• Login
  • |
  • Contact

    LIVE SUPPORT

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    ContactCode

    OTHER

    Email:
    info@trackie.com

    Voicemail:
    1.877.456.5544

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1
Sections

Event Results >>

TrackieReg - Free Online Registration for pretty much anything!

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
Trent  60 70 87 88
Ryerson  63 76 84 85
 

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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 16
    Report    REPLY #1 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Way to go Branna!!!

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 15
    Report    REPLY #2 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Awesome job Branna~and Queen's Ladies!!!

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #3 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #4 

    Math 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #5 

    Math 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
  • southwest User since:
    Mar 10th, 2010
    Posts: 26
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #6 

    southwest 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #7 

    TrendSaysItAll 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
  • trackie User since:
    Jul 26th, 2002
    Posts: 2153
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #8 

    Trackie said 5 months ago

    Keep an eye out here for updated/official results: http://www.windsortiming.com/LiveResults/2017/OUACross/

    Quote comment
  • buddy User since:
    Jun 8th, 2015
    Posts: 1005
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #9 

    Buddy said 5 months ago

    that is not GG's a-team

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #10 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    No comment on Gollish?

    This post was edited by a Moderator [Issues] 5 months ago . 
    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #11 

    Meizner 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.

    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.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #12 

    Andrew Jones said 5 months ago

    Thanks to Brad Reiter for that excellent photo essay from the race!!

    Quote comment
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2033
    thumbs_up 16
    Report    REPLY #13 

    Oldster 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 20
    Report    REPLY #14 

    Spectator 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #15 

    gryph 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
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #16 

    Meizner 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #17 

    Anonymous 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
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2033
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #18 

    Oldster 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
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #19 

    Meizner 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 14
    Report    REPLY #20 

    hmm 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 13
    Report    REPLY #21 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 22
    Report    REPLY #22 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #23 

    Spectator 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #24 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #25 

    Anonymous 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
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #26 

    Meizner said 5 months ago

    Was there an interview where Gollish claimed her race to be a failure?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #27 

    not 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
  • bestcoach User since:
    Oct 20th, 2014
    Posts: 1083
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #28 

    BestCoach said 5 months ago

    She was rookie of the year in 2000 so maybe Brogan will also win U-Sports XC in 2034?


    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]

    Quote comment
  • master2b User since:
    Jun 9th, 2011
    Posts: 151
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #29 

    Master2B 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #30 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 16
    Report    REPLY #31 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #32 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Sasha posts on twitter and instagram - there are pictures of her running in the last couple weeks.

    Quoting: Master2B
    "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
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2033
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #33 

    Oldster said 5 months ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "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
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2033
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #34 

    Oldster said 5 months ago

    Branna is 19. Still a junior age athlete. Brogan is turning 17 shortly.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 17
    Report    REPLY #35 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #36 

    Anonymous 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
  • myth User since:
    Jan 23rd, 2014
    Posts: 217
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #37 

    Myth 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #38 

    grlpwr said 5 months ago

    lots of interesting stuff being said here.
    consider the relationships and dynamics on that women's team, she came back to win that race nothing more nothing less
    lol

    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #39 

    Meizner said 5 months ago

    Where is said interview?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #40 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Quoting: Meizner
    "Where is said interview?"

    https://runningmagazine.ca/2017-oua-cross-country-championships-recap/

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 19
    Report    REPLY #41 

    Anonymous 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
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 11
    Report    REPLY #42 

    Meizner 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #43 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 10
    Report    REPLY #44 

    source 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #45 

    Andrew 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.

    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.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #46 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    https://sashagollish.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/2015-xc/

    Quote comment
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 18
    Report    REPLY #47 

    Meizner 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 9
    Report    REPLY #48 

    Weather 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #49 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #50 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #51 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #52 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 15
    Report    REPLY #53 

    Anonymous 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
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 22
    Report    REPLY #54 

    Meizner 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.

    Good thing we have CIs and Nats to allow for more great competition!

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 14
    Report    REPLY #55 

    Anon 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #56 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #57 

    cis 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
  • meizner User since:
    Oct 8th, 2013
    Posts: 756
    thumbs_up 12
    Report    REPLY #58 

    Meizner said 5 months ago

    Borderline Olympian = someone who nearly makes Only standard or team. What's confusing or controversial about that?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #59 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #60 

    jay O said 5 months ago

    so what the course short errrrrrrrrrr?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #61 

    Anonymous 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
  • nc-blogger User since:
    Sep 12th, 2014
    Posts: 649
    thumbs_up 12
    Report    REPLY #62 

    NC 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 14
    Report    REPLY #63 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 18
    Report    REPLY #64 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    ...also, it was so cold I had to take my arm warmers OFF in the final lap.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #65 

    gryph 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #66 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 4
    Report    REPLY #67 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Hmmm Dickishness now who uses that word on here?

    Quote comment
  • nc-blogger User since:
    Sep 12th, 2014
    Posts: 649
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #68 

    NC 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #69 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    McMaster, Queens, Lakehead have upped their recruiting game. Talking to athletes earlier and offering more than Guelph.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 9
    Report    REPLY #70 

    Anonymous 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
  • oldster User since:
    Sep 25th, 2013
    Posts: 2033
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #71 

    Oldster 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #72 

    Anonymous said 5 months ago

    Quoting: Anonymous
    "Hmmm Dickishness now who uses that word on here?"


    You?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #73 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #74 

    AN 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 6
    Report    REPLY #75 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #76 

    Not 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #77 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #78 

    Anonymous 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.

    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.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 7
    Report    REPLY #79 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 2
    Report    REPLY #80 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #81 

    Anonymous 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 Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #82 

    Annonymous 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
  • new-post-last-visitanonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 42653
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #83 

    Anonymous 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
Anonymous

says…    

Quote Underline Italics Bold
Submit Preview

By posting on our forum you are agreeing to the following guidelines.

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

 

Benefits of creating an account!

  • No need to reveal your real name.
  • Quicker to post (no need to enter the "two words" above each time).
  • Gives you the ability to edit your own comments and subscribe to topics.
  • It's free & quick to create an account!
Submit & Create Account