Re: t-and-f: What do Tiger Woods,
> I ask you why? Once again, age group swimming is widely popular. You see > tennis players begin and even go on the tour at age 14 or 15 (Sampras beat > Lendl in the US Open at 19... Capriatti had to be 15 when she was first > became a stud, etc). No one thinks twice about sending their kid out to > play pee wee baseball. No one thinks twice about dragging their son along > on the golf course, in the dead of summer, for 5 hours and 18 holes. Your original example was age 6. Loads of people think twice about their kid playing 18 holes or going through the child abuse that is the tennis system. Capriatti is just coming back after what, 7 years away from the tour due to burnout (whatever she calls it)? However, that doesn't mean I don't agree with your point that kids can and should be running as young as they want to. The question is what form does that take and how much pressure should be put on them. Going to the local all-comers meet and encouraging them to run a kids-only 100yd dash or mile seems great. Having a "parent-child" run seems like no problem, either. The problem is when is becomes "serious" at age 6. I can't cite psychological proof but it seems self-evident to me. Physiologically, I have little doubt that kids have no problem doing distance runs - you only have to look at the Kenyans. But the added element of parental competitive pressure can contribute to both physiological and physchological damage. Again, I've seens various "evidence" to support both sides of this argument, but I have to go with what I've seen with my two eyes. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: believe it or not
> Hmm, let's see. 30-year-old Carl Lewis set his first record in the 100, was succceeded by 27-year-old Leroy Burrell who was suceeded by 28-year-old Donovan Bailey. MJ set the 200 record at 28, the 400 record (finally) at 30. > > Meanwhile, Geb holds the 5K and 10K marks set when he was 25. And Komen before him was not exactly geriatric, either. Even if you don't believe the stated ages, the Africans are clearly having world class success at the distance events well before age 25. I suspect if you look at the top ten in any given year, there won't be that much age difference between sprinters and distance runners any more. The comparison IS made more difficult (actually impossible) by the fact that we can't judge many of the Africans' ages accurately. But the last 15 years of sprinting has seen 25-30 become the peak age. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Cherono almost catches Lindgren
>Maybe Entine is right ... we have no chance, and should just give up before > >we fall further behind. We have no chance of ever getting a 16 year old to > >go 8:19 or even a 19 year old to go 7:58. Yep, and no chance of ever getting someone to run 3:53, either. Never say never, just figure out what it's going to take and run like hell. As fans we can speculate on the difficulties, but I sure hope the athletes don't. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: ISTAF start lists
> M 4X200 - MJ, Jerome DAvis, Leonard Byrd, Derrick Brew Aren't these guys better known for the 400m, not the 200m (except for MJ of course)? - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: Re: t-and-f: Re: t-and-f: Re: altitude aid (was: El G's pace in Zürich
> In a message dated Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > We could debate endlessly how much, if any, effect on performance there is at this low altitude, but it would undoubtedly be small enough that unless someone attempted run a perfectly paced world record attempt, we probably wouldn't notice the difference in the times of distance races. Even if the 100m is worth .02 seconds at the ~660 meters of altitude in Edmonton, it would be difficult to really notice.> > > No sprinter ever notices the illegal tailwinds that propel him to fast times; that mean we should ignore the >readings? I think you misunderstood. From a statistical perspective, of course we should take things like altitude (and wind) into account. But from a practical standpoint, given that we are talking about very small amounts of aid or hindrance, it doesn't add much to a discussion of the Edmonton results to speculate about how the altitude affected the races. If we were talking about a meet at 4000 or 5000 feet, it would be a different story. - Ed
t-and-f: Re: t-and-f: Re: altitude aid (was: El G's pace in Zürich
> > There is NO effect on performance in either the sprints or distances at 2000 feet. The Air pressure is essentialy the same.> > > The boffins who created the wind/altitude-aid charts for our Big Green Book maintain that 800m of altitude >>(c2400ft) is worth 0.03 seconds in the 100 in still air. I think one of the original points on this thread was not so much whether there is much difference in times as to how much the athletes would be "feeling" the altitude, as a number of distance runners were complaining about heavy legs and breathing issues as a result of the altitude. At just over 2000 feet, it is hard to imagine a highly trained runner noticing any difference - certainly not enough to complain about. We could debate endlessly how much, if any, effect on performance there is at this low altitude, but it would undoubtedly be small enough that unless someone attempted run a perfectly paced world record attempt, we probably wouldn't notice the difference in the times of distance races. Even if the 100m is worth .02 seconds at the ~660 meters of altitude in Edmonton, it would be difficult to really notice. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Morceli, El Guerrouj and pacing in championship races
> And Bob, please explain why what Kaouch did in 1999 and this year is any > different, in terms of "fair play", than when a lapped (or about to be > lapped) runner provides pacing help to a teammate (which is covered in the > IAAF rules). Simple - a lapped runner can be at an advantage over the rest of the field in terms. A runner who takes the lead from the gun is not at any advantage over the rest of the field. So the difference is whether an athlete is getting pacing assistance from someone who has an inherent advantage or not. Big difference. You could argue that if El G. is able to convince a countryman to make the final and then sacrifice himself, then El G. is at an advantage. I would agree, but I also consider it perfectly acceptable advantage, just like having superior speed or strength is an advantage. I don't consider being paced by a lapped runner to be an acceptable advantage. Just my opinion - everyone's definition of fair play is different. One other note - even with lapped runners, it is difficult to actually prove collusion - witness the 1992 Olympic 10K as well as Louroupe's world record for the 1 hour run. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Altitude correction... opinion stands...
