Event Results >>
OUA XC Championships
Windsor, ON
October 28th, 2017
Results courtesy Windsor Timing
WOMEN • 8 Kilometers (4.97 Miles)
Final Standings | Score | Scoring Order | Total | Avg. | Spread | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Queens | 37 | 1-4-5-10-17(31) | 2:20:41 | 28:09 | 1:57.4 |
2 | Toronto | 62 | 3-6-15-16-22(35)(36) | 2:23:13 | 28:39 | 2:04.0 |
3 | Guelph | 79 | 9-13-24-25-27(34) | 2:26:50 | 29:22 | 1:23.3 |
4 | McMaster | 100 | 11-14-19-26-30(38)(43) | 2:26:56 | 29:24 | 1:18.0 |
5 | Laurentian | 131 | 18-20-23-33-37(48)(58) | 2:29:31 | 29:55 | 1:20.9 |
6 | Western | 151 | 2-29-39-40-41(50)(56) | 2:29:57 | 30:00 | 3:31.6 |
7 | Waterloo | 209 | 28-32-45-49-55(61)(77) | 2:34:06 | 30:50 | 1:35.4 |
8 | Wilfrid Laurier | 223 | 12-42-44-59-66(68)(73) | 2:35:16 | 31:04 | 3:29.1 |
9 | Windsor | 228 | 7-51-52-54-64(67)(75) | 2:34:23 | 30:53 | 4:22.0 |
10 | Lakehead | 284 | 21-53-62-65-83 | 2:39:32 | 31:55 | 4:28.6 |
11 | Brock | 324 | 46-57-69-72-80 | 2:41:36 | 32:20 | 2:13.9 |
12 | Nipissing | 349 | 47-71-74-78-79(81)(82) | 2:43:08 | 32:38 | 2:05.8 |
13 | Trent | 394* | 60-70-87-88-89 | 3:05:36 | 37:08 | 16:00.2 |
14 | Ryerson | 394* | 63-76-84-85-86 | 2:49:29 | 33:54 | 3:08.1 |
*Tiebreakers | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
Athlete | # | Team | Score | Time | Gap | Avg. Mile | Avg. KM | 4km split | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | MACDOUGALL, Branna | 105 | Queens | 1 | 27:19.5 | --- | 5:29.9 | 3:24.9 | 14:41.4 (97) |
2 | POPADICH, Kristina | 187 | Western | 2 | 27:22.8 | 0:03.8 | 5:30.5 | 3:25.3 | 14:42.0 (100) |
3 | GOLLISH, Sasha | 136 | Toronto | 3 | 27:36.3 | 0:17.3 | 5:33.3 | 3:27.0 | 14:41.6 (98) |
4 | STEPHENSON, Amy | 109 | Queens | 4 | 27:43.3 | 0:24.3 | 5:34.7 | 3:27.9 | 14:43.0 (101) |
5 | SUMNER, Claire | 110 | Queens | 5 | 27:46.1 | 0:27.1 | 5:35.2 | 3:28.3 | 14:41.7 (99) |
6 | STAFFORD, Lucia | 141 | Toronto | 6 | 27:53.7 | 0:34.7 | 5:36.8 | 3:29.2 | 14:43.6 (102) |
7 | SMITH, Stef | 224 | Windsor | 7 | 27:56.0 | 0:37.0 | 5:37.2 | 3:29.5 | 14:44.3 (103) |
8 | JOSSINET, Danielle | 22 | Guelph | -- | 28:27.9 | 1:08.9 | 5:43.6 | 3:33.5 | 14:47.3 (104) |
9 | WISMER, Sarah | 26 | Guelph | 9 | 28:33.2 | 1:14.2 | 5:44.7 | 3:34.1 | 14:51.7 (105) |
10 | STEER, Molly | 108 | Queens | 10 | 28:35.2 | 1:16.2 | 5:45.1 | 3:34.4 | 14:57.9 (111) |
11 | CARUSO, Melissa | 70 | McMaster | 11 | 28:40.7 | 1:21.7 | 5:46.2 | 3:35.1 | 14:57.4 (110) |
12 | BOUCHER, Bettina | 202 | Wilfrid Laurier | 12 | 28:51.1 | 1:32.1 | 5:48.3 | 3:36.4 | 14:58.9 (112) |
13 | WOODHOUSE, Hannah | 27 | Guelph | 13 | 28:51.6 | 1:32.6 | 5:48.4 | 3:36.4 | 14:54.5 (106) |
14 | NOWAK, Emily | 75 | McMaster | 14 | 28:57.1 | 1:38.1 | 5:49.5 | 3:37.1 | 14:57.3 (109) |
15 | KELLY, Madeleine | 138 | Toronto | 15 | 28:57.5 | 1:38.5 | 5:49.6 | 3:37.2 | 14:54.7 (108) |
16 | SHUKLA, Jazz | 140 | Toronto | 16 | 29:04.8 | 1:45.8 | 5:51.1 | 3:38.1 | 15:04.7 (115) |
17 | SILLS, Taylor | 107 | Queens | 17 | 29:16.9 | 1:57.9 | 5:53.5 | 3:39.6 | 15:05.2 (116) |
18 | BOTTOMLEY, Jenny | 51 | Laurentian | 18 | 29:17.9 | 1:58.9 | 5:53.7 | 3:39.7 | 14:59.7 (113) |
19 | FAULDS, Rachel | 71 | McMaster | 19 | 29:32.8 | 2:13.8 | 5:56.7 | 3:41.6 | 15:14.8 (119) |
20 | TUSZKIEWICZ, Heidi | 59 | Laurentian | 20 | 29:33.3 | 2:14.3 | 5:56.8 | 3:41.7 | 15:03.1 (114) |
21 | PYLE, Rebekkah | 41 | Lakehead | 21 | 29:33.9 | 2:14.9 | 5:56.9 | 3:41.7 | 15:17.1 (121) |
22 | AGUSTIN, Christiana | 133 | Toronto | 22 | 29:40.3 | 2:21.3 | 5:58.2 | 3:42.5 | 15:13.6 (117) |
23 | CROCKER, Megan | 52 | Laurentian | 23 | 29:41.4 | 2:22.4 | 5:58.4 | 3:42.7 | 15:22.0 (123) |
24 | EARHART, Dana | 19 | Guelph | 24 | 29:43.1 | 2:24.1 | 5:58.8 | 3:42.9 | 15:13.9 (118) |
25 | WARD, Charlotte | 25 | Guelph | 25 | 29:45.7 | 2:26.7 | 5:59.3 | 3:43.2 | 15:15.9 (120) |
26 | MAWHINNEY, Erin | 74 | McMaster | 26 | 29:46.6 | 2:27.6 | 5:59.5 | 3:43.3 | 15:20.2 (122) |
27 | MALTAIS, Francesca | 23 | Guelph | 27 | 29:56.5 | 2:37.5 | 6:01.5 | 3:44.6 | 15:24.0 (124) |
28 | RANDALL, Alyssa | 169 | Waterloo | 28 | 29:57.0 | 2:38.0 | 6:01.6 | 3:44.6 | 15:31.6 (129) |
29 | WHITE, Jessica | 191 | Western | 29 | 29:57.8 | 2:38.9 | 6:01.7 | 3:44.7 | 15:27.3 (125) |
30 | SNELGROVE, Erin | 76 | McMaster | 30 | 29:58.6 | 2:39.6 | 6:01.9 | 3:44.8 | 15:27.4 (126) |
31 | WATSON, Jade | 111 | Queens | 31 | 30:00.6 | 2:41.6 | 6:02.3 | 3:45.1 | 15:30.5 (127) |
32 | RYALL, Stephanie | 170 | Waterloo | 32 | 30:16.1 | 2:57.1 | 6:05.4 | 3:47.0 | 15:32.0 (130) |
33 | RICH, Nicole | 55 | Laurentian | 33 | 30:19.5 | 3:00.5 | 6:06.1 | 3:47.4 | 15:33.4 (131) |
34 | HICKSON, Sadie-Jane | 20 | Guelph | 34 | 30:21.7 | 3:02.7 | 6:06.5 | 3:47.7 | 15:30.7 (128) |
35 | AGGARWAL, Jasmin | 132 | Toronto | 35 | 30:21.9 | 3:02.9 | 6:06.6 | 3:47.7 | 15:34.2 (132) |
36 | MARSHALL, Katherine | 139 | Toronto | 36 | 30:23.0 | 3:04.0 | 6:06.8 | 3:47.9 | 15:45.9 (136) |
37 | NUSSELDER, Jessie | 54 | Laurentian | 37 | 30:38.7 | 3:19.7 | 6:10.0 | 3:49.8 | 15:52.8 (139) |
38 | KUHN, Kristen | 73 | McMaster | 38 | 30:49.0 | 3:30.0 | 6:12.0 | 3:51.1 | 15:50.9 (138) |
39 | FAICZAK, Breanna | 183 | Western | 39 | 30:50.7 | 3:31.7 | 6:12.4 | 3:51.3 | 15:40.3 (134) |
40 | STONE, Hilary | 188 | Western | 40 | 30:51.3 | 3:32.3 | 6:12.5 | 3:51.4 | 15:45.7 (135) |
41 | LEITCH, Meredith | 185 | Western | 41 | 30:54.4 | 3:35.4 | 6:13.1 | 3:51.8 | 15:39.5 (133) |
42 | PATTISON, Sydney | 208 | Wilfrid Laurier | 42 | 30:59.7 | 3:40.7 | 6:14.2 | 3:52.5 | 15:57.4 (144) |
