Sign of the Cross - American Galen Rupp Takes Bronze in the Marathon

Tweet

Oregonian Galen Rupp, 30

A few minutes ago, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya won the 2016 Olympic Men's Marathon in 2:08:44. Feyisa Lilesa of Ethiopia came in second in 2:09:54 and Galen Rupp of the United States was third in 2:10:05.

It was the first American medal in the Marathon since Meb Keflezighi's Silver at Athens in 2004. Rupp was the first American-born medalist since Joan Benoit in 1984 and Frank Shorter in 1976.

Rupp's coach at Nike's Oregon Project is Alberto Salazar. 

Unusually, the lead pack included 25-30 runners for the first half of the race. Then, mile by mile it dwindled as the better runners picked up the pace. Rupp was in the lead pack of 3 runners at 21 miles. Finally Kipchoge, the favorite, took off, followed by Lilesa and then Rupp. At the end of the race, it looked like Rupp might close on Lilesa for the Silver. Unfortunately, he ran out of track. 

In another amazing performance, American Jared Ward took 6th place.

Kipchoge and Rupp each made the sign of the cross at the finish line.

The third-member of the American team was Meb Keflezighi, now 41. He had problems at around the ten-mile mark and fell back, ending up in a still respectable 33rd place.

Incredibly, Keflezighi tripped and fell flat on his stomach only a few feet before the finish line. He raised himself on his forearms and for a moment it looked like he would crawl across the finish line. Instead, to the delight of the crowd, he did a pushup.

In his first post-race interview, the boyish Rupp said he was motivated by the movie, "Happy Gilmore."

When Women Were Barred from the Marathon - "If that were my daughter, I would spank her"

Tweet

"Get the hell out of my race!"

I remember the "You've come a long way, baby" Virginia Slims cigarette ads from when I was a kid. At the time (1969) women might have come a long way, baby, but that "long way" was short of 26.2 miles. Or at least, women were officially prohibited from running that full marathon distance.

In those days there weren't very many marathons. Boston had been going since 1897 (one year after the first modern Olympics), and perhaps outside of the Olympics, it still was the marathon. New York didn't get started until 1970. Within a few years there would be hundreds of marathons in the United States.

Women weren't initially allowed to participate in Boston (or New York in its first year). And the women's marathon wasn't added to the Olympics until 1984.

If the term "sexism" has any meaning, this policy was sexist. But the prohibition was also due to the awe and fear that people held the marathon in those days. Normal humans didn't run them. They were for highly-trained athletes. Even so, people died. You, know, like that first Greek guy. A woman running? What if she permanently injured herself? It could affect her child-bearing ability.

Kids (those under 18) also were generally prohibited. I ran two marathons at the age of 14 - Ocean State in Rhode Island in 1978 and Boston (unofficially) in 1979. As I recall, I had to get a special note from my doctor, who even so was against it (though he signed the note). It might affect my bone growth. What if I had died?

But, especially in hindsight, the prohibition on women was stupid. And it was often enforced in a nasty way. In 1966, Roberta Gibb Bingay ran Boston in 3:21:40. The organizer of Boston, Will Clooney, refused to recognize her time: "She merely covered the same route as the official race while it was in progress." Well, okay, she didn't run it officially. But whose fault was that?

In 1967, Kathrine Switzer entered the race officially but without disclosing her sex. This provided the opportunity for an iconic photo (see above). Organizers Clooney and Jock Semple became aware of her participation and physically tried to remove her from the race: "Get the hell out of my race and give me those numbers!" Switzer's boyfriend protected her by giving Semple a punch/body block. Within days, the American Athletic Union had terminated Switzer's membership on the grounds, among other things, that she had run farther than the allowable distance for women and had run without a chaperone (it's unclear why Switzer's boyfriend didn't count).

Yes, in some ways, the United States used to be like Saudi Arabia.

Clooney's reaction to her finish was a classic of something:

Women can't run in the Marathon because the rules forbid it. Unless we have rules, society will be in chaos. I don't make the rules, but I try to carry them out. We have no space in the Marathon for any unauthorized person, even a man. If that girl were my daughter, I would spank her.

