[thaumasiotes]

> Fast men are very competitive with horses over long distances [0].

This might be true, but the citation says the opposite:

> In 2013, extensive forestry works meant the organizers had to modify the route considerably, resulting in a course of nearly 24 miles, instead of the usual route of just under 21 miles. Despite a very hot day, the longer and hillier course favoured the horses, with 2011 winner Beti Gordon comfortably beating the first man, Hugh Aggleton.

> Following a number of criticisms of the extended course in 2013 and 2014, the course for 2015 was shortened back towards 21 miles. This provided a more even match between man and equine

[dmurray]

Men win sometimes, the fastest man is generally within 20% of the fastest horse, and the fastest man beats plenty of the horses. The fact that minor differences in length, weather and terrain are significant to the result is also more than enough to say the men are competitive.

[thaumasiotes]

But what the article says is that longer courses favor the horses. We can't just define "long distances" to mean "exactly 21 miles". "Humans are competitive with horses over long distances" is a terrible way to phrase the idea that the advantage of horses grows with increasing distance.

Consider that cavalry wipes the floor with infantry in terms of how much ground can be covered in a day. Don't think soldiers are selected for speed? Consider also that we have an inscription from an Egyptian pharaoh commemorating the excellence of his soldiers, as measured by the speed of their march.