RE: AW: t-and-f: Like father, like son
Aren't you missing a 1981 World Cup finals victory in Rome? UG -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tomas Magnusson Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: AW: AW: t-and-f: Like father, like son It was definitively 1988. I have his international records as: Junior IXC 197118 18 24:58 Junior IXC 197226 26 25:18 Eur.Champ 19745000m s2/7 14:29.6 OLY 1976 1500m 4 3:39.51 Eur. Champs 1978 1500m 2 3:36.6 Eur. Ind.Champs 19791500m 1 3:41.8 WXC 1979 70 39:28 OLY 19805000m 413:22.74 WCH 19835000m 113:28.53 WIC 19871500m s2/5 3:43.40 OLY 19885000m s1/1514:02.16 It was probably the last race that he jogged through! Can't say why he didn't quylify for Los Angeles in '84 though... /tom -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Januar 2006 00:33 An: Tomas Magnusson Betreff: Re: AW: t-and-f: Like father, like son He made a couple of runs at the four-minute mark as a masters' runner if you want to count that. I have a taped meet that has him running in a masters event, which would have been about 10 years ago. I recall his last Olympics - 84 or 88??? - when he just pretty much jogged and finished his heat. I think he said he wanted to savor that feeling of being in an Olympic event for the last time. -- Original message -- From: Tomas Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder when was the last international appearance from Eamonn Coghlan? I think it was the olympics in 1988, but I'm not sure... /Tom -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2006 23:12 An: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Betreff: t-and-f: Like father, like son PRESS RELEASES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTS MOVEMENT January 26, 2006 U S Track and Field Coghlan leads field for 99th Millrose Games High School Mile NEW YORK - Nine young men and 10 young women will compete on the storied oval, running in the boys' and girls' high school miles at the 99th Millrose Games, February 3 at Madison Square Garden. With many of the country's best middle-distance runners competing, many eyes will no doubt be fixed on John Coghlan, whose family history at Millrose is incomparable. The All Ireland Intermediate Boys' 1,500m champion, Coghlan has never run on an indoor track, but is expected to receive a few pointers from his father, Eamonn, the 7-time Wanamaker Mile winner and long-timeChairman of the Boards. http://www.sportsfeatures.com/index.php?section=ppaction=showid=28693 +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC. +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
RE: AW: t-and-f: Like father, like son
Yes, I should have mentioned it was only his appearances in the european and world championships. /Tom -- Original-Nachricht -- From: Uri Goldbourt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Tomas Magnusson' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: AW: t-and-f: Like father, like son Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:56 +0200 Aren't you missing a 1981 World Cup finals victory in Rome? UG -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tomas Magnusson Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: AW: AW: t-and-f: Like father, like son It was definitively 1988. I have his international records as: Junior IXC 197118 18 24:58 Junior IXC 197226 26 25:18 Eur.Champ 19745000m s2/7 14:29.6 OLY 1976 1500m 4 3:39.51 Eur. Champs1978 1500m 2 3:36.6 Eur. Ind.Champs19791500m 1 3:41.8 WXC1979 70 39:28 OLY19805000m 413:22.74 WCH19835000m 113:28.53 WIC19871500m s2/5 3:43.40 OLY19885000m s1/1514:02.16 It was probably the last race that he jogged through! Can't say why he didn't quylify for Los Angeles in '84 though... /tom -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Januar 2006 00:33 An: Tomas Magnusson Betreff: Re: AW: t-and-f: Like father, like son He made a couple of runs at the four-minute mark as a masters' runner if you want to count that. I have a taped meet that has him running in a masters event, which would have been about 10 years ago. I recall his last Olympics - 84 or 88??? - when he just pretty much jogged and finished his heat. I think he said he wanted to savor that feeling of being in an Olympic event for the last time. -- Original message -- From: Tomas Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder when was the last international appearance from Eamonn Coghlan? I think it was the olympics in 1988, but I'm not sure... /Tom -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2006 23:12 An: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Betreff: t-and-f: Like father, like son PRESS