In 1972, women were finally allowed to run the Boston Marathon. In fairness, we should note that this was at the urging of Jock Semple.

However, women still weren't allowed to start with the men. Their start was mandated to be ten minutes earlier.

When the gun went off, all the women sat down.

For guess how long.

Twelve years later, the first women's Olympic marathon was run in Los Angeles. Mainer Joan Benoit won it in an American record time of 2:24:52.

The women's world record is now 2:15:25, set by Paula Radcliffe of Great Britain in 2003.

It would have been the men's world record in 1956.

That may or may not seem cool to you. I think it is.

In a great many obvious things, we're less wise than before. But in a few ways, we've come a long way, baby.

Just be careful of those cigarettes. They seriously mess with your wind. 

BREAKING: Matthew Centrowitz Wins First American 1500 Meter Gold Since 1908!

Tweet

Left to right: Ayanleh Souleiman, Taoufik Makhloufi, Matthew Centrowitz and Nick Willis

USA! USA! USA!

Sorry.

A few days ago, I claimed that the United States was starting to chip away at East African long-distance running dominance. A few minutes ago, University of Oregon miler Matthew Centrowitz just took out more than a chip.

Centrowitz won the Gold in the 1500 meters. Taoufik Makhloufi of Algeria won the Silver and Nick Willis of New Zealand won the Bronze.

Perhaps surprisingly, Centrowitz took over the lead early and held it for most of the race. But Makhloufi looked strong. In that last 200 meters, I was certain the American was going to lose the lead. 

Not this time.

Centrowitz beat the surging Makhloufi by .11 of a second.

Fittingly, Centrowitz's current coach is American distance legend, Alberto Salazar.

Final Results:

1. Matthew Centrowitz, United States: 3:50.00 
2. Taoufik Makhloufu, Algeria, 3:50.11 
3. Nick Willis, New Zealand, 3:50.24
4. Ayanleh Souleiman, Djibouti, 3:50. 29
5. Abdalaati Iguider, Morocco: 3:50.58
6. Asbel Kiprop, Kenya: 3:50.87
7. David Bustos, Spain: 3:51.06
8. Ben Blankenship, United States: 3:51.09
9. Ryan Greyson, Australia: 3:51.39
10. Nathan Brannen, Canada: 3:51.45
11. Ronald Musagala, Uganda: 3:51.68
12. Charlie Grice, Great Britain: 3:51.73
13. Ronald Kwemoi, Kenya: 3:56.76

Rabbi Stabbed in Strasbourg: Can You Guess the Rest? "The attacker shouted 'Allahu Akbar!'" "The attacker is believed to have a history of mental health issues" "police say terrorism has been ruled out, however they are unsure of the man's motive"

Tweet

Was he miffed because his croissant was stale?

From the Daily Mail:

BREAKING NEWS: Jewish rabbi is stabbed in Strasbourg by 'Muslim attacker who shouted "Allahu Akbar"'

• A Jewish rabbi has been stabbed in the French city of Strasbourg
• Attacker reportedly shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as he knifed the 55-year-old
• Hasidic man was 'moderately' injured in the attack and is now stable

A Jewish rabbi has been stabbed in Strasbourg, allegedly by a Muslim. 

The attacker, who has been arrested, shouted 'Allahu Akbar' - God is great - as he stabbed the 55-year-old man, Le Journal du Dimanche reported. 

The Hasidic man was 'moderately' injured in the attack outside a brasserie in the north of the city, according to local reports. 

The attacker is believed to have a history of mental health issues. 

A source to the investigation told French station BFMTV that terrorism has been ruled out, however they are unsure of the man's motive. 

Strasbourg is in the north east of France, near the German border, and is a seat of the European Parliament.

