Is Deena Done?

The "hot topic" on the Letsrun.com board is whether it's time for Deena to retire following her 2:36 at London, which is of course RIDICULOUS, even if her best marathon days are behind her now.

Since running 2:19:36 four years ago, this is what she's done:
2006 New York - 2:27:54 for 6th
2007 Boston - 2:35:09 for 5th
2008 OTrials - 2:29:35 for 1st
2008 OGames - DNF (injury)
2009 Chicago - 2:28:50 for 6th
2010 London - 2:36:20 for 18th

Boston '07, the weather was shit. The men ran 2:14, and the women's winner ran 2:29. 2:35 was not bad on that day and got her 5th. Respectable, no?
The 2:36 now stands out like a sore a thumb, but it's her only really poor race.

The real problem is that she was talking of running a PR beforehand. In her only race leading up she ran 1:09:43 in the NYC Half, a 2:27 equivalent. And she blew up there after being on 1:08(2:24) pace until about 15k.
So why would she think she could run 2:18 in London?

She went through 5k at 16:39(2:20/pace), and 10k in 33:50(2:22/pace). She can throw all of her excuses out there, as we all do after a bad race, but her eyes were bigger than her stomach. Or, her expectations were bigger than her ability.

Deena doesn't need to retire, as she is still easily capable of running 2:26-2:29 and finishing top 5 in a major. And last I checked, that's still a decent pay day. This is her JOB after all.
Deena just needs to be realistic at this point in her career. Going after a PR is going to make her look foolish, blow up, and finish outside the money. It's also not going to have her phone ringing off the hook from race directors.


Good luck in the future in Deena! I'm only trying to help...