Questioning Luanne Suplick lightweight 60min WR

[jackarabit]

These are the days of trying to get people removed and/or casting dispersions on those who are better than you, because they don't conform to your limited view of reality.

I cast dispersions in my cups,
Aspersions when I’m sober.

[NavigationHazard]

No decision on Ms. Roebuck?

Ms Roebuck's records have also been removed pending any further information or proof from her regarding those records.

Also @wjschmidt2, please keep in mind that different people use the logbook in different ways. Lifetime Meters do not indicate a person's ability to set a record, or their overall interest in the sport. Sometimes, athletes only enter the meters they wish to rank, and don't take the time to enter all of their training meters rowed every day. Not saying this is the case with Ms Roebuck, but just something to keep in mind.

Sometimes people with a substantial body of work and a long record of proving their ability in public track their workouts elsewhere.

I started tracking meters way back in 2000-2001. In that distant past, you had to enter workouts manually. Quite often I didn't do it, for one or more of the following reasons:

* I was putting in meters OTW rather than indoors, on an erg, and didn't want to mix the two even though it's fine for logbook purposes
* I was tracking my workouts in a publicly accessible blog on the C2 UK Forum (sadly, defunct -- with the loss of all that training data)
* I was running Paul Smith's ErgMonitor program and keeping my workout data electronically, either in its proprietary data format or in Excel spreadsheets or both. ErgMonitor runs off the sensor feed that normally plugs into a PM, so if you connect the cable to a computer running it you're not ever going to see anything on the monitor.
* I posted workout results somewhere in this Forum without entering them into my logbook. Typically when I've done so, I've provided screenshot(s) of the monitor, ErgMonitor screenshots, on occasion videos or animated gif files: visual and technical data that ought to back up whatever I have claimed to have been doing. I have made over 1600 posts on this Forum since 2006.
* I posted workout results somewhere on one or more of the alternate platforms used by Team Oarsome, the virtual indoor squad I have been part of since 2004.

The upshot is that while I probably have averaged somewhere between 4 and 5 million cumulative meters/year over the last two decades, only a fraction of them has ever made it into my C2 US Logbook. Some years I've entered more than others, e.g. 2005/6 when I entered 3,983,624m because I included a substantial number of my OTW meters along with the erging. Judging from my entry notes, I think I made the decision that year to include meters rowed in a 1x, but not OTW meters rowed in a iv or an viii. Some years it's been a lot less.

In calendar 2008 I entered the grand total of 2500m. Of those, 1000m on 5/18/08 were 3:10.8 at 20 spm. 500m on 6/02/08 were ranked, the 1:21.4 at the age of 52 ending up the fastest posted 50-59 MHW time for the year. And the other 1000m, on 6/11/08, at 2:54.1 breaking what at the time was my own 50-59 world record by 4.1 seconds. None of the other 4 million or so meters made it into my logbook, mostly because they were being posted on the UK Forum.

If all you ever looked at were my logbook and ranked pieces for 2008, you might wonder whether I was legit. On the other hand, I showed up at Crash-Bs in both 2008 and 2009, winning bronze medals that bookended the results I did enter as above. It's worth adding that I didn't bother to enter either race result into my logbook, either. More generally, I have won Crash-Bs once, finished second once, and earned three bronze medals so far; I have two European indoor championship wins and a bronze in three attempts as a member of the C2 Indoor squads; I have won the British Indoor Championships twice plus a silver; and I won the first FISA World Indoor championship race in my age group. Etc. I shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone regardless of my lifetime meters total, or what is/isn't in my logbook at any given moment.

Dena's point is absolutely valid. There are all sorts of reasons why people don't enter meters into their C2 US logbooks. In and of themselves, logged meters don't tell you anything remotely conclusive about the rower in question.

[Cyclingman1]

There's no doubt that questioning someone's performance claims is a dicey situation. Has to be done carefully, but common sense is a good guide. In case of erging, logbook entries are not the end all, be all of determining capability. Obviously, several examples have been given where logbook would not apply. However, in every case there is other data that shows the performance numbers are legit. For some reason, in the case of this thread some very questionable numbers were allowed to stand for years. I think it is largely a case of giving the benefit of doubt. But there seems to not be any corroborating evidence of the performances. I don't see anything wrong with how the questioning has been handled.

On a personal level, I first came to erging at age 66 and three months later I was under the then current 2K WR for 65+, HWt. Not a WR, because not done at a venue. I had essentially no history of rowing or erging. I never got any feedback that my times were looked as being bogus, but I can see where there could be doubt. All of my duathlon [run,bike,run] race times were ancient history and certainly not available in searches. It makes me mindful that one has to be careful in questioning what others claim to have done.

[jackarabit]

A mighty peroration, Nav, and ferocious defense of a winning career, which, as you state so forcefully, needs no defending! You apparently find yourself occupying a position from which to attest the absolute validity of any assertion you choose. I am not bolstered by any athletic accomplishment of the slightest consequence but persist in asserting the provisional value of defining before enshrining.

1. Dena Hirchak says she is certain that presence or absence of training records is neither conclusively supportive of nor convincingly prejudicial to the probable validity of competition records. She adds that she is not certain of the relevance of this caveat to the case of Ms. Roebuck. So much for absolutes.

2. A hunch is not an investigation. It is the pragmatic and potentially correct or incorrect assumption behind the sorting algorithm: difference in appearance indicates difference in kind.

3. C2 accepts the playing of hunches by anyone (and the circumstantial NON-evidence presented by persons with or without standing in the competition to be reviewed) else they would not have investigated the records challenged in this thread.

4. Finger pointers are no more unsavory than the matters they examine. So long as there are cesspools there will be honey dippers.

[Citroen]

I think we're done with this discussion.

Locked.