43 | KENNEDY, Madeleine | 72 | McMaster | 43 | 31:00.3 | 3:41.3 | 6:14.3 | 3:52.5 | 15:55.8 (140) |
44 | LAURIE, Elizabeth | 206 | Wilfrid Laurier | 44 | 31:00.4 | 3:41.4 | 6:14.3 | 3:52.5 | 15:57.6 (145) |
45 | MCGUINNESS, Samantha | 165 | Waterloo | 45 | 31:04.2 | 3:45.2 | 6:15.1 | 3:53.0 | 15:56.8 (143) |
46 | SERGNESE, Paulina | 11 | Brock | 46 | 31:08.0 | 3:49.0 | 6:15.8 | 3:53.5 | 15:49.0 (137) |
47 | SASSON, Sarah | 94 | Nipissing | 47 | 31:11.9 | 3:52.9 | 6:16.6 | 3:54.0 | 15:56.1 (141) |
48 | SARTOR, Nicole | 57 | Laurentian | 48 | 31:14.0 | 3:55.0 | 6:17.1 | 3:54.2 | 15:56.3 (142) |
49 | NICHOLS, Emily | 167 | Waterloo | 49 | 31:15.9 | 3:56.9 | 6:17.4 | 3:54.5 | 16:01.7 (146) |
50 | MATTHEWS, Katie | 186 | Western | 50 | 31:16.4 | 3:57.4 | 6:17.5 | 3:54.5 | 16:03.4 (147) |
51 | COTTER, Vanessa | 218 | Windsor | 51 | 31:18.1 | 3:59.1 | 6:17.9 | 3:54.8 | 16:15.2 (152) |
52 | ROBINSON, Alison | 222 | Windsor | 52 | 31:20.2 | 4:01.3 | 6:18.3 | 3:55.0 | 16:12.5 (151) |
53 | KOBE, Paige | 39 | Lakehead | 53 | 31:21.7 | 4:02.7 | 6:18.6 | 3:55.2 | 16:07.5 (150) |
54 | HAWKINS, Sydney | 220 | Windsor | 54 | 31:30.1 | 4:11.1 | 6:20.3 | 3:56.3 | 16:05.0 (148) |
55 | MCGOWAN, Alexandra | 164 | Waterloo | 55 | 31:32.4 | 4:13.4 | 6:20.8 | 3:56.5 | 16:15.8 (153) |
56 | VANDERKUUR, Anjoli | 190 | Western | 56 | 31:36.1 | 4:17.1 | 6:21.5 | 3:57.0 | 16:06.5 (149) |
57 | LAUGHLIN, Erin | 9 | Brock | 57 | 31:57.4 | 4:38.4 | 6:25.8 | 3:59.7 | 16:29.3 (159) |
58 | SIPPEL, Meghan | 58 | Laurentian | 58 | 31:58.4 | 4:39.4 | 6:26.0 | 3:59.8 | 16:21.2 (155) |
59 | KERKER, Lauren | 205 | Wilfrid Laurier | 59 | 32:04.1 | 4:45.1 | 6:27.1 | 4:00.5 | 16:28.6 (158) |
60 | LAW, Sarah | 153 | Trent | 60 | 32:09.3 | 4:50.3 | 6:28.2 | 4:01.2 | 16:20.0 (154) |
61 | NOLAN, Madeleine | 168 | Waterloo | 61 | 32:12.5 | 4:53.5 | 6:28.8 | 4:01.6 | 16:23.2 (156) |
62 | GALLO, Kayla | 38 | Lakehead | 62 | 32:15.5 | 4:56.5 | 6:29.4 | 4:01.9 | 16:43.2 (167) |
63 | ANTOUN, Sylvie | 120 | Ryerson | 63 | 32:15.7 | 4:56.7 | 6:29.5 | 4:02.0 | 16:44.4 (169) |
64 | VIALVA, Mya | 226 | Windsor | 64 | 32:18.0 | 4:59.0 | 6:29.9 | 4:02.2 | 16:40.4 (165) |
65 | MORISSEAU, Hailee | 40 | Lakehead | 65 | 32:18.5 | 4:59.5 | 6:30.0 | 4:02.3 | 16:44.1 (168) |
66 | CARRESCIA, Hayley | 203 | Wilfrid Laurier | 66 | 32:20.2 | 5:01.3 | 6:30.4 | 4:02.5 | 16:38.9 (163) |
67 | ROCHELEAU, Fiona | 223 | Windsor | 67 | 32:22.3 | 5:03.3 | 6:30.8 | 4:02.8 | 16:39.5 (164) |
68 | WILDFONG, Stephanie | 209 | Wilfrid Laurier | 68 | 32:29.4 | 5:10.4 | 6:32.2 | 4:03.7 | 16:32.3 (160) |
69 | FRANCOLINI, Joanna | 7 | Brock | 69 | 32:31.1 | 5:12.1 | 6:32.6 | 4:03.9 | 16:28.1 (157) |
70 | NEPOTIUK, Anastasia | 155 | Trent | 70 | 32:34.3 | 5:15.4 | 6:33.2 | 4:04.3 | 16:46.8 (171) |
71 | GIBSON, Katie | 88 | Nipissing | 71 | 32:35.7 | 5:16.7 | 6:33.5 | 4:04.5 | 16:46.0 (170) |
72 | MARTIN, Annelise | 10 | Brock | 72 | 32:37.5 | 5:18.5 | 6:33.9 | 4:04.7 | 16:37.5 (162) |
73 | GASCHO, Jenna | 204 | Wilfrid Laurier | 73 | 32:44.0 | 5:25.0 | 6:35.2 | 4:05.5 | 16:54.4 (173) |
74 | KOZUB, Katie | 92 | Nipissing | 74 | 32:47.0 | 5:28.0 | 6:35.8 | 4:05.9 | 16:48.7 (172) |
75 | CRAWLEY, Rachel | 219 | Windsor | 75 | 32:53.0 | 5:34.0 | 6:37.0 | 4:06.6 | 16:43.1 (166) |
76 | MARGHETIS, Melinda | 123 | Ryerson | 76 | 32:58.9 | 5:39.9 | 6:38.2 | 4:07.4 | 17:03.1 (176) |
77 | GREENOUGH, Madison | 163 | Waterloo | 77 | 33:12.8 | 5:53.8 | 6:41.0 | 4:09.1 | 16:36.3 (161) |
78 | LEROY, Jennifer | 93 | Nipissing | 78 | 33:15.1 | 5:56.1 | 6:41.4 | 4:09.4 | 16:58.8 (174) |
79 | KNOWLES, Stephanie | 91 | Nipissing | 79 | 33:17.7 | 5:58.7 | 6:41.9 | 4:09.7 | 17:05.4 (178) |
80 | HINZ, Cassandra | 8 | Brock | 80 | 33:21.8 | 6:02.8 | 6:42.8 | 4:10.2 | 17:05.2 (177) |
81 | HAGHGOO, Kristina | 89 | Nipissing | 81 | 33:28.2 | 6:09.2 | 6:44.1 | 4:11.0 | 17:02.5 (175) |
82 | YOGARAJAH, Vaishnavy | 241 | York | -- | 33:42.5 | 6:23.5 | 6:46.9 | 4:12.8 | 17:18.2 (180) |
83 | CRUICKSHANK, Megan | 87 | Nipissing | 82 | 34:02.0 | 6:43.0 | 6:50.9 | 4:15.2 | 17:21.4 (181) |
84 | TAMMING, Nicole | 42 | Lakehead | 83 | 34:02.4 | 6:43.4 | 6:50.9 | 4:15.3 | 17:16.7 (179) |
85 | PISANI, Katrinna | 239 | York | -- | 34:03.1 | 6:44.1 | 6:51.1 | 4:15.4 | 17:35.4 (182) |
86 | CIANNI, Anna | 121 | Ryerson | 84 | 34:14.9 | 6:55.9 | 6:53.4 | 4:16.9 | 17:44.4 (184) |
87 | HRONCOK, Amanda | 238 | York | -- | 34:24.0 | 7:05.0 | 6:55.3 | 4:18.0 | 17:44.8 (185) |
88 | GAUDETTE, Meghan | 122 | Ryerson | 85 | 34:35.2 | 7:16.2 | 6:57.5 | 4:19.4 | 17:43.6 (183) |
89 | ROMANENKO, Yulia | 124 | Ryerson | 86 | 35:23.8 | 8:04.8 | 7:07.3 | 4:25.5 | 18:00.9 (186) |
90 | TAIT, Talyn | 4 | Algoma | -- | 35:43.1 | 8:24.1 | 7:11.2 | 4:27.9 | 18:20.3 (187) |
91 | CLEMENT, Keely | 152 | Trent | 87 | 36:07.7 | 8:48.8 | 7:16.2 | 4:31.0 | 18:33.7 (188) |
92 | TAYLOR, Laurie | 156 | Trent | 88 | 36:34.5 | 9:15.5 | 7:21.5 | 4:34.3 | 18:51.2 (189) |
93 | STORCH, Annabell | 3 | Algoma | -- | 41:04.8 | 13:45.8 | 8:15.9 | 5:08.1 | 20:43.4 (190) |
94 | DITORO, Marissa | 1 | Algoma | -- | 41:31.7 | 14:12.7 | 8:21.3 | 5:11.5 | 20:58.4 (191) |
95 | OCHMAN, Kelsey | 2 | Algoma | -- | 44:23.0 | 17:04.0 | 8:55.8 | 5:32.9 | 8:23.9 (95) |
96 | LEE, Monika | 154 | Trent | 89 | 48:09.5 | 20:50.5 | 9:41.4 | 6:01.2 | 9:39.7 (96) |
MEN • 10 Kilometers (6.21 Miles)
Final Standings | Score | Scoring Order | Total | Avg. | Spread | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Guelph | 41 | 1-6-10-11-13(15) | 2:34:19 | 30:52 | 0:33.1 |
2 | McMaster | 50 | 2-3-5-17-23(24)(29) | 2:34:49 | 30:58 | 0:55.8 |
