OT:Mom becomes fastest American woman to run a marathon

[p nut]

I can’t wait till e-shoes come out so I can keep up with people like this lady.

[fried bake]

Originally Posted by marciero

I dont get the mom thing- "mom does this", "mom does that". Not only is it irrelevant-esp in the context of elite athletes, but it perpetuates a stereotype.

I think the context is that pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum recovery imposes a specific challenge on women athletes that is not just unique to gender but distinct in the context of their competitive arena. Achieving peak performance after giving birth is probably comparable to recovering from a major injury.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by marciero

I dont get the mom thing- "mom does this", "mom does that". Not only is it irrelevant-esp in the context of elite athletes, but it perpetuates a stereotype.

Or it confirms a cultural bias. Women are still seen as being the primary caregivers for children, reducing their time available for other things (work, training, etc.). During the last two years the percentage of women in the work force dropped to the lowest levels in 30 years. A large part of the reason for this is pandemic caused closures of child care centers and the number of children doing remote learning. With so many children now at home needing someone to care for them, far more women have left the labor force to stay at home with the kids than have men.

[duff_duffy]

I don’t get what stereotype this perpetuates. I think it’s awesome what she accomplished and shows young athletes that perhaps you can have a family, career, life outside of sport, and still rock well into your 30’s and 40’s and beyond!

Originally Posted by marciero

I dont get the mom thing- "mom does this", "mom does that". Not only is it irrelevant-esp in the context of elite athletes, but it perpetuates a stereotype.

[benb]

Originally Posted by prototoast

She won the race and ran a very fast time. No question about that. The fastest American woman of the supershoe era. Very impressive run.

But on the specific question of the record, this is more like Moser breaking Merckx's hour record. Both incredibly fast, but not directly comparable.

Right.. 5% difference with these shoes is a lot in a marathon.

It's the difference between two athletes sprinting to a photo finish versus the one with the Nike shoes winning with a 1-mile lead.

I can see everyone being more tolerant of this being fine since this is a bike forum and we have a long history in our sport of trying to win with equipment.

But running traditionally hasn't been that way... this seems way more like the LRZ swimsuit issues 10-12 years ago. I think swimming got that right banning those completely.

If the Nike shoe had been banned completely it wouldn't make anything any less sporting or exciting.

[marciero]

All good points @fried bake, Mark McM, duffy duff, and I think I agree, mostly, and to a point. Cultural bias and stereotypes go hand in hand- that it is somehow exceptional to be a mom and a successful athlete. Of course I think it is awesome etc, But I am not sure the mom part has much to do with it being exceptional, and again, especially among elite athletes. On the one hand, I would bet that motherhood is not uncommon among elite distance runners. But even if it is, these are elite athletes, whose ability to deal with and recover from physical challenges, including a natural life event such as motherhood, would likely be exceptional.

[nmrt]

I suspect what Mark is sayign is true. I do not remember reading, "Dads wins race!" ever.
Or maybe with dads, the barrier is so low that no dad wins anything worth winning...? And I say that as a dad.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Or it confirms a cultural bias. Women are still seen as being the primary caregivers for children, reducing their time available for other things (work, training, etc.). During the last two years the percentage of women in the work force dropped to the lowest levels in 30 years. A large part of the reason for this is pandemic caused closures of child care centers and the number of children doing remote learning. With so many children now at home needing someone to care for them, far more women have left the labor force to stay at home with the kids than have men.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by fried bake

Achieving peak performance after giving birth is probably comparable to recovering from a major injury.

The female runners I know typically start running again a few weeks after delivery, so childbirth pales in comparison to a major injury. And, it's been over 5 years since D’Amato's "injury."

[fried bake]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

The female runners I know typically start running again a few weeks after delivery, so childbirth pales in comparison to a major injury. And, it's been over 5 years since D’Amato's "injury."

Depends on the type of birth and complications (Serena Williams had major complications during her childbirth, others are more fortunate) but at minimum 6 months out of competition seems equivalent to time lost due to injury.

Why are you quoting injury?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[prototoast]

Outside of the "mom" angle, what's really impressive about her story is that she had her shot to be at the top level of the sport, and it didn't work out for her, so she did what so many athletes do when they can't quite cut it anymore, and she went and got a job outside of sport.

For almost everyone, that's the end of the story. If you can't make it as a pro when you're doing it full time, it's that much harder to get back there when you have a day job.

