RE: t-and-f: Doping, but also more stuff
Mats, Thanks for expressing all my thoughts about this issue - you managed to do this even though I have never spoken to you and do not remember ever meeting you (I did attend the 1995 Goteborg WC and the preceding scientific Congress, so maybe we have met there, but do not realize it). I am currently too busy teaching in two institutions (Tel Aviv University Medical Faculty and the Wingate College of Sports and Physical Education) this semester, consulting etc, to embark on long messages - which I certainly felt like doing, after I have begun reading that Arne - Arne of all people! - is this and that. You know, I felt more insulted than probably Arne himself had he read that. I suspect that a partner of two in this list have been a little hasty to "outguess" a situation and a person they knew nothing about. But Arne does not deserve any of these. Regards, Uri -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mats kerlind Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Doping, but also more stuff Looking through the posts at this list is a strange experience. It seems that some members prefer to speak out in haste, rather than getting informed. They prefer to throw out accusations and vague criticism, rather than meeting argument with argument. Im right now disappointed at the discussion concerning the USA and doping. Members Walt Murphy and Ben Hall have accused IAAF VP Arne Ljungqvist of being anti-US (Murphy) and a witch hunter, McCarthy-style (Hall). As a personal friend of Arne Ljungqvist, this makes me sad and even angry. Could you list members please refrain from attacking the messenger and avoiding the issue. I must say the same thing as Uri Goldbourt. Arne Ljungqvist is a man of great integrity. He was a world class high jumper in the 1950s (not a thing which automatically makes him a great person ? just look at the drug case of Javier Sotomayor). Arne Ljungqvist then became a professor of medicine and has advanced to the vice presidency of the IAAF. He has often been very outspoken on drugs and in opposition to Primo Nebiolo and others. What Arne Ljungqvist wants is a clean sport, nothing else. So ? please ? understand that Ljungqvist is addressing what we in Europe see as a big problem. It is reported that there have been a number of doping cases that the US federation has not reported to the IAAF. All other federations must report ? so why not the USA? And with this background ? can we trust that the US teams are clean? Or are they simple cheats, aided by their federation? Of course ? nobody wants to believe this. I know the problems with US law and how to adjust it to international rules. This is the main problem. But for all other countries, its a hard thought to aceept that they must compete against an athlete who can cheat and then hide behind a national legal system. Or ? even worse - behind a national federation protecting the cheats. This was done in the GDR and other Eastern bloc countries. Id hate to think that the same thing is done in the USA. But ? when I saw the results from Lisbon, I couldnt help thinking about the US athletes the same way I used to think about the Soviet and GDR athletes in the old days. And for a guy who has lived in the USA ? thats a depressing thought. So ? my question is: How should the USA tackle this doping problem? Do you expect the rest of the world to accept that while they are expected to report their cases and get them convicted, the USA should not? Or is there another solution? Or ? should doping be allowed? In that case - on what grounds and what doping should / should not be allowed? Lets keep the discussion to that level, instead of stooping down to cheap, low-class McCarthy crap. (I will choose to see it as a satirical attempt or a joke. I believe that Ben Halls real standpoint has a lot more to bring to the discussion.) Walt Murphy has already explained his point in a way that I to some extent can see and accept. Mats kerlind [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. The most stupid thing about all this. I came home to sit down and write a point about the World Indoors About real TF. About a good US performance. About surprises. About cross country high jumping! (The jumpers had to pass the round track, a camera rail, some cables, two runways for PV and LJ/TJ (with competitions going on ), an 18 in. drop and the 60 track (with competition going on) before making their attempts! No wonder that 2.32 (=7 7 3/8) was enough for a win (by a Swede who has been tested 8 times since Sydney). About Borzhakovskiys impressing 800. About a 1500 in 3:51 that still was extremely exciting (after 70 and 2:21 it had to be an interesting last 400!). About the fact that Germany went home with one single medal! But I wont. I doubt that anybody is interested and Ive lost the will to use the time.I have fallen into the trap myself But as somebody wrote. It seems that the
RE: t-and-f: RE: IAAF threat to expel US federation