3 | Queens | 85 | 4-14-19-22-26(27)(36) | 2:36:14 | 31:15 | 0:59.7 |
4 | Western | 99 | 7-9-16-32-35(42)(44) | 2:37:03 | 31:25 | 1:21.6 |
5 | Windsor | 117 | 8-18-21-31-39(40)(43) | 2:37:31 | 31:31 | 1:25.8 |
6 | Toronto | 162 | 12-30-33-41-46(48) | 2:39:59 | 32:00 | 1:38.8 |
7 | Wilfrid Laurier | 234 | 25-45-52-54-58(62)(71) | 2:45:35 | 33:07 | 2:24.2 |
8 | Laurentian | 237 | 28-34-50-61-64(74)(76) | 2:46:30 | 33:18 | 3:06.1 |
9 | Waterloo | 241 | 37-47-49-53-55(59) | 2:45:18 | 33:04 | 1:35.3 |
10 | Brock | 300 | 20-65-68-72-75(77)(78) | 2:52:17 | 34:28 | 4:12.4 |
11 | Lakehead | 312 | 38-60-63-67-84 | 2:53:22 | 34:41 | 4:45.3 |
12 | Nipissing | 339 | 51-57-66-82-83(86)(87) | 2:54:43 | 34:57 | 2:56.7 |
13 | Ryerson | 354 | 56-69-70-79-80(81) | 2:56:22 | 35:17 | 2:12.9 |
14 | Trent | 425 | 73-85-88-89-90 | 3:22:07 | 40:26 | 9:02.3 |
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
Athlete | # | Team | Score | Time | Gap | Avg. Mile | Avg. KM | 5km Spilt | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | BLACK, Connor | 28 | Guelph | 1 | 30:32.2 | --- | 4:55.0 | 3:03.2 | 16:07.8 (100) |
2 | RAEZ VILLANUEVA, Sergio | 83 | McMaster | 2 | 30:37.3 | 0:05.3 | 4:55.9 | 3:03.7 | 16:07.4 (96) |
3 | TUREK, Max | 84 | McMaster | 3 | 30:39.5 | 0:07.5 | 4:56.2 | 3:03.9 | 16:09.0 (105) |
4 | WYNANDS, Eric | 119 | Queens | 4 | 30:45.3 | 0:13.3 | 4:57.1 | 3:04.5 | 16:08.8 (104) |
5 | TWEEDLE, Jeffrey | 85 | McMaster | 5 | 30:46.4 | 0:14.4 | 4:57.3 | 3:04.6 | 16:08.7 (103) |
6 | KELLIER, Josh | 32 | Guelph | 6 | 30:47.1 | 0:15.1 | 4:57.4 | 3:04.7 | 16:10.0 (109) |
7 | FRIELINK, Isaiah | 197 | Western | 7 | 30:48.4 | 0:16.4 | 4:57.6 | 3:04.8 | 16:09.3 (106) |
8 | NEBEL, Andrew | 234 | Windsor | 8 | 30:49.7 | 0:17.7 | 4:57.8 | 3:05.0 | 16:07.8 (99) |
9 | CARSON, Ben | 193 | Western | 9 | 30:50.3 | 0:18.3 | 4:58.0 | 3:05.0 | 16:07.8 (98) |
10 | SHEPHERD, Andrew | 34 | Guelph | 10 | 30:52.3 | 0:20.3 | 4:58.3 | 3:05.2 | 16:13.9 (114) |
11 | PATTON, Mark | 33 | Guelph | 11 | 31:02.2 | 0:30.3 | 4:59.9 | 3:06.2 | 16:10.4 (110) |
12 | LAWAND, Robert | 150 | Toronto | 12 | 31:02.8 | 0:30.8 | 5:00.0 | 3:06.3 | 16:14.2 (115) |
13 | UBENE, Mitchell | 35 | Guelph | 13 | 31:05.2 | 0:33.2 | 5:00.3 | 3:06.5 | 16:13.8 (113) |
14 | SCHMIDT, Mark | 116 | Queens | 14 | 31:06.4 | 0:34.4 | 5:00.5 | 3:06.6 | 16:08.3 (102) |
15 | CLARKE, Braydon | 29 | Guelph | 15 | 31:08.3 | 0:36.4 | 5:00.9 | 3:06.8 | 16:15.1 (119) |
16 | SHEFFAR, Jack | 200 | Western | 16 | 31:11.4 | 0:39.5 | 5:01.4 | 3:07.1 | 16:07.6 (97) |
17 | MCGILLIVRAY, Joshua | 82 | McMaster | 17 | 31:12.1 | 0:40.1 | 5:01.5 | 3:07.2 | 16:14.6 (117) |
18 | KAGUMBA, Joe | 230 | Windsor | 18 | 31:13.7 | 0:41.7 | 5:01.7 | 3:07.4 | 16:10.5 (111) |
19 | CROWLEY, Brett | 112 | Queens | 19 | 31:14.6 | 0:42.6 | 5:01.9 | 3:07.5 | 16:14.7 (118) |
20 | VAN DEN HADELKAMP, Jelmer | 18 | Brock | 20 | 31:18.7 | 0:46.7 | 5:02.5 | 3:07.9 | 16:23.5 (123) |
21 | MASTER, Shawn | 232 | Windsor | 21 | 31:20.3 | 0:48.3 | 5:02.8 | 3:08.0 | 16:08.0 (101) |
22 | KANKO, Rob | 114 | Queens | 22 | 31:22.1 | 0:50.1 | 5:03.1 | 3:08.2 | 16:13.2 (112) |
23 | DEANE, Patrick | 78 | McMaster | 23 | 31:33.0 | 1:01.0 | 5:04.8 | 3:09.3 | 16:22.4 (121) |
24 | FAVERO, Jonathan | 80 | McMaster | 24 | 31:36.0 | 1:04.1 | 5:05.3 | 3:09.6 | 16:14.4 (116) |
25 | SHERIDAN, Joe | 217 | Wilfrid Laurier | 25 | 31:42.7 | 1:10.7 | 5:06.4 | 3:10.3 | 16:24.2 (125) |
26 | KIRBY, Mitchell | 115 | Queens | 26 | 31:45.0 | 1:13.0 | 5:06.8 | 3:10.5 | 16:23.7 (124) |
27 | WILKIE, Alex | 118 | Queens | 27 | 31:46.0 | 1:14.0 | 5:06.9 | 3:10.6 | 16:09.6 (107) |
28 | SAGRIFF, Paul | 68 | Laurentian | 28 | 31:46.1 | 1:14.1 | 5:06.9 | 3:10.6 | 16:29.3 (128) |
29 | MACGILLIVRAY, John Christian | 81 | McMaster | 29 | 31:47.2 | 1:15.3 | 5:07.1 | 3:10.7 | 16:27.8 (127) |
30 | KINAHAN, Samuel | 148 | Toronto | 30 | 31:49.5 | 1:17.6 | 5:07.5 | 3:11.0 | 16:33.1 (132) |
31 | PESCE, Michael | 235 | Windsor | 31 | 31:51.3 | 1:19.3 | 5:07.8 | 3:11.1 | 16:30.0 (129) |
32 | WOOD, Carter | 201 | Western | 32 | 32:02.2 | 1:30.2 | 5:09.5 | 3:12.2 | 16:23.2 (122) |
33 | KLOMP, Craig | 149 | Toronto | 33 | 32:03.0 | 1:31.0 | 5:09.7 | 3:12.3 | 16:19.8 (120) |
34 | PASSI, Liam | 67 | Laurentian | 34 | 32:08.6 | 1:36.6 | 5:10.6 | 3:12.9 | 16:36.8 (136) |
35 | DONNELLY, Liam | 196 | Western | 35 | 32:09.9 | 1:37.9 | 5:10.8 | 3:13.0 | 16:36.5 (135) |
36 | STEL, Joey | 117 | Queens | 36 | 32:10.8 | 1:38.8 | 5:10.9 | 3:13.1 | 16:32.9 (131) |
37 | MOORE, Christopher | 178 | Waterloo | 37 | 32:11.0 | 1:39.1 | 5:11.0 | 3:13.1 | 16:31.8 (130) |
38 | PATTERSON, Derek | 49 | Lakehead | 38 | 32:13.1 | 1:41.1 | 5:11.3 | 3:13.3 | 16:36.2 (134) |
39 | D'ALESSANDRO, Nick | 229 | Windsor | 39 | 32:15.4 | 1:43.4 | 5:11.7 | 3:13.5 | 16:39.7 (140) |
40 | CAUCHI, Mitch | 228 | Windsor | 40 | 32:20.9 | 1:48.9 | 5:12.5 | 3:14.1 | 16:35.9 (133) |
41 | CHEN, Jesse | 143 | Toronto | 41 | 32:22.2 | 1:50.2 | 5:12.7 | 3:14.2 | 16:44.2 (141) |
42 | DE VRIES, Thomas | 195 | Western | 42 | 32:27.6 | 1:55.6 | 5:13.6 | 3:14.8 | 16:37.5 (137) |
43 | ROTHERA, Jacob | 236 | Windsor | 43 | 32:28.2 | 1:56.2 | 5:13.7 | 3:14.8 | 16:38.3 (138) |
44 | SHEELER, Matt | 199 | Western | 44 | 32:31.9 | 2:00.0 | 5:14.3 | 3:15.2 | 16:26.4 (126) |
45 | HILBERS, Dan | 214 | Wilfrid Laurier | 45 | 32:41.5 | 2:09.5 | 5:15.9 | 3:16.1 | 16:39.4 (139) |
46 | FRANGOS, Zach | 146 | Toronto | 46 | 32:41.6 | 2:09.6 | 5:15.9 | 3:16.2 | 16:46.7 (142) |