When a Catholic Gutted it Out to Win the Most Exciting Boston Marathon in History

Tweet

Alberto Salazar after winning the 1982 Boston Marathon

The first time I was ever exposed to the term "last rites" was at the age of 14. At the 1978 Falmouth Road Race (7 miles), a 20-year-old runner I had never heard of named Alberto Salazar finished the race with a body temperature of 107 degrees. He was put in a bathtub of ice and given last rites by a Catholic priest.

It was premature.

Salazar's superhuman effort that day, pushing his body to almost the point of death (though he only finished tenth), would be emblematic of his running career. For the next few years he would be one of the top marathon runners in the world, winning three New York City Marathons and one Boston Marathon. He set an apparent world record at New York in 1981, though it was later reversed, as the course was found to be 148 meters off.

Salazar's marathon career was short. He was competitive for a few years in the early 1980's, and then made a brief comeback in 1994, winning the "uphill" version of the 56 mile South African Comrades ultramarathon.

The common wisdom is that Salazar's career was short because he pushed himself so hard. I think the common wisdom is correct. Among runners, the V02 max number - how fast oxygen can be converted into blood and pumped back into the muscles - is one of the primary determinants of success. Salazar had only an average V02 max score, at least relative to other elite runners. Other factors are body efficiency - form and muscle-to-weight distribution - and sheer guts.

Salazar had sheer guts.

In 1982, Salazar won the Boston Marathon in one of the closest finishes up to that time. He and fellow American Dick Beardsley ran together for most of the race. Or rather, for most of the race, Beardsley was a few steps ahead, with Salazar acting as his unshakable shadow. With less than a mile to go, Salazar moved into the lead, and since he was the favorite, people thought the race was over. But Beardsley hadn't given up. With only a few hundred yards to go, he dodged the close crowds and accompanying motorcycles to try to overtake Salazar.

But watch Beardsley! Beardsley is making a move! It's come down to this! Beardsley and Salazar! The motorcycle's got to get out of the way! Here comes Beardsley! He's gonna make a move on Salazar! It is neck and neck! One of the closet finishes ever! Here comes Beardsley! Beardsley on the left! There's Salazar! Beardsley, can he have enough? . . .

Almost.

Salazar, the winner, embraced Beardsley at the end. Their exhausted bodies were swept through to the winners stand by what looked like a million helpful Boston cops.

The video below, from a local Boston TV station, is notable for a number of things. First, there are the strong Boston accents. But what would you expect? Also, notice all the people and vehicles on the course. Surrounding the two leaders there is a bus, a car, numerous motorcycles and a herd of bicycling spectators who in those days were allowed to ride along with the runners. The crowd presses in, narrowing the running corridor to what looks like only a few body lengths in places.

Then of course there is the unbelievable finish. Last minute sprints in marathons are more common these days, but in that era they were unusual. Generally someone would take a larger lead much earlier. If someone caught up, they would take a large lead in turn. As a kid watching that race, it was the first marathon I'd ever seen where it really mattered what you did in the last one-hundred yards. I couldn't imagine what that would be like.

Earlier I said that the common wisdom was that Salazar's career was cut short because he generally pushed so hard. But some people think that his career (and Beardsley's) was cut short simply by that one race.

Salazar was a Cuban-American Catholic. Like many Catholics he drew away from his faith as a younger man, but his struggles as a runner, among other things, brought him back to the Church. A few years ago, at a comparatively young age, he had a heart attack that stopped his heart for fourteen minutes. His autobiography, 14 Minutes: A Running Legend's Life and Death and Life chronicles his relationship with Christ and His Church, among other things.

As an athlete, would you want to burn twice as bright but only half as long? What would Christ want for you?

Runners Holding Hands

Tweet

Take a look at the two pictures above.

The one on the left is from the first running of the London Marathon in 1981. It features American Dick Beardsley, 24, and Norwegian Inge Simonsen, 25, signifying that they agreed to tie the race by holding hands across the finish line with a time of 2:11:48.

The one on the right is from the recent running of the 2016 Olympic women's marathon in Rio. It features the "Hahner twins," Germans Lisa and Anna Hahner, 26, crossing the finish line in 81st and 82nd place with a time of 2:45:32, also holding hands.

