City Coach | Coach Cane's Blog

Recurring Themes

As both faithful readers of this humble blog know, I have a few recurring themes here.  One is that cheaters aren't my favorite people. The second is that the NY Times' health coverage sometimes leaves something to be desired. So imagine my excitement when I saw a recent Times article on the high incidence of exercise-induced asthma among athletes that combines both of these themes. 

According to the article "exercise-induced asthma has been diagnosed in as many as half of tall elite cross-country skiers and almost as many world-class ice skaters and hockey players." The author quotes Dr. Christopher Randolph, a clinical professor at Yale University who sees patients at the Center for Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.  Dr. Randolph suggests intense exercise in a cold environment may contribute to the problem.  He suggests that the "squeezing and loss of moisture prompt certain cells within the bronchial tube to release allergic chemicals that initiate an inflammatory process, slowly closing your throat."  

Our own Dr. Horne is far better qualified that I am to determine if this hypothesis has any medical merit, so far be it from me to argue against it (or the Times' for including it.)  However, the author ignores the fact that the rate of EIA in athletes in a variety of warm weather events including track and field and swimming is also higher than that of the general population. 

Perhaps the reason that so many of these athletes are claiming to have EIA is that such a diagnosis gets them prescriptions to potentially performance enhancing drugs such as Albuterol, Clenbuterol and other drugs that are on the banned substance list unless prescribed by a physician.  It's possible that Dr. Randolph's take makes sense.  But why ignore the obvious answer that some of these athletes are lying in order to get a competitive advantage?

Cheating in China

Thanks to our faithful readers who have brought this story to my attention.  Apparently Chinese college applicants were offered extra credit if they ran sub 2:34 at the Xiamen International Marathon.  According to the BBC, over thirty runners were caught using a variety of cheating methods.  They used a variety of creative methods including using impostors, having one runner with multiple chips, and the tried-and-true method of using a vehicle to speed things up.   

They Didn't Get Off Scot Free

Now that the season is over, I'm finally catching up on what important to me, like all the epsiodes of America's Top Model I have on DVR, and reading back issues of my favorite Scottish newspapers.  I was flipping through the Scotsman today and I noticed a story about the Edinburgh Marathon held this past June.  Seems that two runners (one male, one female) decided to swap numbers. Problem is that he ran fast enough to be one of the top-10 women.  That raised some eyebrows among their running club, who reported them to the organizers.  

Apparently the Scots don't appreciate cheating any more than I do, as both runners have been banned for life from the marathon.  "We decided to take action by banning them for life because otherwise Scottish Athletics were going to take action and we thought it would be better if they were banned from our race rather than every race in Scotland."    In a statement, the Marathon organisers said: "Edinburgh Marathon Limited has issued an indefinite ban for the Marathon and races organised by GSI events to a male runner who completed the marathon wearing a race number that was issued to a female competitor. The female athlete has also been banned. The action was taken in conjunction with Scottish Athletics."

Rashid Ramzi stripped of 1,500-meter gold for doping - ESPN

Fifteen months after the Games, the International Olympic Committee took action against the five athletes who tested positive in April in retroactive tests for CERA, an advanced version of the blood-boosting drug EPO.

via sports.espn.go.com

Open Letter to a Cheater

Dear Cheater:

We all know that it's frustrating to get rejected from the lottery for a big race.  And it's no fun to have to pay so much for a race like the NYC Marathon, even if you're in the employ of a large investment banking firm (like - oh i dunno - maybe Merrill Lynch for instance.)  I'm impressed that you're such a crafty fella and have found a nice way around these little annoyances by printing your own number.  Apparently if you're handy with Photoshop, anyone can run the marathon for free.

Here's a tip.  If you plan on using this method in the future - don't print your first name on your race shirt.  Especially if it's an uncommon name.  Obsessed bandit catchers with limited social lives but seemingly endless energy when it comes to finding cheaters (a/k/a me) will spend as long as it takes to find your full name and then go through all your old results.  Upon doing so they'll notice that even when you do get into a race (like the NYC Half) legitimately, you do your magic for a friend so that she too can run the race and accept a finisher's medal for running a sold out race for free.

One other possible means of escaping detection in the future.  Try to pick a 5-digit number that doesn't sound like you're on Sesame Street.  After all, as an Ivy League grad, I'd expect that you could do better. 

