 runner is one of the faster runners.  Like it not. 

ohiost90 - 2008-08-19 2:17 PM Why don't you give me the statistical analysis of all ITU races instead of cherry picking a few events.

I'll let you provide that since you're having so much fun pulling up race results If your theory is in any way conclusive then it shouldn't require 5 pages to prove it.

Or yours.  It goes both ways right?  You are the one that asked how many examples I wanted.  And I quote:"How many examples would it take? " I told you.  I'm thinking you are affraid of the results as it wouldn't support your contention. 

You fail to state why that is a red herring.  Why is it?  I'll give you a hint, it isn't one just becuase you say it is.  Again, lets decide on the terms of what it means to be "slow" and "fast". 

Ummm...you were the one that used Reed and Kemper as examples.  How is it a non-sequitor when it doesn't support your contention?  That is pretty cool  for you, how does that work?   So Reed beats Kemper, all is cool.  Kemper beats (no destroys) Reed and its a non-sequitor.  Never really debated before have you?

Once again, you attributing my position as the fastest runner will always win.  That is an easy position to shoot down.  Trouble is, that isn't my position.  Read my posts again,  when you comprehend them, try posting again.  thanks!

Thanks for the news flash.  That was helpful 

I'll give you a recap from which the quote came from.  Someone offered up the '07 Hi Vee tri as "proof" that slower runners can win an ITU race.   Having the 5th fastest(of 50+) run split is not a "slow" runner.  Do you get the point now? 

You assert that the fastest runners will win.  As "evidence" you indicate that top finishers have the fastest run splits.  But that doesn't define "fastest runners" except in a very narrow sense, i.e., it defines those that ran the fastest in the TRIATHLON!  You ASSUME that they are the fastest runners in the group.  They may or may not be depending how the SWIM & BIKE played out.

Do you get the point now?

Yes, being a relatively better runner is generally more valuable than being a relatively better swimmer or biker.  However, this is generally true in most triathlons (certainly the swimmer portion).  The argument seems to hinge on matters of degree and I'm not sure it's as big as you seem to imply.  But, then again, I'm still not certain what your point is as you seem to be debating very "narrow" portions of this argument.

You just proved yourself wrong then. Runner 5 of 5 beat runners 1-4. Runners 1-4 "will win" is not an accurate statement, at least not in this one instance as well as many other examples which we have exhausted previously.

The trouble is, the race was not 5 of 5, there were 53 in the race.  Nice try however. You can't just look at the subset, you have to look at the whole group.  And by doing do, I proved that the slower runners, in the whole group, didn't win this race nor any that been offered.   And just what other examples are you speaking of?  Last night's Oly tri?  I guess you didn't see the splits did you?  Again lets define and agree to the terms slower and faster.  I see you advoid the question, request.  You are good at that. 

"I'm not the one going against the general consensus that the runner doesn't necessarily have the advantage in a draft-legal triathlon, therefore the dissenting opinion should provide the evidence."

Excuse me?  The general consensus is that the faster runners do have the advantage in ITU.  The fact that only a few are posting in this thread this opinion doesn't make it the dissenting opinion.  That would be like saying most americans are Triathletes since most everyone here is a triathlete.  Add that to the fact the 1st opinion expressed in this thread was that the runners have an advantage and yours is the dissenting view.  You tried to offer edivence to support your position, but alas, it was proven wrong.  Funny now that you don't have any evidence you want to put the burden on me.  Sorry, doesn't work that way. 

"I don't care enough about this topic but if you do then I encourage your endeavor. "

Funny, you care enough to reply to me mulitple times.  Oh well.  At any rate, you asked for more examples, and I gave you my answer.  How many examples are you willing to give me?  Or was that just some not so well thought out reply of yours? 

"It's a red herring by definition, why should I have to explain any more than that?"

Fine, avoid the question, again.  Your post is nonsense, lacks any merit, and just plain stupid.  Why?  It is by "definition" becuase I said so, end of debate.  That is pretty easy.  I'm going to just start using that tatic anytime I'm losing a debate.  

If your point is "the faster runnerS (see there is an S meaning mulitple people) will win" Then trying to use Kemper's run-fast strategy that has a 50% success rate against Reed's bike-fast strategy is a non-sequitor. The proof does not follow the claim

 I must say, you are deft at advoiding questions.  I'll ask again.  Why is my example a non-sequitor but yours, the exact same, but with different results not?  How can that be? Also please remember who 1st used it.   

Since you have failed to provide any proof supporting "the faster runnerS (see there is an S meaning mulitple people) will win" I will assume this debate is concluded. I apologize for my apparent poor reading comprehension. 

No, you just can't or refuse to recognize the proof.  This is sort of like talking to my three yr old.  You can tell him the sky is blue and he'll say its red.   Have a great time with your family and other endeavors.  I know I will.

"You assert that the fastest runners will win.  As "evidence" you indicate that top finishers have the fastest run splits.  But that doesn't define "fastest runners" except in a very narrow sense, i.e., it defines those that ran the fastest in the TRIATHLON!  You ASSUME that they are the fastest runners in the group.  They may or may not be depending how the SWIM & BIKE played out."

Not sure how you would define fast runners other than their times.  I'd like to hear about this some other way.  Maybe with this other way, I'm consider fast!  I'm not assuming anything.  Who were the favorites going in?  Were they the "faster" runners, bikers, or swimmers?  And if fact, this race(the oly) did come down to the faster runners. 

"Yes, being a relatively better runner is generally more valuable than being a relatively better swimmer or biker.  However, this is generally true in most triathlons (certainly the swimmer portion).  The argument seems to hinge on matters of degree and I'm not sure it's as big as you seem to imply.  But, then again, I'm still not certain what your point is as you seem to be debating very "narrow" portions of this argument."

You are right, the arguement does hinge on the matter to the degree of which the runners have an advantage.  I think it is a "large" one, certainly larger than in non-draft legal races.  I woulvn't know how quantify the advantage so I will not even try.   There is a pretty good thread over on ST regarding the same subject.  Its a good read and the posters are better writers than I.  check it out if you haven't already. 

The faster triathletes.  And Frodeno was not generally considered one of them.

I'll skip the ST banter on this thanks as I actually think the "debate" (such as it is), is sort of pointless.  And as fun as this has been, I'll now really bow out here as well.

Then it wouldn't be ITU racing 

The ITU rules were developed in order to sell triathlon to the Olympic Games (at least that's what I've been told); the reason was that at the elite non-draft races, the actual winner might not be the person to cross the line first (due to drafting penalties) and the final placings were taking up to an hour to determine (assigning penalties, appeals, jury decisions).  They wanted an event that would ensure that the first athlete to cross the line was the winner; the easiest way was to allow drafting.

Definitely, if you can sit in the pack and not get dropped or crash, cover any serious breaks and then get off and run with the leaders, this is the most likely plan of attack.  However, there is much more going on than can be seen on the coverage; the leaders will go through the turns fast and then accelerate out of the turn to put pressure on the guys at the back; they will do the same on the hills and wind if possible.  At those speeds, once you get dropped your chances of getting reattached and not frying your legs for the run are slim; look at how hard the chase group was working but they didn't catch the main group and that was a decent sized group or how fast the Mexican rider fell back once he was dropped by the break.

As for the course, they use loops to make is spectator friendly but also to have lots of twists and turns; if you look at the course there were 9 90* turns and 2 180* turns in under 7km with about 70m (~210') of climbing.  Although the course could have been more technical and with more climbing, it was by no means an easy course.

Shane

But the Olympic Games probably wouldn't...

Shane