As far as I know, no one at the time criticized Beardsley and Simonsen. Rather, they were praised for their "sportsmanship."

The Hahner twins on the other hand were blasted for, in essence, not showing sportsmanship. German Athletic Federation Director Thomas Kurschilgen sternly lectured:

It looked as though they completed a fun run . . . 

Every athlete in the Olympic competitions should be motivated to demonstrate his or her best performance and aim for the best possible result. Their (the Hahner's) main aim was to generate media attention. That is what we criticize.

This is of course extremely stupid and nasty, especially considering the source (in one sense, Kurschilgen was their own coach).

And, yes. It's sexist.

Beardsley and Simonsen's mutually-agreed tie was part of an accepted, though rarely practiced, tradition in track and field. It obviously affected the outcome of the race. If they had not agreed to tie, one of them would have crossed the finish line first, a few seconds faster than they both actually did.

But the Hahners finished midway back in the pack, in times way off their PRs. Any professional marathon runner will tell you that in those circumstances, whether you come in 81st or 82nd, or in 2:45:00 or 2:44:00 makes absolutely no difference in the world.

If it was all-good for Beardsley and Simonsen, it certainly should be all-good for Lisa and Anna Hahner.

There's nothing wrong with holding hands.

And there's nothing wrong with smiling at the end of a race, either, by the way.

Kurschilgen snidely implied that the whole thing might have been planned and that the Hahners hadn't given it their all (since they were so far off their PRs).

Tell that to the other competitors - most of whom did not PR. In the Olympics, you usually don't.

And the Hahners had actually run apart for much of the race:

“In all the marathons we ran together before, there was a point in the race we had to split up,” Anna said. “This was also the case in the Olympic marathon.” 

Anna said she started faster, and then Lisa’s group caught up with her at around the 17-kilometer mark, at which point Anna said they ran about three kilometers together. 

“But then I realized I couldn’t run this pace, and I had to let them go,” Anna said. “Lisa was always not far from me. After 40 kilometers, there was a turning point, and I knew, ‘Okay Anna, two kilometers to go to close the gap to Lisa.’ I invested all I had and 300 meters before the finish line, I was next to Lisa. It was a magical moment that we could finish this marathon together. We did not think about what we were doing.”

Interestingly, this year's women's marathon featured not one, but three sets of multiples -the Hahners, fraternal twins Kim Hye-Gyong and Kim Hye-Song, 23, of North Korea and identical triplets Lily, Liina and Leila Luik, 30, of Estonia. Only two of the Luiks completed the race, and Lily and Leila completed it apart (2:48:29, 2:54:38) but the Kims finished, you guessed it, precisely together in 10th and 11th place at 2:28:36.

They weren't holding hands. For all I know, holding hands is illegal in North Korea, even if you're not running a marathon.

But at least the head of their sports federation isn't a Nazi.

Pope Francis is Boring

Tweet

"Sharing is good"

This morning, Pope Francis claimed that the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was really about sharing. This was at least the fourth time he's publicly made this claim as Pope, and only God knows how often he did so as bishop or mere priest.

“He shows them that the few loaves and fishes they have, with the power of faith and of prayer, can be shared by all the people,” the Pope said. “It is a miracle that he does, but it is the miracle of faith, of prayer with compassion and love.” 

“Jesus wishes to withdraw and pray, but seeing the multitudes, is moved by compassion and chooses to remain with them. By instructing his disciples to feed the crowd, he teaches them to have faith and invites them to share in his concern for those in need,” he continued. “The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is a concrete sign of that merciful concern.”

In other words, it's not really a miracle. Rather it shows that Jesus cared and (it follows) we should care too.

Francis is denying that the miracle, in the sense that we usually understand the meaning of the term "miracle," ever happened.

As all of you know, the story - which occurs six times in the Gospels - is that Jesus miraculously multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands. It's the second most famous miracle in the New Testament - the only miracle outside of the Resurrection to be recorded in all four Gospels.