> In addition, IF there is any effect, after being there for a week or more, one should have adjusted to it > to the point where it would not have effected their performance. I completely agree that the altutude can not have been much of factor, and not only that, even if it did have a tiny effect on the times, it should not have had a noticeable effect on how the athletes felt. However, if a physical adaptation DOES occur, then it stands to reason that even with adaptation the times will be slower for distance runners. Bottom line - talking about the effects of altitude in Edmonton is irrelevent to the competition in any meaningful sense. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: RE: t-and-f: El G's pace in Zürich
> How long will it be until we see a 3:25? > > Thoughts? Once a dependable urine test for EPO is developed, we will not see a 3:25 (or 12:35) for several years after that. Just like the levelling of women's sprint times and weight event distances in both sexes since random testing was introduced. I hope I'm wrong (and I'm not accusing anyone specific although I understand the implications of my statement). - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: More Yegorva
> I guess if we all weren't so Pro-American, we could > argue that SFH dropping out in Edmonton makes her more > guilty towards drug use. This way she didn't have to > get caught on the world stage. > I'm not accusing anyone here, but we never seem to see > Americans in the same light as the eastern europeans! Sure we do. But we're running so slowly that if we are using drugs, we're really screwing it up. I can think more than one prominent American distance runner who has been the subject of drug accusations - deserved or otherwise - in the past few years. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only "enormous improver"?
> And please spare me the effects of a lifetime of drug > taking. Many drugs help us and nobody is thinking twice > about taking them when they need. I think 3 or 4 times before I take ANY drug, including aspirin or cold medicine. I know many other people who feel the same way. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support both sides of this issue, so it's a matter of what you choose to believe. Personally, I believe in drug testing. I can respect the fact that you don't. As I've said about other topics, I can't imagine I could convince you that my opinion is correct, nor do I expect to be convinced by anyone else that we should abandon testing. In one sense, this issue is as much a matter of what you believe as it is one of logic or fact. > What are the comments of this list about the IAAF behaviour in this story!? The story should've never > come out. They were the ones that created the whole confusion. How come news like this come out in the > open? Someone is clearly interested is destroying Yegorova. This is the only thing we can be sure of. At least four different people have commented on that, including myself on two different occasions. Maybe you missed the comments. The IAAF botched this. I would not, however, assume that they are out to get Yegorova. It could very well be incompetence or miscommunication, not a calculated plan - we'll never know. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only "enormous improver"?