Uri, I am not sure you have read my follow-up post to Mats. From your comments and copy below I don't think you have. My point in that post was that my perception of Dr. Ljungqvist can only be informed by the information I have about him which, in this case, comes from his quotes in the media. Your perception of him is informed by a personal relationship. I do not have that luxury. I DO NOT think my conclusions were wrong based on the information I had at the time. If I knew what I know now (that Ljungqvist's statements were taken out of context and shaped by the journalist) I would not have posted. However, Ljungqvist has regularly been quoted in the media in such a way as to lead me to believe that the latest bit was the continued persecution of USATF. This may not be the case but it sure looked like it to me. In the future I will be slower to fire off a post about Dr. Ljungqvist. However, I do not think he is without reproach nor do I think he should be. He is in a public position, making public statements, and thus is a public figure open to criticism. To have some moratorium on criticism of public figures on the list or anywhere else is foolish and oppressive. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Uri Goldbourt, PhD Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: RE: IAAF threat to expel US federation Come on, Arne Ljungquist is no McCarthy. You have never met Arne, have you? . He is a previous outstanding high jumper, a physician, a thinker, a man who loves athletics ( and loves athletes, and believe me, he despises no one, including Americans). And nothing is further from him than witch hunt. I wish the discussion about IAAF or other organizations in our network had focused on the issues, not on persons and on makeshift opinions about them based on hearsay. Yours, UG -Original Message- From: Ben Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 2:03 PM To: Prof. Uri Goldbourt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: RE: IAAF threat to expel US federation The same was likely said about Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early fifties and many others who were on their own "witch hunts." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Prof. Uri Goldbourt Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 1:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: IAAF threat to expel US federation This is bewildering. I have know Arne Ljungquist for years. He is a man of integrity, of expertise in track and Field and medical aspects associated with it and it's about time the uninformed learned something about persons they try to dismiss. UG __ At 21:30 12/03/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/12/01 8:53:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From a good source, I have learned that the IAAF has denied the report, and apologized to USATF for the uproar. Interesting. One only had to look at the source of the "threat" (Arne Lungqvist) to question its legitimacy. Walt Murphy
t-and-f: Not just TF
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/13/sports/13FINN.html By EDMUND L. ANDREWS HELSINKI, Finland, March 10 — The systemic doping of Finland's most elite athletes might not have been discovered but for a misplaced medical bag packed with syringes, needles and drugs used to manipulate blood-cell counts. Inadvertently left at a gas station near Helsinki's airport, the bag belonged to the Finnish Ski Association. Since the bag was found last month, this flat, snowy land has been reeling from revelations that its most admired athletes and their trainers have been trying to boost performance with banned drugs. Six of Finland's top cross-country skiers, who together brought back more than a half-dozen medals from the 1998 Olympics in Nagano, Japan, have been forced to admit they took drugs that either enhance endurance or mask the effects of other drugs used for that purpose. The national team's head coach and its two doctors knew all about it. The coaches, doctors and the president of the ski association have either quit or been dismissed. ... * * *
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
I don't get it either ... Why change the false start rule ??? To copme into conformity withthe NCAA ??? They need to be more concerned with making sure that starters are less reliant on that "beep" in their ear, as eveidenced in last years Olympics and US Olympic Trials .. The one falsel start rule hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting ... And why on earth change the relay zones ??? This would necessitate an entire revision of the relay records/lists as the race would be tremendously altered ... Or at least should be given additional time to build speed through the zone ... Teams would still have to execute passes .. But the record in the men's race would definitely drop below 37.00 ... Does anyone know why these changes have been suggested ??? Conway Hill From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:45:07 EST Are these proposed changes for the speed of the sport? I do not get it. Reducing the pegs of the PV serves who? I see very little wrong with the current state of the PV. What I do see is less clearances in the future. So what if the bar bounces and stays, that is part of the drama of the event. There is nothing like the bobbing of the crowd with the bar, as it bounces, not knowing whether it will stay or fall. Why minimize that occurrence? The false start rule I see the point, but I honestly think the elimination of the competitors is not a good alternative. Yes, the sprinters need to stop jumping, but no matter how many false starts, once the race is of no one remembers who jumped or how many times. Further, there is no guarantee that this will solve the problem. A perfect example is the US indoor nationals. The starter was holding an extraordinary amount of time, prompting some to get their rule books out. The scary part about it all is that, after a competitor jumped out of the race, the starter had a quick gun on the subsequent start. As long as, a human is starting the race, and humans are running the race we will have false starts. With one false start, you could conceivably have the elimination of the best in the field. In other words the race is taken off the track. D' Faith is a road seldom traveled _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Re: NCAA thoughts