47 | HOERNER, Alex | 175 | Waterloo | 47 | 32:48.0 | 2:16.0 | 5:16.9 | 3:16.8 | 16:47.4 (143) |
48 | WOOD, Nick | 151 | Toronto | 48 | 32:58.7 | 2:26.7 | 5:18.6 | 3:17.9 | 16:55.9 (146) |
49 | LAWSON, Felix | 176 | Waterloo | 49 | 33:00.9 | 2:29.0 | 5:19.0 | 3:18.1 | 16:53.1 (144) |
50 | GHADGHONI, Ali | 243 | York | -- | 33:04.6 | 2:32.6 | 5:19.6 | 3:18.5 | 17:07.0 (150) |
51 | BELAND, Caleb | 60 | Laurentian | 50 | 33:09.7 | 2:37.7 | 5:20.4 | 3:19.0 | 17:07.5 (151) |
52 | AGNEW, Sam | 242 | York | -- | 33:12.8 | 2:40.8 | 5:20.9 | 3:19.3 | 17:08.9 (152) |
53 | CASCAGNETTE, Jordan | 96 | Nipissing | 51 | 33:18.8 | 2:46.8 | 5:21.9 | 3:19.9 | 17:09.8 (153) |
54 | FREELAND, Sandy | 212 | Wilfrid Laurier | 52 | 33:29.9 | 2:57.9 | 5:23.6 | 3:21.0 | 17:10.0 (154) |
55 | HENEY, Ryan | 174 | Waterloo | 53 | 33:31.8 | 2:59.9 | 5:24.0 | 3:21.2 | 17:03.1 (147) |
56 | HARDY, Joseph | 213 | Wilfrid Laurier | 54 | 33:33.5 | 3:01.5 | 5:24.2 | 3:21.3 | 17:03.8 (149) |
57 | O'DONNELL, Ian | 179 | Waterloo | 55 | 33:46.3 | 3:14.3 | 5:26.3 | 3:22.6 | 17:03.5 (148) |
58 | KONSTANTOPOULOS, Michael | 128 | Ryerson | 56 | 33:54.5 | 3:22.6 | 5:27.6 | 3:23.5 | 17:17.6 (155) |
59 | RETTY, Teagan | 102 | Nipissing | 57 | 33:56.3 | 3:24.3 | 5:27.9 | 3:23.6 | 17:18.1 (156) |
60 | CHARANDUK, Michael | 211 | Wilfrid Laurier | 58 | 34:06.8 | 3:34.8 | 5:29.6 | 3:24.7 | 17:24.0 (158) |
61 | BEDI, Nicholas | 172 | Waterloo | 59 | 34:16.8 | 3:44.8 | 5:31.2 | 3:25.7 | 17:19.2 (157) |
62 | MACINTOSH, Connor | 45 | Lakehead | 60 | 34:21.3 | 3:49.3 | 5:31.9 | 3:26.1 | 17:32.3 (159) |
63 | DELAGE, Samuel | 63 | Laurentian | 61 | 34:32.9 | 4:00.9 | 5:33.8 | 3:27.3 | 17:33.1 (160) |
64 | MASTERS, Brendan | 215 | Wilfrid Laurier | 62 | 34:43.9 | 4:11.9 | 5:35.6 | 3:28.4 | 17:47.2 (162) |
65 | MOREAU, Louis | 47 | Lakehead | 63 | 34:49.5 | 4:17.5 | 5:36.5 | 3:28.9 | 17:50.1 (163) |
66 | MILFORD, Jarod | 65 | Laurentian | 64 | 34:52.2 | 4:20.2 | 5:36.9 | 3:29.2 | 17:43.7 (161) |
67 | MOL, Jeremy | 16 | Brock | 65 | 34:55.2 | 4:23.2 | 5:37.4 | 3:29.5 | 17:51.9 (164) |
68 | MANN, Travis | 99 | Nipissing | 66 | 34:57.9 | 4:25.9 | 5:37.8 | 3:29.8 | 17:59.0 (168) |
69 | MANN, Taij | 46 | Lakehead | 67 | 34:59.4 | 4:27.4 | 5:38.1 | 3:29.9 | 18:08.1 (171) |
70 | EMIRY, Aric | 12 | Brock | 68 | 35:08.8 | 4:36.8 | 5:39.6 | 3:30.9 | 17:55.8 (166) |
71 | ING, Ben | 127 | Ryerson | 69 | 35:10.0 | 4:38.0 | 5:39.8 | 3:31.0 | 18:24.8 (177) |
72 | DOBOS, Connor | 125 | Ryerson | 70 | 35:12.2 | 4:40.2 | 5:40.1 | 3:31.2 | 18:14.4 (175) |
73 | BARI, Asad | 210 | Wilfrid Laurier | 71 | 35:12.7 | 4:40.7 | 5:40.2 | 3:31.3 | 18:09.2 (172) |
74 | GRABELL, Owen | 14 | Brock | 72 | 35:23.0 | 4:51.1 | 5:41.9 | 3:32.3 | 17:52.1 (165) |
75 | IBBOTT, Sean | 158 | Trent | 73 | 35:26.8 | 4:54.8 | 5:42.5 | 3:32.7 | 18:05.8 (170) |
76 | CHOWN, Gordie | 62 | Laurentian | 74 | 35:29.6 | 4:57.6 | 5:42.9 | 3:33.0 | 18:13.9 (174) |
77 | SALAZER-REID, Lucas | 17 | Brock | 75 | 35:31.1 | 4:59.1 | 5:43.2 | 3:33.1 | 17:56.5 (167) |
78 | BURKITT, Jordan | 61 | Laurentian | 76 | 35:39.1 | 5:07.1 | 5:44.5 | 3:33.9 | 18:10.7 (173) |
79 | LOPARDO, Umberto | 15 | Brock | 77 | 35:48.3 | 5:16.3 | 5:45.9 | 3:34.8 | 18:04.2 (169) |
80 | FIUME, Salvatore | 13 | Brock | 78 | 35:57.5 | 5:25.5 | 5:47.4 | 3:35.7 | 18:20.2 (176) |
81 | SNIDER MCGRATH, Ben | 131 | Ryerson | 79 | 35:57.8 | 5:25.8 | 5:47.5 | 3:35.8 | 18:29.1 (180) |
82 | MCQUAID, Aaron | 130 | Ryerson | 80 | 36:07.4 | 5:35.4 | 5:49.0 | 3:36.7 | 18:25.7 (178) |
83 | MALAS, Kevin | 129 | Ryerson | 81 | 36:08.6 | 5:36.6 | 5:49.2 | 3:36.9 | 18:28.8 (179) |
84 | MCCUBBIN, Malcolm | 100 | Nipissing | 82 | 36:14.8 | 5:42.8 | 5:50.2 | 3:37.5 | 18:30.9 (182) |
85 | STONE, Bryan | 103 | Nipissing | 83 | 36:15.4 | 5:43.4 | 5:50.3 | 3:37.5 | 18:29.4 (181) |
86 | MOREAU, Waldon | 48 | Lakehead | 84 | 36:58.4 | 6:26.4 | 5:57.2 | 3:41.8 | 19:00.9 (184) |
87 | HORN, Mitchell | 157 | Trent | 85 | 37:35.5 | 7:03.5 | 6:03.2 | 3:45.5 | 19:13.1 (186) |
88 | MCKAY, Keenan | 101 | Nipissing | 86 | 37:36.4 | 7:04.4 | 6:03.3 | 3:45.6 | 19:12.8 (185) |
89 | LEALE, Justin | 98 | Nipissing | 87 | 37:44.1 | 7:12.1 | 6:04.6 | 3:46.4 | 18:54.7 (183) |
90 | WEST, Hayden | 161 | Trent | 88 | 40:06.1 | 9:34.1 | 6:27.5 | 4:00.6 | 10:23.6 (92) |
91 | LUCIANI, Lucas | 5 | Algoma | -- | 42:29.7 | 11:57.7 | 6:50.6 | 4:15.0 | 11:04.7 (93) |
92 | SMEED-GRIFFITHS, Cameryn | 160 | Trent | 89 | 44:28.7 | 13:56.7 | 7:09.7 | 4:26.9 | 11:25.2 (94) |
93 | MELO, Matt | 159 | Trent | 90 | 44:29.1 | 13:57.1 | 7:09.8 | 4:26.9 | 11:25.4 (95) |
User Comments
-
Anonymous
Posts: 42653 -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653 -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Why is Danielle Jossinet listed with no score? Top Guelph finisher would take 20 points off their score and move them into second.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Math said 5 months ago
On the women's side the team score for Guelph should be 98 not 79. Tough day for them!
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Math yourself said 5 months ago
Quoting: Math
"On the women's side the team score for Guelph should be 98 not 79. Tough day for them!"
actually, Jossinet isn’t included in the scoring order but se came 8th, so their discounters were 27th and 34th. Team scores are correct, they just forgot her in the order Quote comment -
User since:
Mar 10th, 2010
Posts: 26southwest said 5 months ago
Quoting: Math
"On the women's side the team score for Guelph should be 98 not 79. Tough day for them!"
