Before I start this new post, a couple of us like-minded people thought it would be a good time to address some of our friends' questions on social media about why I chose, against the force of nature and popular vote, to be a 'whistleblower' and 'whistleblow' about Ruiyong's virtually non-existent chances of qualifying for Rio 2016 and to some extent Tokyo 2020.
Why would I be so seemingly thoroughly disloyal and faithless in seeking to 'destroy' a young and hot-blooded aspiration when it makes more sense to many singaporeans or non-singaporeans to give such local aspirations more mileage and credits? Except, and I really mean EXCEPT, it was never my aim to 'destroy', while the majority of hot-blooded athletes have historically not had the type of athletics career they hoped they had, whether that be as a result of injury, depression and/or unaccountable physical, psychological and emotional stalement. They might even run afoul of the rule of law too.
If anyone had been for 30 years an unknowingly diligent fan of distance knowledge and experience(or any sport), he/she would likely naturally be conferred with more than a little knowledge and appreciation of distance statistics such as performance progress trends and models, distance training science and models, and historical trends related to sport pyschology and athlete behavior. His/her faith and allegiance must naturally lie in these rigorously assessed and relatively reliable models and trends, and a select few geniuses like (for distance running) Renato Canova and Arthur Lydiard would then later go on and synthesize, make sense, test, analyse and experiment with the trends and models and produce new schools of thought and new models. But I am no genius, and I can only merely vouch for these highly reliable trends and models created by these geniuses, and so the majority of my faith must also lie in these. Can I reconcile my predominant faith in these trends and models with my relative lack of faith in Ruiyong's Olympic aspirations? Absolutely, they are in perfect agreement with each other. I do not have a lack of faith for the sake of having one, otherwise there is no logical and rational causation to whistleblow! And I should just shut down the blog....
To be very explicit, the model I am calling to whistleblow Ruiyong is very simple and straightforward to understand. In this model, no distance athlete in the history of mankind with a pb of 31:15, 14:58, and 67:22 has run a concurrent marathon time in the region of 2:18. If this is not true, just as I am not infallible, please let it be known to me here, and we shall make sense of it together. Ergo, if Ruiyong does indeed run 2:18 in London without some disproportionate revision to his 10k, 5k and half marathon pbs, he is the first outlier in entire distance history by a shocking margin, and since at no time in his career has he demonstrated a completely rare form of distance talent, like Daniel Komen of Kenya in 1994, then this outlier is simply too good to be true, like out of this world, and naturally one would have to suspect foulplay, if we also recall the ongoing turmoil of drug allegations against the very governing body all of us have been taught to trust and respect---IAAF.
Let's get to the analysis of Ruiyong's workout volumes on the track in the past 2 weeks. As everybody can derive from Ruiyong's facebook fan page, he recently did a 1600x8 and a 1km x12 intervals at close to lactate threshold pace. Excluding warming up and cooling down jogs, the total volume of workout amounts to no more than approximately 13km and 12km respectively. Now applying the Canova marathon model, workout volumes 3 months out from goal marathon race must start at a minimum of 16-18km, always excluding warming up and cooling down jogs, as well as, recovery or rest intervals in between the sets! These volumes are supposed to gradually increase, with intensity or pace remaining the same. 2 months out from the race, track workout volumes according to the Canova model should be in the region of 20-22km, or about the distance of about half marathon. Ruiyong was 2 months out from the London marathon race when he did that particular 1km x 12 with 300m jog recovery at slower than 5min/km.What is Ruiyong possibly doing, running only a mere total volume of 12km of interval work, 2 months out from London, whereas the high probability Canova marathon model would suggest knocking out almost twice that volume and with a rest and recovery interval of about 3:45 per km(for 3;15 average split-set). Questions abound about the quality and quantity of Ruiyong's physical preparations to run a 2:18 marathon in London. It only gets more incredible by the hour and day WHERE he is getting his confidence to run 2:18 from? Is he getting it just by virtue of being stationed in the land of the champions-Iten? Is geographic location supposed to be the formula that cuts through all the hard work, just magically by being in the land itself, or on the mountain itself, whilst doing, according to the Canova marathon model, incredibly underdosed workouts and long runs?!
Only time will tell but Ruiyong would be unquestionably well-served to abandon any Olympic aspirations and focus on simply breaking his personal best time of 2:26:01 in small but safe and conscionable increments. The pride and honor of Singapore shouldn't take precedence over the health, integrity and safety of our athlete, neither should it run into conflict with well-tested trends and models.
No comments:
Post a Comment