> You say Yegerova was demonised and singled out among "most likely" a > "non-negligible" number of athletes. I assume you mean that a lot of > athletes take EPO or some drugs. Yegerova is demonised because at the World > Championships she was the only one that the charge can be levelled at with > certainty. She was caught and got off on a technicality. To be 100% accurate, we should say she is the only one who's test was improperly made public. There may very well be other times that only the urine test has been done and it was appropriately kept secret. Don't get me wrong - if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, most of us (myself included) will believe that it is. The urine test is not pretty certain by itself. But legally, procedure was not followed, and the fact that it was made public when it shouldn't have been is a lose-lose situation for our whole sport. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: scheduling US nationals
> Has anyone at USATF thought about scheduling US nationals during that > period next year, rather than the traditional mid-June window? > Granted, those active in Europe might like to take a rest during the > Euros, but as the US season effectively ends in mid-June these days, > perhaps scheduling the meet at the same time as the Euros might be one > way to help extend the US outdoor season, if USATF could find a way to > have some meets of consequence in the prior weeks. I think this is the way we should be going, but my understanding is that the college coaches, who control the USATF track and field committees do not want the season extended. While the number of collegians who actually make an international team is relatively few, the number of athletes at USATF nationals who are in college is pretty significant. But we don't seem to have a problem with having the meet in mid July when it's the Olympic Trials. I don't know how the athletes feel about it. And by that I mean the 90% of the athletes at nationals who don't compete in Europe. A proposal to move nationals, accompanied by some effective leadup meets in June and July might sit well with the athletes. But it's hard to picture moving the date of the national championships if the two track and field committees are against it. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Radcliffe's surge
My guess is that regardless of what Radcliffe did, she could not have won ths race. She is a great runner, a talented runner and an admirable runner. But she is NOT any better than several of the Ethiopians at the 10K on the track. So, lacking finishing speed, she is bound to lose to them most of the time. It's good that she is working on her finishing speed, and of course making a decisive move in the middle of a 10K will sometimes allow a runner who is mentally and physical prepared for such a surge to beat a runner of essentially equal ability who isn't willing to go in the middle. But for the most part in world class track distance running, if you can't finish strong, you don't win, because there are too many other great runners around to expect that you can get away. Ngugi was certainly an exception, and if Radcliffe had run sub 4:40 for the 4th mile instead of the last mile, I imagine she would have had a lead at that point. It would have been awfully tough to hold on, though. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: televising distance races
> In 1988 NBC showed the men's 5,000 live at 11:45 pm PDT (2:45 EDT) and > took two commercial breaks (missing, of course, John Ngugi's decisive > surge). Both Craig Masback and D W I G H T have in the past cited the > huge tune-out of viewers at the very start of this particular race as > evidence that US viewers won't watch distance races (not, evidently, as > evidence that people might have wanted to sleep at such a late hour), > and one reason why network t&f (and Olympics) broadcasts are now what > they are. I appreciate the info. If this is the race they are citing, you are correct in pointing out that it's ridiculous. My suspicion is that the networks have decided, for a combination of reasons, that distance races put people to sleep and that citing this race is just an excuse. As I said before, I can't really fault them for not wanting to "risk" changing their policies and trying something different, but at least call it what it is and don't give us this BS about no one being able to stay focused for even the 8 minutes of a Steeple. - Ed PArrot
Re: t-and-f: Entine's flaws
> So this looks like only 7 non-Africans have produced times in the top 100 > all time, right? > > I'd put Juantorena on the list though (maybe that was his 8th). It's hard to categorize anyone from the West Indies or Central America unless you know their specific origin. But assuming Juantorena is the 8th, it still is not accurate to say, as Entine did, that "92 of the top 100 times are held by those of mostly African ancestry". You could say 18 of the top 100 times, 38 of the top 100 performers, or 8 of the individuals who account for the top 100 times. To state the latter would be the worst kind of misuse of statistics unless you said 8 of the "x number" of individuals who account for the top 100 times (is it 35 or so individuals?) As I have said before, I don't think his science is particularly flawed, but I don't think it is important either. and he makes himself a laughingstock by constantly using the Kipketer quote and 800m times to prove his points about "distance" running. He could certainly find equally compelling evidence by using the 5000m or 1m list, couldn't he? And saying Coe is nowhere the consistent level of Cruz or Kipketer is just funny. It's like saying Jesse Owens was not as consistent as Mo Greene because his times aren't as fast. And if he chose to race less often than others, that doesn't make him a less consistent runner - maybe less prolific. Only one person even came close to that 800m mark for over a decade despite the best efforts of the best runners. And no one has come close since the season when Kipketer did it. I mean, a longstanding world record, Olympic titles, rarely losing for 5+ years, what the hell more could he have done except tried to run 1:42 every week! - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: re: Edwards thoughts on Yegorova