The team score is correct - 8, 9, 13, 24, 25, There seems to be a glitch in the software in reporting the results. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653TrendSaysItAll said 5 months ago
Quoting: Math
"On the women's side the team score for Guelph should be 98 not 79. Tough day for them!"
2013 - 19, 2014 - 30, 2015 -38, 2016 - 46, 2017 - 79. Something no longer working for the women's side. Quote comment -
User since:
Jul 26th, 2002
Posts: 2153Trackie said 5 months ago
Keep an eye out here for updated/official results: http://www.windsortiming.com/LiveResults/2017/OUACross/
Quote comment -
User since:
Jun 8th, 2015
Posts: 1005 -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
No comment on Gollish?
This post was edited by a Moderator [Issues] 5 months ago .Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
Based on OU/ QSSF results today, I don't think there's any way Laval wins unless they have guys who didn't run provincials and will run CIs.
Quote comment
Congrats to the Queen's team for a big win-- scary that they win and have B-Mac v2.0 coming in next year.
I think Guelph women will be in tough to repeat for a long time. Toronto/ Queen's both have very strong programs with great coaching/ tradition/ critical mass for athletes. I don't think it's that Guelph has gotten much worse, but that the rest of the conference is catching up to them-- they've forced everyone else to raise their game.
Anyone know if G-Staff is out for Cis/ not? Would be VERY interesting team race if she is in and fit. -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Andrew Jones said 5 months ago
Thanks to Brad Reiter for that excellent photo essay from the race!!
Quote comment -
User since:
Sep 25th, 2013
Posts: 2033Oldster said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"Based on OU/ QSSF results today, I don't think there's any way Laval wins unless they have guys who didn't run provincials and will run CIs.
Congrats to the Queen's team for a big win-- scary that they win and have B-Mac v2.0 coming in next year.
I think Guelph women will be in tough to repeat for a long time. Toronto/ Queen's both have very strong programs with great coaching/ tradition/ critical mass for athletes. I don't think it's that Guelph has gotten much worse, but that the rest of the conference is catching up to them-- they've forced everyone else to raise their game.
Anyone know if G-Staff is out for Cis/ not? Would be VERY interesting team race if she is in and fit."
Thanks, Matt. We're looking forward to the next few years. And yeah, Guelph is the reason for the very high quality of women's running in the CIS today (men's too, actually).
As for what might happen in two weeks-- on the women's side at least-- consider this: If you were to add G. Stafford in at #1 in the OUAs, Queen's still wins by 3 points. And, Queen's average time was almost 30 secs faster than Toronto's. G would reduce that, but certainly not by 30 secs per scorer. With the deeper field at CIS, this kind of time difference is pretty significant. The athletes will decide this thing on the day, as they always do; but, anyone who said that a Toronto team with both Staffords and Gollish would automatically beat us needs to brush up on his/her knowledge of XC runnning. And this means you, Matty (Andrin too)! Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Spectator said 5 months ago
Interesting that every male runner in the race ran a negative split, Or maybe it was a 9.6 km race.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653gryph alum said 5 months ago
Quoting: TrendSaysItAll
"2013 - 19, 2014 - 30, 2015 -38, 2016 - 46, 2017 - 79. Something no longer working for the women's side."
Though I'm not at Guelph anymore, I'm going to guess that there probably haven't been any significant changes in the program. The OUA did get a lot better in those years, though. This has no doubt impacted recruiting a bit - lots of other schools for "high end" girls to choose from.
If you look at the championship teams in the years you've listed, you can see this - pre-~2015, you'd see that teams are typically composed of 3-5th year athletes, with maybe 1 rookie (and only if that rookie was ROY material). Teams were top heavy year after year because Guelph got tons of recruits, and could afford to wait for athletes to become seasoned because there was always someone coming up from the depth charts, waiting for their moment. The last two years, we've seen very young teams, especially this year. Not a knock against the current team; I'd imagine you'd have gotten the same result if you'd forced Guelph to race a younger team in its heyday years. I myself was pretty slow/overwhelmed/bad in my first two years, then became good thereafter, which is a common development trajectory at Guelph.
I'll not pretend to know about recruiting, but it seems that at some point, other schools came into the picture more, and so Guelph wasn't the defacto Canadian option anymore. So now, the depth charts aren't quite there, and Guelph can't field top heavy, experienced teams every year. This is a good thing - the CIS is getting better and more diverse!
Congrats to Queen's and UofT, and good luck to everyone at CIS...er... Usports. Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
That's why they run the race isn't it! I don't recall even prognosticating re: Toronto easily over Queen's but I don't have a long memory...
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Spectator
"Interesting that every male runner in the race ran a negative split, Or maybe it was a 9.6 km race."
I think the race was more accurate than that. The 5k split seemed to occur later than usual in the race. Could have been due to the extra loop run on the first lap that maybe wasn’t accounted for. The second half of the race was indeed shorter, which would account for that negative split. (Assuming 5k split at actually 5.4 or so) Quote comment -
User since:
Sep 25th, 2013
Posts: 2033Oldster said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"That's why they run the race isn't it! I don't recall even prognosticating re: Toronto easily over Queen's but I don't have a long memory..."
Maybe that was just my paranoid reading between the lines, Matt!
Andrin, on the other hand... Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
I was questioning the pre-season ranking of Stafford as a 3-5th placer (Gabriela), but I don't recall questioning team rankings per se. Choosing a favorite among one's alma maters is kind of like declaring which of your children is your favorite!
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653hmm said 5 months ago
I'm not sure how Gollish finishing 3rd can't be painted as anything other than a failure. An athlete with her credentials on the track, road, and grass should easily win her provincial collegiate meet. This is not intended as disrespect to Branna or the other competitors - it's quite simply a acknowledgement that Gollish has run faster than everyone else in that race, over every distance, and is the defending National XC champ. Even making the transition to XC from roads/track shouldn't detract from the fact that an athlete of that calibre should still be able to win despite not being at their best. I mean... it wasn't that cold. Just look at what half the athletes (including the two who beat her) are wearing.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Gollish is a very good runner and on the day two very good runners beat her. No failure on her part.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: hmm
"I'm not sure how Gollish finishing 3rd can't be painted as anything other than a failure. An athlete with her credentials on the track, road, and grass should easily win her provincial collegiate meet. This is not intended as disrespect to Branna or the other competitors - it's quite simply a acknowledgement that Gollish has run faster than everyone else in that race, over every distance, and is the defending National XC champ. Even making the transition to XC from roads/track shouldn't detract from the fact that an athlete of that calibre should still be able to win despite not being at their best. I mean... it wasn't that cold. Just look at what half the athletes (including the two who beat her) are wearing."
Yes and no. Gollish was the faster athlete on paper going in, but why should we expect things to remain static? MacDougall is barely 18 and is the best 5,000m runner at that age that we have ever produced. She also has high level XC experience, having won Pan Am XC while only in grade 11 and having represented Canada at Worlds. Why wouldn't we expect an athlete like this to make big gains in performance in a relatively short period of time, particularly in relation to a 37 year old athlete who has almost certainly plateaued? This is precisely what talented teenage athletes do all the time. In fact, the gap between MacDougall and Gollish was probably already closing in Sept, when they were 6 secs apart at Nats 5k, and MacDougall had been off injured for 4-5 months the previous fall and winter.
But, yes, the idea that Gollish lost this race because she is/was somehow uniquely susceptible to the cold versus her equally tiny competitors is preposterous. She didn't have to admit "failure", but she would have shown some class and maturity (particularly for a 37 year old!) to have just said "I did my best but it didn't go my way; and, I lost to a couple of very talented, up and coming young XC runners in MacDougall and Popadych. Full credit to them for bringing it against an older and more experienced athlete!".
No one likes to hear excuses and special pleading. It's very unbecoming in an athlete of any age, let alone one old enough to be some of her competitors' mother! Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Spectator said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"I think the race was more accurate than that. The 5k split seemed to occur later than usual in the race. Could have been due to the extra loop run on the first lap that maybe wasn’t accounted for. The second half of the race was indeed shorter, which would account for that negative split. (Assuming 5k split at actually 5.4 or so)"
The 7 competitors who uploaded GPS data from the race to Strava so far reported between 9.5 and 9.7 km. GPS data is not perfect, but it was consistently way below 10 km. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Gollish ran very strong. With some context, would any other athlete in the same race also medal at OUA XC again in like 15+ years from now?
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Interesting that the top 7 men's teams would be ranked in the same order going by team spread instead of points. Tight packs win races!
Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
Was there an interview where Gollish claimed her race to be a failure?
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653not not ac said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"Was there an interview where Gollish claimed her race to be a failure?"
No, because it didn't happen Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 20th, 2014
Posts: 1083BestCoach said 5 months ago
She was rookie of the year in 2000 so maybe Brogan will also win U-Sports XC in 2034?
Quote comment
QUOTE]Quoting: Anonymous
"Gollish ran very strong. With some context, would any other athlete in the same race also medal at OUA XC again in like 15+ years from now?"[/QUOTE] -
User since:
Jun 9th, 2011
Posts: 151Master2B said 5 months ago
Just to add some perspective to Sasha's race, she sustained an injury a couple weeks ago after a freak medicine ball accident and wasn't able to jog until a few days before OUs. I heard, second hand, she was happy to get through the race without a nose bleed or concussion symptoms.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"MacDougall is barely 18 and is the best 5,000m runner at that age that we have ever produced. She also has high level XC experience, having won Pan Am XC while only in grade 11 and having represented Canada at Worlds."
Which MacDougall are we talking about here? I thought the winner of OUAs was Branna, who was at Iowa State last year (so I doubt she's barely 18)... Isn't Brogan still in high school?? Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"Was there an interview where Gollish claimed her race to be a failure?"