Why is it a miracle? Well, this is obvious to any five-year-old. A few loaves and fish cannot feed thousands, no matter how you divide or distribute them and no matter how much anyone cares. Jesus - because He had miraculous powers - simply created more loaves and fish ex nihilo. Poof! It was magic, or sort of magic. Christians don't usually like that that term because it implies there might be something occult or tricky going on. But, in common sense language, magic gets it mostly right. If you prefer, substitute the term supernatural.

The common-sense understanding of the significance of the miracle was that this was a sign that Jesus was a special man, or more than just a man (at the time of the miracle, no one, or almost no one, understood that Jesus was in fact God). That there would be and were such signs, is alluded to many times in the Bible. The Christian Fathers unanimously understood the miracle in this way.

Now, there are reasons why the sign had the characteristics that it had - why Jesus on this occasion created food out of nothing. Why did He perform this miracle instead of, say, levitating over the crowd or disappearing in a cloud of smoke or whatever?

There are two answers, I think. The first is that it recalled Moses calling manna from Heaven. In the Old Testament, Moses caused or participated in a similar miracle. If Jesus was special, he should at least be able to do what Moses did. This sign showed that Jesus was the new Moses, or, as it would of course be later revealed, much more than Moses.

The second is that all of the miracles of Jesus were not merely arbitrary marvels, but were also symbols or representations of what God does for us as a matter of course. We don't usually see bread and seafood appearing out of nowhere. But God feeds us "normal" food every day, and He gives us the bread of life at communion. Even the Resurrection is a miracle of this kind. We don't usually see dead people getting up and walking (except in movies) but, if certain conditions hold, God will in the end resurrect us and give us eternal life.

For Pope Francis, the "miracle" was really Jesus teaching us about sharing.

Pardon me for saying so, but that would make Christianity the stupidest religion ever. I don't (pardon me, again)  need some Jewish hippy from 2,000 years ago telling me that sharing is a lovely thing. And neither do you. Both of us knew that moral principle already. Try evangelizing an atheist by saying, look, there was this guy in the first century who said sharing was good. Be prepared to die for Him as a martyr. The atheist would (rightly) look at you as if you were crazy.

We might call this the Faber University version of Christianity:

Sharing is Good.

Now, obviously, I don't think Jesus was merely a Jewish hippy. No true Christian does. But Pope Francis seems to think so. There are no miracles, only teachings. And they're pretty obvious teachings. Sharing is good.

And Francis is the man, 2,000 years later to remind us of that fact. Just think, we used to think Christianity was all about anathemas.

As far as I could tell, no Catholic bloggers (at least the ones on my feed) cited this latest howler. That's not to fault them. Far from it. It's rather, evidence that no one is surprised anymore. The Pope denies another fundamental element of the Catholic faith and makes Christianity dull. Ho hum. What else is new?

I almost didn't write this, for the same reason that other Catholic bloggers didn't write about it. It's not news. It's boring.

The enigmatic Bishop Barron has written that our faith in Christ should set us on fire. Forget, for the moment, the claims that Francis is an anti-Pope or a proto-anti-Christ or (as I have said) the most dangerous man from the point of view of the health of the Catholic Church alive today.

Think of him rather as that awful third-grade teacher that you had. He could make anything boring and unappealing. Vikings are cool and exciting. But you'll always hate vikings because you can't get the memory out of your head of Mr. Milquetoast droning on and on about them.

And when you nodded off or wrote notes to your friends in class, Mr. Milquetoast reprimanded you for not paying attention to his tedious monologue. It's your fault, you see. No one else taught the vikings correctly. He is finally doing so. That you are snoring or throwing spitballs during his lecture shows that you are unappreciative.

Please.

Francis doesn't help to set you on fire. He puts you to sleep.

God (and His Son) is the most fascinating subject there is. Read the Gospels, They are a window on the most amazing thing that ever happened.

Once, God walked among us as a man.

And if you follow Him, you can live with Him forever.

Don't listen to Francis - he'll ruin it for you.