although I am not saying that a qualifing meet, a la Ncaa XC, would be the best solution, it would certainly help some out. Those in the northeast that don't fly to California (yes I am talking about my team) have trouble qualifying for Ncaas. Most if not all of our meets come in cold and windy conditions (can you say miserable?). It is common for the winning times at our home meets to look like this: 1:54, 3:53, 15:10 (and our team has run 7:20 for 4x800 and 9:33 for DMR over the past two years). You can bet that if we were running at Stanford our times would be much faster. When was the last time a 5k went sub 14:00 during the collegiate season in New England? what about 14:20? If the Ncaa went to regional meets we would have different dilemmas, but something has to change. Dan From: "Ed Grant" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: "Ed Grant" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "track net" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: NCAA thiughts Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:43:20 -0800 Netters: The last thing the already tight spring collegiate track and field season needs is those projected NCAA regionals. There simply isn't room for them on the schedule and there is no need for them either if some sensible qualifying marks were established and all subsidies to athletes competing eliminated. As things stand now, schools spend more money chasing qualifying times than they receive for their athletes' expenses. The qualifying marks are now and always have been ridicuously severe, not only in how strict the standards themselves are, but also how narrow the period of qualifying. I have, for example, never heard of anything so stupid as not allowing marks from any period of the current school year. The best thing, of course, that could happen would be to divorce track from this football, basketball-oriented oligarchy, which while it may no longer be the fascist operarion Walter Byers ran, is still, on the whole, a dttriment to our sport If you think that would be difficult, it wouldn't be., All a judge would have to hear would be the proaganda the NCAA itself put out in the days of war on the AAU when it said, time and agin, that no organization should control more than one sport. On a happier note, our household had quite a weekend at the various NCAA meets with my alma mater having its first qualifier in Div. I and my wife's its first champion in Div. III. Ed Grant _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
In a message dated 3/14/01 9:12:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The one falsel start rule hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting ... No? At least in the East, I don't see any of the BS that goes on at Open races, with their innumerable false starts. There is maybe ONE false start per meet, if that - the kids get in the blocks and run. They realize the possible benefit of trying to guess the starter's cadence or psyche out their opponents is far outweighed by the penalty. Drastically cutting down on false starts would make the sprints far more palatable to TV producers and viewers, who are now faced with the choice of either watching half a dozen attempts at catching a flyer if it's live, or a lot of editing if it's not. Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Decathlon for women
--- Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More to the point, the women's 100m hurdles is so radically different from the men's hurdles that it might as well be a different event. It is. 100m vs. 110m. :-) Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: No zones 4x100
Tom Murrell wrote: Why not give each runner a fixed starting point (100, 200 300 meters or 80, 180 280) and let them pass where ever they wish. Do away with zones, let them pass it wherever but they must pass it. Tom What is wrong with the event the way it is? I haven't heard of any complaints from the top relay teams. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: No zones 4x100
Why not have just two rules? (1) The baton must travel from the start to the finish line. (2) No more than four runners can be on a relay team. If Michael Johnson can singlehandedly defeat a four-man relay team from some small country, so be it! Dave Carey On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Tom Murrell wrote: Why not give each runner a fixed starting point (100, 200 300 meters or 80, 180 280) and let them pass where ever they wish. Do away with zones, let them pass it wherever but they must pass it.