She didn't, but "hmm" said: "I'm not sure how Gollish finishing 3rd can't be painted as anything other than a failure".
My point was that no one, Gollish included, should suggest that Gollish's 3rd place was a "failure" simply because she was the faster athlete on paper going in. She was racing much younger likely rapidly improving athletes. She could have had a great race still lost (not saying she actually had a great race). I would add, however, that she was uniquely ungracious in defeat. In her interview, she talked only about how the cold weather slowed her down. She did not once credit the performance of those who beat her. This is unbecoming for any athlete, let alone one who is 37 years old and an ostensible role model for younger athletes. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Sasha posts on twitter and instagram - there are pictures of her running in the last couple weeks.
Quoting: Master2BQuote comment
"Just to add some perspective to Sasha's race, she sustained an injury a couple weeks ago after a freak medicine ball accident and wasn't able to jog until a few days before OUs. I heard, second hand, she was happy to get through the race without a nose bleed or concussion symptoms." -
User since:
Sep 25th, 2013
Posts: 2033Oldster said 5 months ago
Quoting: AnonymousQuote comment
"Which MacDougall are we talking about here? I thought the winner of OUAs was Branna, who was at Iowa State last year (so I doubt she's barely 18)... Isn't Brogan still in high school??" -
User since:
Sep 25th, 2013
Posts: 2033Oldster said 5 months ago
Branna is 19. Still a junior age athlete. Brogan is turning 17 shortly.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous Sasha posts on twitter and instagram - there are pictures of her running in the last couple weeks.
""
And if she had another excuse, I'm sure we would have heard about it. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Yes and no. Gollish was the faster athlete on paper going in, but why should we expect things to remain static? MacDougall is barely 18 and is the best 5,000m runner at that age that we have ever produced. She also has high level XC experience, having won Pan Am XC while only in grade 11 and having represented Canada at Worlds. Why wouldn't we expect an athlete like this to make big gains in performance in a relatively short period of time, particularly in relation to a 37 year old athlete who has almost certainly plateaued? This is precisely what talented teenage athletes do all the time. In fact, the gap between MacDougall and Gollish was probably already closing in Sept, when they were 6 secs apart at Nats 5k, and MacDougall had been off injured for 4-5 months the previous fall and winter.
But, yes, the idea that Gollish lost this race because she is/was somehow uniquely susceptible to the cold versus her equally tiny competitors is preposterous. She didn't have to admit "failure", but she would have shown some class and maturity (particularly for a 37 year old!) to have just said "I did my best but it didn't go my way; and, I lost to a couple of very talented, up and coming young XC runners in MacDougall and Popadych. Full credit to them for bringing it against an older and more experienced athlete!".
No one likes to hear excuses and special pleading. It's very unbecoming in an athlete of any age, let alone one old enough to be some of her competitors' mother!"
I agree with Steve on this one. Quote comment -
User since:
Jan 23rd, 2014
Posts: 217Myth said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"But, yes, the idea that Gollish lost this race because she is/was somehow uniquely susceptible to the cold versus her equally tiny competitors is preposterous. She didn't have to admit "failure", but she would have shown some class and maturity (particularly for a 37 year old!) to have just said "I did my best but it didn't go my way; and, I lost to a couple of very talented, up and coming young XC runners in MacDougall and Popadych. Full credit to them for bringing it against an older and more experienced athlete!".
No one likes to hear excuses and special pleading. It's very unbecoming in an athlete of any age, let alone one old enough to be some of her competitors' mother!"
Extremely well put. The excuses in that interview were all over the place. If you had an off day, fine, but just say you didn't have what it took on the day, full credit to others etc., don't make excuses. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653grlpwr said 5 months ago
lots of interesting stuff being said here.
Quote comment
consider the relationships and dynamics on that women's team, she came back to win that race nothing more nothing less
lol -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756 -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"Where is said interview?"
https://runningmagazine.ca/2017-oua-cross-country-championships-recap/ Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
To be fair you can't read too much into comments made at these post race interviews. They catch many very tired athletes when they aren't at their best. Give her a break. She ran very well and got the bronze.
Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
Interesting. The interviewer actually brings up the cold weather question so it's not like she threw it out there as a ready packaged excuse. She simply responded to a reasonable interview question. I think you're being a touch harsh.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"Interesting. The interviewer actually brings up the cold weather question so it's not like she threw it out there as a ready packaged excuse. She simply responded to a reasonable interview question. I think you're being a touch harsh."
Likely brought it up because she used it as an excuse two years ago at AC Nats. Also check the race video and finish line pics. Started with arm warmers and removed them at some point. Likely late in the race because they are still on when there are only 4 in the pack. How could you do this and then stand there saying that the cold was a factor for you? Quote comment -
-
Anonymous
Posts: 42653source said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"To be fair you can't read too much into comments made at these post race interviews. They catch many very tired athletes when they aren't at their best. Give her a break. She ran very well and got the bronze."
interview was more than an hour after the race ended Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Andrew Jones said 5 months ago
On the topic of sports(person)ship, and what that means -- before, during, and after a sporting event -- I thought baseball announcer Buck Martinez made an interesting point during the WS game the other night. That is, it is the players/participants/athletes that define what is acceptable, and what is not, within their sport. As much as viewers/spectators/consumers of the sport like to judge what transpired around a sporting event (based on what they saw and heard, but also on what they were told by others), the most important thing is the way the participants register what happened, and then the way in which they proceed consequently.
Quote comment
I'll play the second-hand game and note that on the video I happened to catch MacDougall and Popodich supporting Gollish as she wobbled away from the Finish. At that point, it appeared that sportspersonship at this race was intact. -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653 -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
Clearly whoever you are 'anonymous' you have a bone to pick with SG and won't let this go. Relax, move on.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Weather sleuth said 5 months ago
Environment Canada weather archives have the temp at race time in Kingston last year, where Gollish won, as 4.7C. Guess what they record the temp as in Windsor this year at race time? Yep, 4.7C. Odd.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Weather sleuth
"Environment Canada weather archives have the temp at race time in Kingston last year, where Gollish won, as 4.7C. Guess what they record the temp as in Windsor this year at race time? Yep, 4.7C. Odd."
This is getting ridiculous. The interviewer ASKED her about the weather, she answered - give her a break!!! She has always been the most collegial and supportive competitor. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"She ran very well and got the bronze."
Except she didn't. I don't think anyone on the UofT coaching team, or SG herself, expected anything less than a win. As others have mentioned, her PB's are significantly faster over every distance on the track and the road, and she is the defending senior national XC champion. Her 5000m PB was set this year, so while she might be at her peak, she's certainly not yet declining as others have suggested to explain BM closing the gap.
When you bring in a ringer, you expect them to win. And while for many athletes a bronze at a conference championship would be excellent - for someone who has medalled at senior international competitions it's not exactly impressive. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"Clearly whoever you are 'anonymous' you have a bone to pick with SG and won't let this go. Relax, move on."
To be fair - this is no different than when Guelph brought back AP years ago, or when Windsor found eligibility for Deng or other athletes in order to give them the edge in the title race. Those selections filled message board threads. And if any of those athletes had underperformed given their credentials and athletic history - the forum would be filled with similar comments to what you're currently seeing. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
A ringer? She's doing a PhD at the University. It's about time you shut your trap now and stop trying to turn this into some kind of controversy.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Highest marks for SG. Anyone who can medal at OUAs is a top runner. When one considers she is in an engineering doctoral program at U of T she is a great example for all competitors to aspire to. I hope she continues to do well going forward.
Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
Saying Gollish' bronze is sub par is an implicit disrespect to the 2 runners that beat her. Kudos to BM and KP for their great runs and not being intimidated by Gollish's credentials. Having SG in the race gave them a high bar to reach for and they met the challenge-- aren't all OUA competitors richer from the experience? Now BM and KP can hold their heads high knowing that they took it to an international class runner/ borderline Olympian. This can do wonders for confidence/ belief that they too can compete at that level.
Quote comment
Good thing we have CIs and Nats to allow for more great competition! -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anon said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"Saying Gollish' bronze is sub par is an implicit disrespect to the 2 runners that beat her."
Yes, it's disrespectful to BM and KP to say Sasha's run was sub-par. And when Sasha implicitly says her performance was sub-par by blaming her result on the cold and wind and bonking, it's also disrespectful to BM and KP. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Meizner
"borderline Olympian"
Meiz I agree with the rest of your statement, and think people are beating a dead horse, but borderline Olympian? What a nonsensical term. You either are one, or you aren't. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653cis stats said 5 months ago
Quoting: gryph alum
"Though I'm not at Guelph anymore, I'm going to guess that there probably haven't been any significant changes in the program. The OUA did get a lot better in those years, though. This has no doubt impacted recruiting a bit - lots of other schools for "high end" girls to choose from.
If you look at the championship teams in the years you've listed, you can see this - pre-~2015, you'd see that teams are typically composed of 3-5th year athletes, with maybe 1 rookie (and only if that rookie was ROY material). Teams were top heavy year after year because Guelph got tons of recruits, and could afford to wait for athletes to become seasoned because there was always someone coming up from the depth charts, waiting for their moment. The last two years, we've seen very young teams, especially this year. Not a knock against the current team; I'd imagine you'd have gotten the same result if you'd forced Guelph to race a younger team in its heyday years. I myself was pretty slow/overwhelmed/bad in my first two years, then became good thereafter, which is a common development trajectory at Guelph. "
Looking at CIS results, which is where their focus lies, between 2011-2016, the Gryphon women had the following number of 3rd-5th year athletes on their roster - 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5
The number of women with 2 or more previous CIS xc championship appearances on their squads from 2011-2016 was - 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4
The 2015 and 2016 Gryphon women had just as many, if not more, upper year athletes with multiple years of CIS xc championship experience.