Respectfully,

Jonathan

P.S. I suspect that once NYRR has their way with you, you'll be walking kinda funny. Maybe i'll post some links to photos of your glory days for old times' sake.

Cheater? You Decide.

In past years, the highest traffic for our humble blog has come the day after the marathon.  Of course some people want to hear about the accomplishments of our friends and athletes.  But if the comments and e-mails are any indication, the biggest attraction is the list of possible cheaters who cut the course but still come across the line and accept a medal.  The most common, and easiest spot in which to do this is as the runners exit the Queensboro Bridge.  There, the race course goes north, but for some, the attraction of Central Park is just too great, and they skip the trip north on 1st Avenue and through the Bronx.  Our friends at NYRR have been attentive enough to this problem to add mats every mile after the QB Bridge, which you would think would be enough to stop folks from cheating.  Well, think again.

NYRR hasn't yet published the full list of finishers (though the searchable database is alive and well.)  When you use the athlete tracker, you can see all the splits for any runner.  Just out of curiosity, I decided to check on a few of my old favorites who had apparently cut the course in the past.  One such "runner" had some suspect times a couple of years back; 3:28 half marathon, 5:03 finish, no splits between 25k and the finish.  Perhaps she's just a strong finisher with bad luck with electronic timing.  This year, she returned to our fair city in search of another finisher's medal.  Halfway through she clocked 2:24 (on pace for 4:48), and registered at every mat.  At mile 16 (the exit of the QB Bridge, she hit a 2:58 split (which means she had slowed to a projected 4:51 finish).  Then she magically stopped registering at the mats at every mile, as well as 30k and 35k, but still "finished" in 4:08, meaning that she somehow accelerated from 11 minute miles to sub-7.  So, in her last two trips to the NYC Marathon she has baffled both the D-tag and Champion Chip system, and has put up mind boggling negative splits both times. 

Is there a possible explanation other than that she cheated?  Obviously, I'm searching for one before posting her name here.  Does your opinion change (one way or the other) because she is a coach for a charitable organization?

New York City Marathon - Trying to Finish a Marathon in Fewer Miles Than Required - NYTimes.com

via www.nytimes.com

Apparently the NY Times must be reading my humble blog and all the references to cheaters.

Dude, Where's My Ocean?

Jesse: Have you seen my car?
Christie Boner: Yeah.
Jesse: You have?
Christie Boner: Well, I saw the backseat.
Jesse: No, I'm talking about the whole thing.

A couple of months ago, I read a story about a woman who claimed to have completed a swim across the Atlantic.  AP was all over the story of 56 year old Jennifer Figge. "During her taxing journey, Figge had to battle waves of up to 30 feet and strong winds, and the inclement weather forced her to veer 1,000 miles off course; she originally was supposed to swim to the Bahamas. Her longest time in the water was about eight hours."  Ms. Figge was accompanied by a boat and surrounded by a cage to protect her from sharks, and she wore a wetsuit. 

Here's the problem.  Her boat traveled 2,100 miles.  She now admits that she only swam about 250 miles, and there were entire days when she didn't exit the boat.  She also now says that she never planned to do the whole thing, but here's a note from Hal Higdon (yes - the Hal Higdon) who is the father of her publicist, that was published before the event.  "So, you think running a little old 26 miles and 385 yards is an accomplishment? Well, yes it is, but consider Jennifer Figge, who later this year will attempt to become the first woman and the first American to swim across the Atlantic Ocean, from Cape Verde Islands off the coast of Africa to Barbados. "  And here's the NY Times story. "Figge plans to swim 2,100 miles, from the Cape Verde Islands off Africa to Barbados. She will do it in a shark cage attached to a sailboat, swimming for six to eight hours a day without rest. The journey will take about two months and, if successful, will make her the first woman on record to swim across the Atlantic."

The shame is that the woman is clearly a talented and dedicated athlete.  Had she not engaged in hyperbole, we'd be lauding her accomplishments.  After all, I'm not about to swim 250 miles in a month.  Instead, she embarassed herself, and all the press outlets who initially published the story without recognizing that no one can swim 70 miles a day for a month.