But she did, and that is really impressive. Her story is much more like that of Kurt Warner than of Allyson Felix. And it's a great story.

[Mark McM]

I don't know if pregnancy and child birth are equivalent to a sports injury, in regard to recovery and lost training. But a lot of athletes are able to rebound from injury and get back into to top form, so the same might be true for child birth.

On the other hand, being a top professional athlete usually requires being on the road and away from home a lot. Many people would regard a woman who leaves their newborn child behind to travel the world as an unfit mother, yet far fewer would say the same thing about a father who's career takes them on the road. The differences in expectations put on mothers and fathers (either by society or by themselves) can make it harder for women athletes to return to competing at the highest levels. Women like Lizzy Deignan have strong support systems at home to help care for their children, but not all women are so lucky.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by fried bake

Depends on the type of birth and complications (Serena Williams had major complications during her childbirth, others are more fortunate) but at minimum 6 months out of competition seems equivalent to time lost due to injury.

The vast majority of women do not have serious complications during childbirth.

Originally Posted by fried bake

Why are you quoting injury?

You brought it up, not me.

[xcandrew]

Originally Posted by prototoast

In the 2016 Olympics, Nike athletes definitely had an edge. After that, there were a few years when other brands were developing their shoes when many runners were allowed to wear non-sponsor correct shoes in competition. By 2022, I believe all the big shoe brands have their own "super shoe" and the playing field is mostly level again.

It's not level. Hoka is definitely behind. Scott Fauble and Rory Linkletter were with Hoka for years. In their first race after leaving the Hoka sponsored Northern Arizona Elite team at the end of the year, they both ran big half marathon PRs last weekend at Houston running in Nike shoes (but not sponsored by them). Jim Walmsley had an excellent, really amazing performance last year coming up seconds short of the 100K world record (that was set in Nike Vaporflys) - a lot of watchers like me were bummed for him because he probably would have smashed that WR and possibly broken 6 hours if Hokas were as good as Nikes. Good thing for him he races mostly trail, where supershoes are not a factor.

Nike, adidas, and Asics have the fastest shoes now. Saucony and New Balance are a step behind. Hokas are no better than the before supershoe era, and Brooks are just a bit ahead. Haven't seen tests on Pumas yet, but they might be near the top or second tier. Salomon is probably well behind on their road shoes too. On Running is allowing their athletes to use other brands' shoes until they develop something good enough.

[Louis]

Simple solution to all this shoe and sponsorship money bs: force them all to run barefoot no matter what the race.

Problems solved.

[xcandrew]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

The "shoe doping" aspect is interesting idea, but I'm not convinced it is cheating.

I'm guessing that to get these shoes approved, Nike had to demonstrate that these shoes were available for purchase by anyone (much like UCI requires all equipment to be available for sale). In which case, if an athlete signs a contract with a different shoe sponsor, they have made their own choice to not wear the Nike shoes. If I chose to be sponsored by Crocs and agree to wear their plastic clogs when racing, are the other runners cheating by using running shoes? Nike's shoes may put other shoe makers at a disadvantage, but athletes aren't "forced" to be sponsored by other shoe makers. What's to keep athletes sponsored by other shoe makers from running Nike shoes with the NIke logos covered up (or printed over to look like their sponsor's shoes)? That kind of thing is done in cycling all the time.

Nike is not known for being an ethical company. The Vaporfly prototypes that were used in 2016 technically did not meet IAAF/World Athletics rules at the time, but no one knew what they were at the time, so they got away with it. In the US, that definitely affected the 2016 Olympic marathon trial results and who made the team, especially on the women's side. The prototype Nikes also affected the Olympic marathon, where Kipchoge and Rupp got gold and bronze.

Running is a professional sport (even if relatively low paying). If an athlete is at a pro level, and has no contract offer from Nike, but a contract offer from Hoka, they don't really have a choice, do they? They can either run on their own self supported and buy their own Nikes, but then they wouldn't be a pro athlete. More likely, they would probably go where they have an offer, and hope the shoe company will develop a competitive shoe in the near future.

A lot of runners were running in covered up Nikes at the Olympic marathon trials in 2020. Some were OK'd by sponsors, many were not. Either way, people were having a field day on Letsrun.com ripping apart both those athletes, as well as their shoe sponsors. Everyone was looking at shoe closeups on Instagram... It was a bad look for both the athletes and non-Nike shoe companies. Others that stuck with their non-Nike shoes were at a decidedly large disadvantage, and just had to suck it up.