RELEASES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTS MOVEMENT January 26, 2006 U S Track and Field Coghlan leads field for 99th Millrose Games High School Mile NEW YORK - Nine young men and 10 young women will compete on the storied oval, running in the boys' and girls' high school miles at the 99th Millrose Games, February 3 at Madison Square Garden. With many of the country's best middle-distance runners competing, many eyes will no doubt be fixed on John Coghlan, whose family history at Millrose is incomparable. The All Ireland Intermediate Boys' 1,500m champion, Coghlan has never run on an indoor track, but is expected to receive a few pointers from his father, Eamonn, the 7-time Wanamaker Mile winner and long-timeChairman of the Boards. http://www.sportsfeatures.com/index.php?section=ppaction=showid=28693 +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC. +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
We could call him invalid record holder, but that might raise other questions. Tom On Jan 27, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Geoff Pietsch wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
t-and-f: National Depth--Pole Vault
The charts summarize the number of athletes each country placed in the world top-100 outdoor rankings for 2005 (plus ties) and the highest-ranked of these. Since one or two placings may represent only exceptional individuals, rather than national program strength, I've listed only countries with three or more athletes in the top 100 (plus ties). The data base drawn upon is the world deep list from Mirko Jalava's web site http://www.tilastopaja.net>. MEN'S POLE VAULT 2005 Country Top 105 Highest United States 27 2 France 14 22 Russia 9 13 Germany 8 3 Ukraine 5 10 Australia 4 1 China 3 29 Finland 3 48 Netherlands 3 11 29 countries represented 100th = 5.45 = 17'10 1/2 WOMEN'S POLE VAULT 2005 Country Top 101 Highest United States 22 4 Germany 11 14 Russia 8 1 France 6 7 Poland 5 2 Canada 4 12 China 3 10 Greece 4 15 Australia 3 17 Brazil 3 28 Sweden 3 20 Ukraine 3 26 32 countries represented 100th = 4.16m = 13'7 3/4
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
Agreed. It's like saying Rosie Ruiz was 'a former winner of the Boston Marathon'. Linda Honikman On 1/27/06 11:44 AM, Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
But Linda, she still has the medal. Tom On Jan 27, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Running USA Information Services wrote: Agreed. It's like saying Rosie Ruiz was 'a former winner of the Boston Marathon'. Linda Honikman On 1/27/06 11:44 AM, Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
The record was ratified. What happened later does not change the fact that he formerly held the record. Unless you want to change the definition of the words themselves, Tim is a former record holder. Dan --- Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
The rule book requires that WRs must run according to, well, the rule book. If you cheat, the record never happened. Do we consider Ben Johnson a former WR holder? I sure don't. Kurt Bray Tom Derderian [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com To Sent by:t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc .uoregon.edu Subject Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 01/27/2006 12:35 PM 'former?' Please respond to Tom Derderian [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com We could call him invalid record holder, but that might raise other questions. Tom On Jan 27, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Geoff Pietsch wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. Geoff From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST) Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so former seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had to sneak that in.) Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the precedent for 'former?' I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism standpoint, I am hung up on this word former. Monty's 9.78 has been canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to reference Monty's 9.78 as a former world record if the mark was achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized? Maurice Greene is a former world record holder. Should cheats be given the same recognition? Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away. ... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder. Sprinter Jones on way back to top http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm Montgomery hit with two-year ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
RE: t-and-f: Where did the list go?
