I already posted a specific page number where it is clear the runners are recording splits with running watchs. The majority of chapters have this type of information so I thnk it is you that needs to demonstrate otherwise.
In any event I want to thank you for offering several acceptable variations of my original statement and in offering support for what I said in the new form. Your endorsement of my position, given your involvment at CU, is especially valuable.
I assume you object to my original statment because what ‘was’ true is no longer the case. Without your intimate knowledge of current CU activities I had no way of knowing that.
I wonder how you reconcile the use of HRM, which you admitted took place at one time at CU based on your quote:
If you had chosen to use either of the final three as your statement, then it would have actually been true and I could not take issue with it.
with this statement:
This is why I deem such devices which provide feedback that does not lead to improved performance to be ultimately useless for serious runners.
Why would a team of serious runners, under a coach you have stated you respect, use a device that does not contribute to improved performance?
Seems like either your statement is in error, or these are not considered serious runners, or coach Wetmore is wasting time on a device that does not contribute to improved performance.
I believe the runners are ‘serious’ based on what they have acomplished, and I doubt a well respected coach would waste time and effort on something that has no value. I am left to conclude that your statement is untrue. Be careful magpie, you wouldn’t want people to think of you as a liar.
Have a nice day.