The Biggest Liar

It seems that the good folks at NBC's The Biggest Loser have engaged in some creative editing.  Contestant Dane, who lost 100 pounds in just eight weeks before being eliminated from the weight-loss competition, is seen running a marathon alongside his svelte and aerodynamic wife, and seen triumphantly crossing the finish line. 

The minor technicality is that the dude didn't do the whole 26.2, which sticklers seem to like in a marathon finisher.

Here's the statement issued by one of the show's producers:

As the Executive Producers of The Biggest Loser we would like to make an official apology and set the record straight with regards to the claim in last nights episode that Dane completed a marathon in Arizona.

After seeing on various online blogs that this information may be inaccurate we investigated the claim and found that Dane had not indeed completed the marathon unaided. From our internal investigation we learned that Dane ran the first 17 miles before receiving a ride from the field producer for 3 miles before rejoining the race at the 20 mile mark whereupon he completed the race.

We are incredibly proud of Dane for running 23 miles and losing over 130 lbs on his weight loss journey so far and wish him luck as he continues his new healthy lifestyle. We have also taken the necessary action to ensure that there is no future misrepresentations and sincerely apologize for misleading our loyal viewers and it was certainly not our intent but an unwitting mistake.

We hope they will continue to be inspired and motivated by all of our contestants and follow them as they continue to change their lives.

It's a shame, because big fella clearly worked incredibly hard to accomplish the weight loss.  Unfortunately, this - rather than his tremendous accomplishment - is what folks are gonna remember.

It seems that the good folks at NBC's The Biggest Loser have engaged in some creative editing.  Contestant Dane, who lost 100 pounds in just eight weeks before being eliminated from the weight-loss competition, is seen running a marathon alongside his svelte and aerodynamic wife, and seen triumphantly crossing the finish line. 

The minor technicality is that the dude didn't do the whole 26.2, which sticklers seem to like in a marathon finisher.

Here's the statement issued by one of the show's producers:

As the Executive Producers of The Biggest Loser we would like to make an official apology and set the record straight with regards to the claim in last nights episode that Dane completed a marathon in Arizona.

After seeing on various online blogs that this information may be inaccurate we investigated the claim and found that Dane had not indeed completed the marathon unaided. From our internal investigation we learned that Dane ran the first 17 miles before receiving a ride from the field producer for 3 miles before rejoining the race at the 20 mile mark whereupon he completed the race.

We are incredibly proud of Dane for running 23 miles and losing over 130 lbs on his weight loss journey so far and wish him luck as he continues his new healthy lifestyle. We have also taken the necessary action to ensure that there is no future misrepresentations and sincerely apologize for misleading our loyal viewers and it was certainly not our intent but an unwitting mistake.

We hope they will continue to be inspired and motivated by all of our contestants and follow them as they continue to change their lives.

It's a shame, because big fella clearly worked incredibly hard to accomplish the weight loss.  Unfortunately, this - rather than his tremendous accomplishment - is what folks are gonna remember.

Is It Still Cheating?

Last week, our friend and frequent blog commenter Yan sent us a tip about a woman who ostensibly completed the marathon in 5:20+.  Seems that this woman didn't trigger a timing mat until the finish, and she only showed up in one Brightroom photo before the finish.  In said photo she was clearly walking.   Last year she registered at all the mats until the midway point, and then disappeared until the finish in 7+ hours.  The fastest half marathon time we could find for her is 3:30+, which makes the 5:20 all the more implausible.

So here's the question - if this woman did not complete 26.2 miles, is it less offensive because her times were modest?  Would it matter if she was a cancer survivor or raising money for charity?  Are others as offended by such matters as I am, or should I worry more about myself and our athletes, and not care if others cut corners?  Also, aside from cheating, is there another possible explanation for her quirky results? 

Personally, I don't care what her story is, how much of a challenge it is to do part of a marathon, or anything else.  Zoe Koplowitz takes over a day to do the marathon.  Lots of other people stay out and suffer for however many hours it takes to complete the full course.  If this woman didn't cover 26.2 miles on foot, I have as much disdain for her as for anyone else who shortens the course.  I think anyone who cheats does a disservice to everyone who completes the race and does the best they can.  Clearly there's no way to stop all cheaters, and what someone else does has no direct impact on someone else's race, but I find it disrespectful.  Right is right, and wrong is wrong.  Based on the input I've gotten from people I respect, it seems that I may be in the minority.