t-and-f: Re: t-and-f-digest V1 #3477
As is so often the case these days, many people seem to insist upon the polar extreme in response to an extreme. How about this race? Strength runners with weak kicks try to wear down the sprinters. The sprinters try to keep the pace slow. Someone with guts takes it out hard with the help of a couple of others. If they hold on, they win. If not, the sprinters overtake them. BK in the '96 Olympics showed this sense and courage, although took off a little late. Still, an honest effort. Terry Brahm (another IU boy) took bronze in the '87 WIC 3000m: 4:15 first 1500m, 3:45 from there. Awesome _race_. TB had a great kick, didn't mind the slow first half, then was tough enough to hang when O'Sullivan decided he'd had enough. Steve Scott won the guts award in the '84 Olympic 1500m- no way was he gonna hand the race to Coe. Didn't work, but he had no choice since he wanted gold. I always laugh when a butt-slow race unfolds, and the announcers proclaim it a "tactical" race. Isn't running fast a tactic? Surging? Is it a tactic to hand sprinters the race by jogging along with them until the sprinter decides to leave you? Are most happy just to be in that race, perhaps telling their grandchildren that they were "right there with a lap to go"? Think Goucher is happy that he was "in the thick of it" in the Olympic 5000? Wouldn't those same grandkids ask, "then why the heck were you 13th?" As usual, the extremes are both boring. I will agree, however, that the Lisbon version at least provides some excitement. But 3:51? Sheesh...maybe they were all on drugs as well: marjiuana. "Hey, dude, chill, what's the hurry..." Richard Give people a steady diet of lead-changing, down-to-the-wire-finish races like this and the sport would be a lot more popular than watching a long line of guys, rarely passing, and falling short of the hoped-for WR 99 times out of 100.
t-and-f: Hurdle heights
The women's hurdles need to be raised because as the heights currently stands, very little hurdling is required of the women. This is very prominent in the 400ih. As it stands currently in the short hurdles the men are required to clear a hurdle 122% higher than their leg length, and the women 100%in the long hurdles it is 103% to 91%. In the latter that means the women are already higher than the hurdles, and it shows when you watch tape of the races. Consistently, you will see the trail leg come under the women because they can get away with that. If the hurdles were raised 3 inches, you would see the hurdle height demand change to 115% for the short race, and 101% for the long race. The important element in the latter is that the difference from sprint stride rise to hurdle height rise (the difference needed to clear the hurdle) does NOT change. In other words, the women already jump high enough to clear a higher hurdle right now. For the integrity of the event the hurdle should be raised. Contrary to popular thought I believe you will see an improvement in times and race quality. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
t-and-f: quotes you won't find in your local paper or see on TV
Coming off the field after her 4th-place finish at the World Indoor, Stacy Dragila was asked what went wrong. Her succinct retort: "I was shit." gh
Re: t-and-f: Hurdle heights
In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:39:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The women's hurdles need to be raised because as the heights currently stands, very little hurdling is required of the women. This is very prominent in the 400ih. As it stands currently in the short hurdles the men are required to clear a hurdle 122% higher than their leg length, and the women 100%in the long hurdles it is 103% to 91%. In the latter that means the women are already higher than the hurdles, and it shows when you watch tape of the races. Consistently, you will see the trail leg come under the women because they can get away with that. If the hurdles were raised 3 inches, you would see the hurdle height demand change to 115% for the short race, and 101% for the long race. The important element in the latter is that the difference from sprint stride rise to hurdle height rise (the difference needed to clear the hurdle) does NOT change. In other words, the women already jump high enough to clear a higher hurdle right now. For the integrity of the event the hurdle should be raised. Contrary to popular thought I believe you will see an improvement in times and race quality. Nice numbers! I've always thought that there was also a concomitant need for greater distance between the hurdles as well (also for the men, but that's another story) because of the way so many people have to chop their strides. If they're changing one parameter, they should change both, but if the distance between gets greater, would that mean that the height increase should be less? gh
Re: t-and-f: false-start rule (was: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 9:12:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't get it either ... Why change the false start rule ??? To copme into conformity withthe NCAA ??? They need to be more concerned with making sure that starters are less reliant on that "beep" in their ear, as eveidenced in last years Olympics and US Olympic Trials .. The one falsel start rule hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting .. You obviously weren't at the 1974 NCAA meet in Austin, when 7 heats produced 18 (yes, eighteen) false starts and put the meet more than an hour behind schedule. The false start rule was installed the next year. Since then, a total of two men (Calvin SMith in '82 and Lee McRae in '85) have been bounced from the final for a false start, none in the last 15 years. I think the meet (and collegiate track in general) has been immeasurably better for the development. gh
t-and-f: Bryan Bronson Return?