There were a total of 8 women on the 2013-2016 teams whose CIS xc careers included 3-5 years of Championship experience. 6 of these 8 women had their best CIS placing in their 1st or 2nd appearance.
The Gryphon women had between 5 and 7 all-canadians every year from 2010-2014.
The 2015 Guelph women had 4 team members that were previously all-canadian; 2 women earned all-canadian status that year.
The 2016 roster had 5 women who previously placed top-15 at CIS; they had 2 all-canadians that year. Quote comment -
User since:
Oct 8th, 2013
Posts: 756Meizner said 5 months ago
Borderline Olympian = someone who nearly makes Only standard or team. What's confusing or controversial about that?
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: cis stats
"Looking at CIS results, which is where their focus lies, between 2011-2016, the Gryphon women had the following number of 3rd-5th year athletes on their roster - 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5
The number of women with 2 or more previous CIS xc championship appearances on their squads from 2011-2016 was - 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4
The 2015 and 2016 Gryphon women had just as many, if not more, upper year athletes with multiple years of CIS xc championship experience.
There were a total of 8 women on the 2013-2016 teams whose CIS xc careers included 3-5 years of Championship experience. 6 of these 8 women had their best CIS placing in their 1st or 2nd appearance.
The Gryphon women had between 5 and 7 all-canadians every year from 2010-2014.
The 2015 Guelph women had 4 team members that were previously all-canadian; 2 women earned all-canadian status that year.
The 2016 roster had 5 women who previously placed top-15 at CIS; they had 2 all-canadians that year."
Not sure what the point is with your stats. What is apparent is there are no 5th year women on the team this year. Seems they had enough and didn't want to stick around for a final year. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653 -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Not sure what the point is with your stats. What is apparent is there are no 5th year women on the team this year. Seems they had enough and didn't want to stick around for a final year."
What healthy* 5th years choose not to run this year?
*Petrick is injured, or else almost certainly would have used her 5th year this season. Quote comment -
User since:
Sep 12th, 2014
Posts: 649NC Blogger said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anon
"Yes, it's disrespectful to BM and KP to say Sasha's run was sub-par. And when Sasha implicitly says her performance was sub-par by blaming her result on the cold and wind and bonking, it's also disrespectful to BM and KP."
I disagree. The interviewer brought up the "cold" kept asking questions about it. Her first response - I bonked (due to the cold, it caught me unprepared). She doesn't "blame" anything else other than her own undoings.
The questions were as follows (just curious, all you Gollish haters out there, where would you have thrown in kudos to BM and KP?):
1) Why did you decide to comeback? "Well I heard Branna was back in Canada and needed some humbling....opps that kinda backfired"
2) Pretty cold out here today.. "Was it? You wouldn't have guessed it by what Branna and Kristina were wearing...."
3) Victoria? "I'll like it better is Branna doesn't come!"
4) The Half vs. 8K? - "Yea, the half was a huge mistake, I mean look at how great BM and KP ran today and they haven't run any halves...."
Muscles tightening - "No, not really, muscles got tight cuz I was getting beaten by a teenager..."
So, I'll ask again, where in that interview was a question even posed to her that would give her a chance to talk about the outcome of the race and talk about athletes other than herself (or her teammates)?
Now if the interviewer had asked how she felt the race unfolded, did it unfold according to plan, was she surprised, etc....then her answers, I'm guessing would have been much different.
Perhaps, if you clowns had ever been good enough to win something, you might have been interviewed after your races and we could have made fun of you.This post was edited by NC Blogger 5 months ago .Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: NC Blogger
"I disagree. The interviewer brought up the "cold" kept asking questions about it. Her first response - I bonked (due to the cold, it caught me unprepared). She doesn't "blame" anything else other than her own undoings.
The questions were as follows (just curious, all you Gollish haters out there, where would you have thrown in kudos to BM and KP?):
1) Why did you decide to comeback? "Well I heard Branna was back in Canada and needed some humbling....opps that kinda backfired"
2) Pretty cold out here today.. "Was it? You wouldn't have guessed it by what Branna and Kristina were wearing...."
3) Victoria? "I'll like it better is Branna doesn't come!"
4) The Half vs. 8K? - "Yea, the half was a huge mistake, I mean look at how great BM and KP ran today and they haven't run any halves...."
Muscles tightening - "No, not really, muscles got tight cuz I was getting beaten by a teenager..."
So, I'll ask again, where in that interview was a question even posed to her that would give her a chance to talk about the outcome of the race and talk about athletes other than herself (or her teammates)?
Now if the interviewer had asked how she felt the race unfolded, did it unfold according to plan, was she surprised, etc....then her answers, I'm guessing would have been much different.
Perhaps, if you clowns had ever been good enough to win something, you might have been interviewed after your races and we could have made fun of you."
Quotes from the interview:
"I bonked, not from fatigue, but from the cold" (translation: they did not outrun me, I was beaten by the cold-- that somehow affects me more than them. No proof required.)
"The cold was like jumping into an ice bath" (but for me only).
"The cold was like going from sea level to 7,000 feet" (translation: for me only, because I am uniquely susceptible to the cold. Again, no proof required. And it was 5C, the exact same temp as when I won in late Nov last year.
Then the pre-excuse for Victoria: "Who knows what temp it will be out there. It could be just as cold".
Get real. No 3rd place finisher in the history of this board has even gotten away with this level of dickishness in defeat. Imagine ANY guy getting away with this kind of talk. Not calling her out on this is pandering. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
...also, it was so cold I had to take my arm warmers OFF in the final lap.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653gryph alum said 5 months ago
Quoting: cis stats
"Looking at CIS results, which is where their focus lies, between 2011-2016, the Gryphon women had the following number of 3rd-5th year athletes on their roster - 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5
The number of women with 2 or more previous CIS xc championship appearances on their squads from 2011-2016 was - 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4
The 2015 and 2016 Gryphon women had just as many, if not more, upper year athletes with multiple years of CIS xc championship experience.
There were a total of 8 women on the 2013-2016 teams whose CIS xc careers included 3-5 years of Championship experience. 6 of these 8 women had their best CIS placing in their 1st or 2nd appearance.
The Gryphon women had between 5 and 7 all-canadians every year from 2010-2014.
The 2015 Guelph women had 4 team members that were previously all-canadian; 2 women earned all-canadian status that year.
The 2016 roster had 5 women who previously placed top-15 at CIS; they had 2 all-canadians that year."
I'm not sure that what you're saying disproves my original point, and perhaps makes it more clear. You have misread experience as a measure of years competed at CIS, which isn't what I meant. Experience comes through racing (all kinds, not just CIS), but also miles, quality work and training environment experiences.
The deeper and better the team, the less likely one is to compete multiple times because anyone is replaceable, even potential medalists. As you point out, in 2011-2016, very few athletes had "been there before." If you drill down and look at what year most of those people were in at their first CIS appearance, you'd likely see that it was often 3+ (no, I haven't done the "stats", I'm going off of memory) prior to 2015. Competing at all the CIS champs available to you (4/4 or 5/5) was rare - I believe only Lalonde managed this in the years we're discussing (Furtado too, if you'd like to count that - she last competed in 2011).
Maybe you get a niggle or a cold at the wrong time, maybe it takes you a couple of years to get university racing completely figured out. If that was the case, you got left at home because there was always someone who was eyeing your spot who was likely an AC candidate. When you no longer have the monopoly on recruits, this no longer holds. When you have less depth, your hand is forced - you must field athletes who are banged up, under the weather, not having a good season etc., because it's not a guarantee that the depth charts have a more promising candidate to fill in. Arguably, this is what happened in 2015-2016 - many former ACs competed, but they weren't competing at their former level/ideal fitness during that season. In previous years, such athletes might have been benched on the off-chance.
Anyways, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that there's been some shift in the program that is the sole cause of Guelph being relatively less dominant. The biggest factor is that other CIS programs have upped their game (a good thing), which has had a direct influence (better competitors) and an indirect influence (more difficult to recruit --> less depth --> more vulnerability) on Guelph's performance. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Guelph is a great program. They won OUA men's gold and placed a close third in the women's race with a very young team.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653 -
User since:
Sep 12th, 2014
Posts: 649NC Blogger said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Quotes from the interview:
"I bonked, not from fatigue, but from the cold" (translation: they did not outrun me, I was beaten by the cold-- that somehow affects me more than them. No proof required.)
"The cold was like jumping into an ice bath" (but for me only).
"The cold was like going from sea level to 7,000 feet" (translation: for me only, because I am uniquely susceptible to the cold. Again, no proof required. And it was 5C, the exact same temp as when I won in late Nov last year.
Then the pre-excuse for Victoria: "Who knows what temp it will be out there. It could be just as cold".
Get real. No 3rd place finisher in the history of this board has even gotten away with this level of dickishness in defeat. Imagine ANY guy getting away with this kind of talk. Not calling her out on this is pandering."
Yes, please. Get Real. Thank you for your inept translations (and cowardice). You read too much into the "only for me" bit, because I never heard that in the interview, nor has anyone I've spoken too - you know, real people. Never was the fact that cold effects her MORE brought up - that was ASSumed by you. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
McMaster, Queens, Lakehead have upped their recruiting game. Talking to athletes earlier and offering more than Guelph.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: NC Blogger
"Yes, please. Get Real. Thank you for your inept translations (and cowardice). You read too much into the "only for me" bit, because I never heard that in the interview, nor has anyone I've spoken too - you know, real people. Never was the fact that cold effects her MORE brought up - that was ASSumed by you."
