Re: Too easy.


RandyS wrote:
I already posted a specific page number where it is clear the runners are recording splits with running [watches]. The majority of chapters have this type of information so I thnk it is you that needs to demonstrate otherwise.

So then back up all your talk and point out more pages. You see when you make a claim, it is up to you to support it with specifics and evidence – any educated person should know that. Being a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society does not make your view right, nor does saying, “well, it looks flat!” constitute adequate proof. Your claim has been challenged and you have been asked to point to details which would support your contention. The burden of providing the proof is on the person who made the original claim. It is ridiculous, even idiotic, to expect anyone to prove a negative. Those times on that single previously cited page are for repeats, not splits on every run. I shall remind you of the claim you made:

In almost every chapter the runners know their exact split for every mile of every training run.

Being that there is more than one chapter, that means that much more than one page citation — in fact, it would take at least one per each of the more than 75 chapters — would be necessary to support the claim, though I would accept in the neighborhood of twenty pages where it can be found that in no uncertain the runners “know their exact split for every mile of every training run.” I read through the book last night and, lo and behold, saw nothing of the sort. I did see precise recorded times for the interval workouts, but not consistently for “every mile of every training run.” If I have missed something, then do point to specific examples and pages which support your belief. Should I be surprised if rather than defend your position in an adequate manner, you instead revert weasel-and-divert mode?

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.

And you are, of course, ever so welcome. I am sure that the last thing you would want to do is make misleading statements, even if those misleading statements happen to support an agenda. You see, if you had made the effort to do even some cursory further research, you would know that Wetmore is a coach whose methods are never static — he is always researching information and revising what he includes and what he excludes — nor are they uniform for every runner – i.e. he will have different runners on the same team doing different things in training, as evidenced by him not issuing him heart rate monitors to all of his top runners in that noted workout, let alone the whole team.

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.

Precisely, which is why claiming that something done in one instance nearly five years ago — even in the workout, he tells them to run by time, not heart rate — should not be assumed to be the case today, especially with a coach like Wetmore, whose methods are ever evolving.

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?

This can easily be explained by another Wetmore anecdote. He once was asked if he has his runners lift weights and why. His answer was that he does and that while he was unsure of the efficacy of lifting weights for distance runners — and was, in fact, unconvinced that it did help any — he would be damned if he left any stone unturned. Knowing what I know, my own estimation is that is precisely why he broke out the heart rate monitors that one time early in the season, because he did not want to ignore any potentially useful facet, even if in the end it turned out to have no positive effect. He and his runners have the relative luxury of throwing a bucketful of ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks. I do know this, I have never seen a single CU runner (or post-collegian) sporting a HRM on any training run or workout I have seen them in — and this is not something that would have escaped my notice. Take that for whatever it is worth. If you have insider information that they still break out the heart rate monitors for the same early-season AT workout to this day, then I would be open to considering that. To claim so without definite knowledge, considering that Wetmore’s training is not absolutely the same year after year, is an assumption, at best, and misleading.

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.

And it would not be the first time that Wetmore would have done so, nor the last. On the same token, Wetmore also knows what is most important and does not question the efficacy of it. When Shannon Butler, former NCAA 10,000m champion, approached Wetmore not long ago to ask if he would coach him on his post-collegiate comeback, Wetmore’s advice to him was: ‘run 100 miles a week for a year and then come back and ask me again.’ Damn that Wetmore for offering advice which a razor-sharp mind such as yours would deem ‘hardly advice.’

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.

Then, once again, you would be mistaken.

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.

Unfortunately, your conclusion is just as uneducated as the others. No, I would not care to give the impression of being a liar nor would I wish to cultivate a reputation for making uninformed statements. I guess not everyone shares that view.