Does anyone know if Bryan Bronson has a comeback planned? Bob Bettwy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director - Program Control Washington Group SRS Technologies (703) 351-7266 P.S. This is NOT a drug related post!
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF - relay zones
I believe the change in the 4x100 relay zones is not to add 10m to the existing passing zone, but to combine the current acceleration zone (10m) and passing zone (20m) into one 30m zone. In other words, there would be a 30m passing zone with no additional acceleration zone - the outgoing runner starts from inside the passing zone and must receive the baton anywhere in the next 30m, which would eliminate the possibility of passing too early. It's not a big change, since this rarely occurs and is not often seen or called even when it does occur, since the officials tend to concentrate on the far end of the zone. Since there is no advantage to passing early, it's probably not a bad thing to eliminate the penalty. Mike Takaha At 06:04 AM 3/14/2001 -0800, Conway Hill wrote: ... And why on earth change the relay zones ??? This would necessitate an entire revision of the relay records/lists as the race would be tremendously altered ... Or at least should be given additional time to build speed through the zone ... Teams would still have to execute passes .. But the record in the men's race would definitely drop below 37.00 ... Does anyone know why these changes have been suggested ??? Conway Hill
Re: t-and-f: the list
Those were the days. Anyone still remember Mike Fox? G-Rex [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: steve... i couldn't have said it any better! i can't take myself off this list though because I need to stay in the "loop." seriously, i think that's why a lot of us just stay on this board. every once in awhile, you'll read a message that really hits home. or you'll see a result that makes you drop your jaw. the list is kinda like a narcotic in itself. every now and then, you need that fix. i remember some of the great posts we had back in the day when i first got on this board (1996)... Remember when WSU didn't receive an invitation to NCAA XC's in '97??? The collegiate contributors were spilling their guts on this board! and i even remember when grote dropped an unintentional f-bomb (something related to a portland coach?), way before tnfmedia was around. ahh yes...the good ol' days. Happy list member (even if the drug issue gets out of control), Ryan P. McGuire
Re: t-and-f: Hurdle heights
Garry talked about changing the distance between the hurdles (Men's 110HH). Tom Murrell talked about "free floating" in the 4x100 meter relay. How about "free floating" hurdle placements. Each hurdler must run 10 hurdles within 110 meters and comes to meet management with the specs on how far apart he wants them. They could then be "ergonomically"(?) placed!!! Bob Bettwy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director - Program Control Washington Group SRS Technologies (703) 351-7266
t-and-f: Re: Hurdle heights
Hello: Read your article with interest on t-and-f, you stated: "As it stands currently in the short hurdles the men are required to clear a hurdle 122% higher than their leg length, and the women 100% in the long hurdles it is 103% to 91%." How did you derive these relative percents? What were the average leg lengths used? Craig
Re: t-and-f: Hurdle heights
gh wrote: Nice numbers! I've always thought that there was also a concomitant need for greater distance between the hurdles as well (also for the men, but that's another story) because of the way so many people have to chop their strides. If they're changing one parameter, they should change both, but if the distance between gets greater, would that mean that the height increase should be less? I tend to think that one of the reason that women's 100m hurdlers chop their strides is because the hurdles are so low. Raising the height of the hurdles might clear up part of the stride chopping problem for the women. As DGS pointed out, they are currently a lot lower than the average leg length. I'm also not convinced that the women's 400m hurdles need to be raised unless the men's are raised as well, although I will say that watching an elite women's 400m race the hurdles APPEAR to be proportionally lower than the men's. - ed Parrot
t-and-f: more iaaf field-rule changes