Come on. How could the "only for me" interpretation not be valid? What is the first thing a runner will typically say when conditions were bad? I'll help you out. They say "but it was the same for everyone else out there". And if she understood that it was the same for everyone else what the hell could it mean to say "I bonked, not from the fatigue, but from the cold"? Or, the cold was like suddenly going from sea level to 7,000 feet". If it was the same for everyone, why mention it at all, because it explains nothing about your placing, which is what is of interest to the viewer.
Why is anyone taking it at face value that Gollish is uniquely susceptible to the cold, which is clearly what her statements imply. Again, there is a weird double standard at play when you consider what kind of reaction anyone else would get for making and doubling down on an excuse like that and never once saying something like "but full credit to the athletes who beat me. They ran great, and I look forward to getting another shot at them." Produce even one example of that level of sore losing that didn't get hammered on. Quote comment -
User since:
Sep 25th, 2013
Posts: 2033Oldster said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"McMaster, Queens, Lakehead have upped their recruiting game. Talking to athletes earlier and offering more than Guelph."
Evidence?
We've always talked to athletes early and often. As for the offering more money (than anyone, let alone Guelph): we wish.
And, if you're talking about women, for the record, our best rookie recruits, based on OFSAA finishing place, remain J-A Staehli (6 years ago) and Jade Watson (this year). Both finished 15th in grade 12. We've landed a few good good transfers (Coates a few years back, and Stephenson and Branna this year). But, we have also lost 5th years (Charlotte Dunlap and Colleen Wilson) that would have put us over the top a couple of years ago, had we retained them. And, we figure that what goes around comes around re: rookie recruits and grad transfers: We lose a few rookies to our higher admission standards (particularly for our professional programs), but gain a few transfers, owing to the quality of our graduate programs.
If there is more parity in our league these days (and there clearly is), it's because Guelph raised the bar in terms of training expectations and some of us accepted their challenge. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Hmmm Dickishness now who uses that word on here?"
You? Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Come on. How could the "only for me" interpretation not be valid? What is the first thing a runner will typically say when conditions were bad? I'll help you out. They say "but it was the same for everyone else out there". And if she understood that it was the same for everyone else what the hell could it mean to say "I bonked, not from the fatigue, but from the cold"? Or, the cold was like suddenly going from sea level to 7,000 feet". If it was the same for everyone, why mention it at all, because it explains nothing about your placing, which is what is of interest to the viewer.
Why is anyone taking it at face value that Gollish is uniquely susceptible to the cold, which is clearly what her statements imply. Again, there is a weird double standard at play when you consider what kind of reaction anyone else would get for making and doubling down on an excuse like that and never once saying something like "but full credit to the athletes who beat me. They ran great, and I look forward to getting another shot at them." Produce even one example of that level of sore losing that didn't get hammered on."
What is your end game here? Ultimately, what answer will satisfy your curiousity?
Are you looking for other posters (or even Sasha herself) to just say 'yeah, anonymous poster, you are right and she (I) am just a self-centered athlete thinking only of her(my)self'?
Will that help you sleep better at night once people have been humbled by your brilliant psychoanalysis of someone giving an interview soon after a tough XC race?
It's also not clear where anyone is suggesting she is uniquely susceptible to the cold (other than yourself). Do you know for sure that there isn't someone who was hoping to pace in the teens but ended up in the twenties or thirties? Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653AN said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Why is anyone taking it at face value that Gollish is uniquely susceptible to the cold, which is clearly what her statements imply. Again, there is a weird double standard at play..."
It's because you're arguing with Meizner and NC Blogger who are both former U of T runners. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"What is your end game here? Ultimately, what answer will satisfy your curiousity?
Are you looking for other posters (or even Sasha herself) to just say 'yeah, anonymous poster, you are right and she (I) am just a self-centered athlete thinking only of her(my)self'?
Will that help you sleep better at night once people have been humbled by your brilliant psychoanalysis of someone giving an interview soon after a tough XC race?
It's also not clear where anyone is suggesting she is uniquely susceptible to the cold (other than yourself). Do you know for sure that there isn't someone who was hoping to pace in the teens but ended up in the twenties or thirties?"
Point missed. This is about letting someone off the hook for making lame excuses and thereby disrespecting her competitors. No class. And not the first time.
Interview was long after the race finished, so that is B.S.
I don't care how many other other people are or are not suggesting Gollish was acting like the conditions were somehow worse for her than everyone else. That's logically exactly what she was implying. Otherwise, her comments make no sense at all in that context. They don't explain anything about how the race went down, other than that she claims she was slower than those who beat her because it was so cold. She says zero about the people who beat her, just about herself and the cold, which she goes on and on about ("ice bath", "7000 feet"). Show me one other instance where a person is THIS ungracious and self-centered in defeat. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Not a fan either said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Come on. How could the "only for me" interpretation not be valid? What is the first thing a runner will typically say when conditions were bad? I'll help you out. They say "but it was the same for everyone else out there". And if she understood that it was the same for everyone else what the hell could it mean to say "I bonked, not from the fatigue, but from the cold"? Or, the cold was like suddenly going from sea level to 7,000 feet". If it was the same for everyone, why mention it at all, because it explains nothing about your placing, which is what is of interest to the viewer.
Why is anyone taking it at face value that Gollish is uniquely susceptible to the cold, which is clearly what her statements imply. Again, there is a weird double standard at play when you consider what kind of reaction anyone else would get for making and doubling down on an excuse like that and never once saying something like "but full credit to the athletes who beat me. They ran great, and I look forward to getting another shot at them." Produce even one example of that level of sore losing that didn't get hammered on."
I am not a Gollish fan either (I find her hard to like for whatever reason) but I think you have proven your point well. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Point missed. This is about letting someone off the hook for making lame excuses and thereby disrespecting her competitors. No class. And not the first time.
Interview was long after the race finished, so that is B.S.
I don't care how many other other people are or are not suggesting Gollish was acting like the conditions were somehow worse for her than everyone else. That's logically exactly what she was implying. Otherwise, her comments make no sense at all in that context. They don't explain anything about how the race went down, other than that she claims she was slower than those who beat her because it was so cold. She says zero about the people who beat her, just about herself and the cold, which she goes on and on about ("ice bath", "7000 feet"). Show me one other instance where a person is THIS ungracious and self-centered in defeat."
And you completely missed answering the question.
What, specifically, will satisfy you with respect to this thread?
You've posted repeatedly how you think she disrespected her competition and made lame excuses.
Fine, that's your opinion and you are never going to agree with anyone who suggests there are other valid points of view.
But what would it take for you to accept you've made your point and triumphed in the anonymous message board debate?
Do you want a statement from Sasha fully agreeing with everything you've written?
Do you want all message board posters to say your obsessive analysis of her interview proves you have psychological and personality insights far beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
Simply, how do you see this thread wrapping up? Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Much of what gryph alum is saying is simply no longer true of the Guelph women's program. Looking at the development of their top women over the past 5 years paints a very different picture than it did 10 years ago.
Quote comment
This is not to say that other programs haven't improved, as one or two may have. That has nothing to do with talented women making 1st team all-canadian after just a few months in Guelph, and then struggling to maintain that a few years later.
The Guelph and Speed River program has clearly struggled to develop collegiate and post-collegiate women in recent years. -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"And you completely missed answering the question.
What, specifically, will satisfy you with respect to this thread?
You've posted repeatedly how you think she disrespected her competition and made lame excuses.
Fine, that's your opinion and you are never going to agree with anyone who suggests there are other valid points of view.
But what would it take for you to accept you've made your point and triumphed in the anonymous message board debate?
Do you want a statement from Sasha fully agreeing with everything you've written?
Do you want all message board posters to say your obsessive analysis of her interview proves you have psychological and personality insights far beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
Simply, how do you see this thread wrapping up?"
Who said I wasn't satisfied or haven't excepted that I've made my point? People disagreed with me so I responded. Isn't this how a message board works?
I'd love it if Sasha agreed with everything I've said but I'd love if more if she just stopped making lame excuses and started respecting people when they beat her, like every other favourite does when beaten.
What point are YOU trying to make? This thread was already wrapped up till you added your pointless 2 cents. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Who said I wasn't satisfied or haven't excepted that I've made my point? People disagreed with me so I responded. Isn't this how a message board works?
I'd love it if Sasha agreed with everything I've said but I'd love if more if she just stopped making lame excuses and started respecting people when they beat her, like every other favourite does when beaten.
What point are YOU trying to make? This thread was already wrapped up till you added your pointless 2 cents."
I think this is the point he was trying to make, Steve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJGfGM1v3Yo Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"What healthy* 5th years choose not to run this year?
*Petrick is injured, or else almost certainly would have used her 5th year this season."
Being a Gryphon is no longer incentive enough to finish a 4-year degree in 5 years. Petrick is listed taking a second degree. Is she injured or merely uninterested in running? Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Annonymous said 5 months ago
It looks like McMaster has a bright future with a 2 and 3 finish from first year OUA athletes. Might they be the top contender in the coming years?
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 42653Anonymous said 5 months ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Much of what gryph alum is saying is simply no longer true of the Guelph women's program. Looking at the development of their top women over the past 5 years paints a very different picture than it did 10 years ago.
This is not to say that other programs haven't improved, as one or two may have. That has nothing to do with talented women making 1st team all-canadian after just a few months in Guelph, and then struggling to maintain that a few years later.
The Guelph and Speed River program has clearly struggled to develop collegiate and post-collegiate women in recent years."
Funny stuff Quote comment