His name is Marilson Gomes dos Santos. Her name is Jelena Prokopcuka. The biggest piece of news anyone has about either one of them is that neither is from Kenya or Ethiopia, and while Gomes de Santos is the first South American to ever win the race, Prokopcuka was the defending champion, and neither was especially challenged for their lead in the second half of the race. Congratulations to both of them, but neither of them has the drawing power of a rock star running his first marathon (unless triathlons count, and he hasn't done one of those in 20 years).
In the battle of the ex-cyclists, Armstrong is lagging behind somewhat. In the 2005 NYC Marathon, Laurent Jalabert ran a time of 2h 55" 39' - and he's two years older. But both of them have to improve hugely to beat the retired T-Mobile rider Rolf Aldag, who ran a staggering time of 2h 42" 54' in his first attempt at a marathon (last April in Hamburg). He also finished the Ironman Lanzarote a month later, beating many of the pros in a time of 10h 22" 14'. That's a 2.5 kilometre swim, a 180 kilometre bike ride and a marathon to top it off! He said afterwards "Doctor, you can give me whatever you want. I'm not a professional cyclist anymore!" Hehe. So fair play to Lance, but for one time in his career he's at the rear end of the bunch!
Doctor, you can give me whatever you want. I'm not a professional cyclist anymore! Ha! Great line. Thanks for all the info, afx237vi chico, I understand that the big story here is rock star Armstrong, but this sentence: Fans seemed much more enthused at seeing Armstrong than watching a Brazilian man and a Latvian woman win titles earlier on a crisp autumn afternoon. just reeks of jingoism to this non-American.
think he would've broken 3 hours if he actually had to get his own water?
think he would've broken 3 hours if he actually had to get his own water? Or been paced the whole distance by three legendary distance runners?
qbert, it's the Sports Illustrated article. Of course it's jingoistic. The NYT story, on the other hand, doesn't even mention whassisface. And yeah, I'm way more impressed by George Hincapie running behind him with a 55-gallon jug of gatorade the whole way.
just reeks of jingoism to this non-American. This story was a sidebar to the main event. I only posted it because there generally seems to be so much interest in cycling related news on SpoFi.
That's a fantastic photograph in chico's NY Times link.
The Armstrong story is a good one. The NY Times has it too, as part of a huge special section on the event. I just disliked SI's treatment of the winners in the linked piece. Agreed with afx237vi about the photograph. And man, these guys are skinny.
think he would've broken 3 hours if he actually had to get his own water? Or been paced the whole distance by three legendary distance runners? I thought I read it on ESPN.com but can't find the link now, but I recall reading that Lance himself said that if it wasn't for the fan support and pacing, it would have taken 3:30 for him to run the marathon.
Britain's Steve Cram (the first man ever to go under three and a half minutes for the 1,500m) wrote this piece for the Guardian last week about Armstrong's (and his own) chances of breaking the three hour mark in their first ever marathon. Lance did it. Steve didn't.
2:59:36? That kinda time, given Lance's goal of a sub 3 hr, smells fishy. I wonder if Nike made the timing chip inside his shoes? ;) Also, I gotta think he's pretty pissed at not beating Jalabert's (a Frenchie!) time...
About those triathlons that he supposedly competed in back when...were those ironmans?
No, the triathlons Lance competed in in his teenage years were not Ironmans.
Right, so he's never run a full marathon before, even back then, or (apparently) in training for this one. Fairly impressive. And impressive testimony to how much marathoners beat themselves up that he indicated he was in so much physical pain. When I first heard he was running, I assumed this would be no problem for him- but I guess I underestimated how much more pounding your joints and bones take in a marathon than in a Tour.
2:59:36 Lance Armstrong is obviously an athlete in a class by himself, but as an avid jogger/runner, that time just astonishes me. It is hard for me to fathom running 7 minute miles for that length of time. I could probably do it for about 5-7 miles, but I would definitely collapse before 10. The fact that the winners are running significant better than sub 5 miles is utterly incomrehensible to me.
Right, so he's never run a full marathon before, even back then, or (apparently) in training for this one. Yeah, I seem to remember reading an article a few days ago in which he said his greatest training distance was 16 miles, so I wondered if he'd ever run 26.2 before. Apparently not. I'm very impressed.
I'm no runner anymore but I once lost 60 pounds jogging and the most I've ever ran is 3 1/2 miles and I'm very impressed with his time damn anything under 3 hours is awesome the pros run around 2:20 or less so damn I think he did a great job the majority of the runners just want to keep bettering their time every year he also said he didn't know if he'd ever do this again if he doesn't well he did a great job
Keep typing so fast that you have no time for punctuation and you might lose another 60 pounds. Running sub-three hours for any marathon is impressive, even if you were paced by God, had your water delivered by Jesus and a cooling sponge handed to you by the blessed virgin herself, you still have to run it. It's even more impressive because a) it was his first one, and b) New York is far from the easiest course in the world (or so I'm told by friends who have run a few marathons in various places).