if you go to the iaaf site (www.iaaf.org) you'll see a new note regarding not only the proposed false-start rule and the two-miss rule in the verticals, but also an explanation of the trying of a few 4-attempt rule in the throws and horizontal jumps. If 8 or fewer competitors, just 4 attemtps. If more than 8, a "preliminary round" of 2 attempts, then the best 8 get 2 more each, in inverse order. i can live with this rule (and I think statistics bear out the relative worthlessness of rounds 4 and 5 in most competitions), but the two-miss rule in the verticals plain old sucks. I'll tackle that subject in more detail later. gh
t-and-f: Championship races vs. GP paced ones
James Temp. writes: Non-paced championship races are soo different from paced GP races it isn't funny. While this is CLEARLY true ... the top PLACERS in a strategic championship race and the fast-from-the-gun, rabitted ones on the Euro circuit are usually not too different. Looking at the Sydney races (which were mostly VERY slow/strategic), you had a very slow 800m ... with a surprise winner ... but the other medallists were those that excelled in the 1:43 races over the whole summer on the circuit. The 1500 mostly resembled a GP race that was a little slower than normal, and El G faded from where we are used to seeing him finish. But the top-six were not surprising .. and only El G upset the expected order. The Steeple was ultra-slow, yet the top-six were not any surprise, neither was the order. Again, in the 5k, it was SO SLOW that Wolde likely would not have won in a sub-13:05 race, but Saidi-Seif and Lahlafi were the fastest and most consistent 3k and 5k runners on the circuit in that final (Mourhit was the only other). They were both medal favorites in a fast race. A 3:51 1500m final is proportionately slower than an 8:20 Steeple and a 13:35 5k .. so really skewed results should be expected when the early pace is that slow. Add the vagaries of racing on the smaller, tighter track and it makes it even tougher. -Brian McEwen
RE: t-and-f: Hurdle heights
Idon't know jack about hurdling ... at least about hurdling those hurdles that fall down when you hit them But do all the elite hurdlers have the same leg length? Men and women? Is that why they decided to become sprint hurdlers ... because their legs were exactly 122% and 100% of the height of the hurdle? You are pretty hard on me all the time ... but come on Darrell, if you are going to preach about something that resembles coaching or science it should make sense and be accurate. -Brian (who "is blind", "has a tainted view" and "ALWAYS operates from the negative") -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:22 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: t-and-f: Hurdle heights The women's hurdles need to be raised because as the heights currently stands, very little hurdling is required of the women. This is very prominent in the 400ih. As it stands currently in the short hurdles the men are required to clear a hurdle 122% higher than their leg length, and the women 100%in the long hurdles it is 103% to 91%. In the latter that means the women are already higher than the hurdles, and it shows when you watch tape of the races. Consistently, you will see the trail leg come under the women because they can get away with that. If the hurdles were raised 3 inches, you would see the hurdle height demand change to 115% for the short race, and 101% for the long race. The important element in the latter is that the difference from sprint stride rise to hurdle height rise (the difference needed to clear the hurdle) does NOT change. In other words, the women already jump high enough to clear a higher hurdle right now. For the integrity of the event the hurdle should be raised. Contrary to popular thought I believe you will see an improvement in times and race quality. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: more iaaf field-rule changes
In a message dated 3/14/01 3:38:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If 8 or fewer competitors, just 4 attemtps. isn't that pretty much what happens in most HS dual meets anyway? Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
There won't bemany more DQ's because there will be very few false starts. Ed Paul Banta Wrote: My guess is that few, if any, meet directors of invitational meets will be in favor of going to a one false start rule in races from 400 down. They put a lot of time, money and promotions into getting the best sprinters and hurdlers to their events and wouldn't want to see them disqualified easily. My guess is that it is very rare in invitational races for top athletes to false start twice. I don't think we have ever had a disqualification for two false starts in the ten years of the adidas Oregon Track Classic. And I don't think track fans would like it either when they come to a meet only to see a premier sprinter or hurdler disqualified for one false start.
