Having read a lot of this thread, I have a few thoughts:
- the guys who are achieving the sub 2:20 times now are all the more remarkable because they have managed - within their own individual ability - to defy the trend towards lesser standards, whatever its causes.
- these runners are also very good. In fact they're extremely good. There's just less of them around.
- Its important to recognise that these runners are not to blame if they are not surrounded by, or beaten by, other British runners.
- until I run 2:12, I will certainly not sit here and tell our top runners that they are not working hard enough.
- I suspect the reduced strength and depth in Britain is mirrored in much of the Western world. We often talk about it like its a unique British problem.
- Alex is just a guy doing what he does; making a documentary. I don't care how fast he does or doesn't run, because his running is irrelevant. He's a film maker. I hope he makes a good film. I also hope it makes people feel good: both the people it gets off the couch, and the top British athletes they should look up to.
- Finally, I would like to see new medals introduced at the London marathon to underline the importance of training and racing for time. So, for example, a sub 2:20, sub 2:40, sub 3:10 sub 4:00 and sub 5:00. A good example is the Comrades Ultramarathon in South Africa. Its not just about finishing, its also about what colour medal you get for different times (under 6 hours, 7:30, 9, 11 and 12). The cut-offs for each are hugely exciting and people train and race to achieve different medals, whether elites chasing 6 hours or the guys in the pack dreaming of getting under 11 hours for a bronze.
Cheers,
HH.