Sadly, nothing gets the list going like a discussion about the death of the list. Dan --- B. Kunnath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this thread so far explains perfectly why the list is dying..apparently theres nothing worth debating, so it starts to look like one long Seinfeld episode. http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
By your definition, Rosie Ruiz is also, as Linda Honikman said, a former winner of the Boston Marathon - even though she apparently ran only a mile or so. Rosie got the medal and the laurel wreath. Later it was proven that she cheated. She can hardly be a formerwinner of the Boston Marathon if she didn't run the full Boston Marathon. Similarly,Tim Montgomery cheated. His record was ratified based on a lie. It's hard to be a former recordholder if one never ran the record - 9.79 drug free - the authorities ratified. The drug free is implicit in all ratified records. From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:43:50 -0800 (PST) The record was ratified. What happened later does not change the fact that he formerly held the record. Unless you want to change the definition of the words themselves, Tim is a former record holder. Dan --- Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, I disagree. To call him the former recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a former recordholder. http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
t-and-f: National Depth--Discus
The charts summarize the number of athletes each country placed in the world top-100 outdoor rankings for 2005 (plus ties) and the highest-ranked of these. Since one or two placings may represent only exceptional individuals, rather than national program strength, I've listed only countries with three or more athletes in the top 100 (plus ties). The data base drawn upon is the world deep list from Mirko Jalava's web site http://www.tilastopaja.net>. MEN'S DISCUS THROW 2005 Country Top 100 Highest United States 15 5 Finland 6 20 Russia 6 29 Germany 5 10 Ukraine 5 23 Belarus 4 44 Italy 4 47 Poland 4 14 Australia 3 30 China 3 28 Cuba 3 4 Estonia 3 2 Hungary 3 13 South Africa 3 6 36 countries represented 100th = 59.54m = 195' WOMEN'S DISCUS THROW 2005 Country Top 101 Highest China 19 5 United States 14 10 Russia 10 3 Germany 8 2 Belarus 5 22 Poland 5 9 Ukraine 5 4 India 4 16 Great Britain 3 57 30 countries represented 100th = 55.93m = 183'6
t-and-f: National Depth--5,000 Meters
The charts summarize the number of athletes each country placed in the world top-100 outdoor rankings for 2005 (plus ties) and the highest-ranked of these. Since one or two placings may represent only exceptional individuals, rather than national program strength, I've listed only countries with three or more athletes in the top 100 (plus ties). The data base drawn upon is the world deep list from Mirko Jalava's web site http://www.tilastopaja.net>. MEN'S 5,000 METERS 2005 Country Top 100 Highest Kenya 45 2 Ethiopia 14 12 United States 12 15 Qatar 5 35 Morocco 4 3 Spain 3 36 Uganda 3 12 19 countries represented 100th = 13:25.66 WOMEN'S 5,000 METERS 2005 Country Top 100 Highest Kenya 17 4 Japan 15 20 Ethiopia 13 1 United States 12 28 China 10 9 Great Britain 5 8 Russia 3 13 29 countries represented 100th = 15:29.88
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
Problem is, Tim met all the requirements of the time (clean drug test, legal condtions, ran the whole race) for the record to have been ratified. Had Ruiz set a record at Boston, she presumably would have been found to have cheated prior to it being ratified, so they're rather different scenarios. No matter how you spin it, Tim had a record in the books. Yeah, it was later removed, but there's just no getting around the fact that he formerly held the record. There's not even any gray area there. Whether one chooses to acknowledge the record is an entirely different matter. Dan --- Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By your definition, Rosie Ruiz is also, as Linda Honikman said, a former winner of the Boston Marathon - even though she apparently ran only a mile or so. Rosie got the medal and the laurel wreath. Later it was proven that she cheated. She can hardly be a formerwinner of the Boston Marathon if she didn't run the full Boston Marathon. Similarly,Tim Montgomery cheated. His record was ratified based on a lie. It's hard to be a former recordholder if one never ran the record - 9.79 drug free - the authorities ratified. The drug free is implicit in all ratified records. From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?' Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:43:50 -0800 (PST) The record was ratified. What happened later does not change the fact that he formerly held the record. Unless you want to change the definition of the words themselves, Tim is a former record holder. Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no he does not have a record on the books. I didn't say he *does* have the record, I set he *did* have it. Surely, you can see the difference? If you go back to the so called record book it would list the world record holder of record the day before or morning of TM's race. That's absolutely irrelevant, unless you're incapable of separating current and former, which appears to be the case. Montgomery never held a record, it was wiped from the slate as if it never happened, Ratification or not. But it *did* happen, like it or not. You're changing history to make a point. Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