Re: t-and-f: Hurdle heights
Although the discussion started out with IAAF rules, I'd like to make some observations about hurdle height and spacing for young athletes. Most 12-14 year old boys cannot hurdle over 39" barriers. But once a boy can deal with the hurdle height, 3 stepping is no problem because the hurdles are relatively close together. The kids who can run the 110's in 9th grade are tall kids. When they mature, they will probably be above the optimum height for sprint hurdling. The 2 fastest hurdlers of the past decade are about 5'10" tall. The situation is different with girls. I have a couple of 7th graders who can hurdle 33" barriers, but they can't even 4 step. My good girl hurdlers only 3 step well when they are in 11th or 12th grade. For developing young hurdlers, I'd like to see lower hurdles for the boys and closer spacing for the girls. Maybe in states with a junior high track program, young kids can have different hurdle specifications. But here in South Carolina, middle school kids run with high school teams and once size fits all. Ed Prytherch.
Re: t-and-f: Hurdle heights
In a message dated 03/14/2001 4:07:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian (who "is blind", "has a tainted view" and "ALWAYS operates from the negative") While I was raised to take the high ground, I will not in this case. I will play your childish game Brian. Read my previous post, and you will see the source of the information I put forth. I have said it before and I will say it again, this is what I do. There are those things that I have an opinion on and there are those things that you cannot prove otherwise. You have guess work, hyperbole, name calling, and disdain, I have knowledge, a working knowledge of the very topic of this list. Every day I go to the track and make magic happen. I get to watch it evolve, and watch the light come on the athletes eyes. You watch TV, and read news reports, and everytime you see HSI, or an affiliated athlete, know that I am proud. Know that when you see a HSI hurdler succeed, I was there when he was crying, and bleeding. I will be there ever afternoon, remembering that what I do exceeds Brian McEwen's imagination. Next time you decide to come at me Brian, and offend me, have an inkling of what you are talking about. Now if you have question to ask, please, ask away... Darrell Smith HSI Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: false-start rule (was: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
Anyone who had to sit and suffer through the false starts in the M/Ws' 60 60H at USATF indoors in Atlanta this year should be in favor of the one false start rule also. Just about each heat and the finals had one and the womens' 60m final had 3! It is obvious that many athletes are trying to guess and risk the one false start. In meets that don't have pressure sensitive blocks the chances of timing the starter and getting away with it are much greater. At worst, you are charged with one false start, at best, you may set a world record.. --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 14, 2001 5:11:16 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: false-start rule (was: Proposed rule changes-IAAF In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 9:12:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't get it either ... Why change the false start rule ??? To copme into conformity withthe NCAA ??? They need to be more concerned with making sure that starters are less reliant on that "beep" in their ear, as eveidenced in last years Olympics and US Olympic Trials .. The one falsel start rule hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting .. You obviously weren't at the 1974 NCAA meet in Austin, when 7 heats produced 18 (yes, eighteen) false starts and put the meet more than an hour behind schedule. The false start rule was installed the next year. Since then, a total of two men (Calvin SMith in '82 and Lee McRae in '85) have been bounced from the final for a false start, none in the last 15 years. I think the meet (and collegiate track in general) has been immeasurably better for the development. gh
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 8:52:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IThe starter by rule is to hold the gun until all runners are set, then fire the gun. Not at his discretion, when they are set he is to shoot! Both IAAF and USATF rules grant the starter "complete control" over everything that happens at the line; he has wide-ranging discretionary powers. At the risk of waxing Clintonian, please define "set." If you're saying it's the instant that everybody is in place, then the smart thing to do is sit in the blocks while everybody else rises, then you rise and immediately go because the starter is supposed to fire the gun at that instant. I would say that "set" carries a bit broader definition, and that's when to the starter's satisfaction everyone is *clearly* in a still position. To be sure that all are still requires a hold after the "set" command, and that requires discretion, and the rules wisely give that to the starter. gh
Re: t-and-f: Re: NCAA thoughts
Dan, You have a great point. The weather was always a barrier for us in Utah as well. Keep in mind, however, that since I've been living in Southern California, I can't think of more than about 4 or 5 guys that were worth anything at all. Keep in mind that this is on the collegiate level. Coming from Utah, and Arkansas, I personally feel it's a discrace that So. Cal colleges can't produce more distance talent than they do. It's pretty bad really. Any thoughts.? Schiefer