> So, for them to clear her in a matter of days leads me to believe that she either wasn't guilty or that there >were serious problems with the testing protocol. Someone correct me if they know differently, but there WAS a problem with the testing protocol - they didn't do a blood test. The IAAF procedure is to do a blood test first, which can detect EPO usage up to 4-6 weeks prior, followed by a follow-up urine test. The blood test is considered to have a small possibility of false positives, so a positive blood test is followed by the EPO urine test, which is considered reliable but can only test for usage in the pas few days. The two positive tests together constitute a legally defensible test. Anything else (like Yegorova's test) is apparently not. So there was no grey area unless the IAAF wanted to ignore they own rules (which they've done before). The real errors were the French not doing a blood test and the IAAF publicizing the positive urine test before looking further into the matter. Now here's where it is sticky. The urine test is pretty much considered reliable on its own. It just usually can't pick up EPO more than a few days prior. I wondered why they didn't just go with the urine test rather than the combination but perhaps they wanted to get people used to the idea of blood testing since that will be necessary for the next advancements in drug testing. The way they did it just makes everyone doubt more about the process. But the fact is that she tested positive using the most reliable test. And word was going around Edmonton that she was one of a number of athletes who failed the initial blood test in Edmonton but subsequently passed the urine test. I never heard official confirmation of this and really we shouldn't have heard anything about those initial blood tests since they constitute nothing by themselves. But really it appears that Yegorova was let off on a real technicality. They had to let her off, and it should never have been made public in the first place, but given the specifics of the technicality there should be little doubt in our minds that she would have been banned if the French had done the blood test. It is unfortunate for her, the sport, and everyone involved that the IAAF botched this so badly. As I said before, this is a textbook example of why the U.S. waits until adjudication is complete before releasing names of failed testees. The only saving grace is that the efforts to get the single, reliable EPO test approved will certainly be at the forefront. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Post Edmonton thoughts
> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I've got a two-word answer to that line of thinking: Houston and Cerritos. > As in the nationals of '89 and '90, where the domestic version of the > sport, imho, came close to dieing at the top end. > < > > And I have a one-word answer to the same line of thinking. Wimbledon. Absolutely. If you pay five figures as far down as 16th place in every event. And add a century long tradition of being the most prestigious meet in the world. And make it one of the four meets in the year that everyone considers a "major". And we need to let everyone compete, not just U.S. athletes. My point is that Wimbledon is far different than USATF nationals and there is no immediate hope on the horizon that the money will be available for it to become more like Wimbledon. It's not that we can't learn from the way tennis (and golf) do things. But the money has to come from somewhere. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: RE: Post Edmonton thoughts
> Was a hard meet to get up for some reason .. The first couple of days > were very exciting as the 100 men burned up the track .. But things cooled > off and seemed to stay that way .. Didn't seem to have the usual electricity > associated with the Worlds .. Was nice however to see TV coverage that > featured competition over fluff !!! I don't know, the women's 800m and men's 200m alone were enough to keep the adrenaline flowing for me. And the men's 4x100 and women's 4x400 certainly had plenty of drama both in the rounds and the finals. Geb losing in the 10K didn't shock or excite me the way it did a lot of people, but it was still a compelling moment. It is never easy to get into the field events on TV with the typical abysmal coverage (Dwight's commentary was fine, they just don't give him much to comment on). But the men's javelin provided drama both from a world standpoint and an American standpoint and Markov's pole vault was a jaw-dropper. The competition was just as good as always, but the performances in general were off a little bit. That didn't bother me much, but that could be part of the "flat" feeling. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: MJ BAD for the sport- JD on the other hand...
> Does anyone else think Michael Johnson is bad for the future of track and > field? He admittedly knows nothing about anything other than the sprints, > he was so negative about the outcome of these WC, and he has said in the > past that track and field should just do away with the distance races (for > television convenience). I do like Drummond's energy and comments. And MJ has said some things that I don't agree with. But I did enjoy MJ's commentary more than anyone else's during the broadcasts. No one who gives even a modicum of thought would really propose doing away with anything shorter than a 10K due to television. Just about every baseball game has at least one half inning that lasts 10+ minutes without commercials, so I don't think it's a big deal to have one event like that in track. Or, as a compromise, show the first 5 minutes, go to commercial for 3 minutes and show the last 5 laps. The problem is not that distance races take too long. How long did the men's 100m take to air? It's that distance races are perceived as not being popular, and to some extent that is not wrong. But the mile is very popular and the steeple would be easy to make interesting with the proper focus on the barriers and water jump. So it's really the 5K and 10K that we're talking about. I'd be curious when the last time a 5K was shown in its entirety on U.S. television at any time other than late at night or during the TripleCast in 1992. I can't remember a time. It's laughable for network people to claim that no one wants to see something they haven't tried to show in more than a decade. And it is impossible to believe that any testing they have done to supposedly make this conclusion have the kind of drama and quality that a real broadcast would provide. I hear things about short attention spans, but there are so many techniques for keeping attention, even during a 13 minute race, that that excuse doesn't fly either. The real reason for lack of distance coverage - there's no money in televising track and field unless you're willing to take risks in trying different things. Given the sums generated by other sports, I can't really blame the networks for not bothering to take those risks. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Pre-empting
> What are the chances that the World Series will pre-empted by a broadcast of > a Gulf States regional junior olympic track meet? I was thinking the same thing, but in all fairness, the track meet was taped while the baseball game was live, and they did show the full hour of track afterwards, pre-empting other things. Even as a track fan, I don't think I would have made a different decision from a programming standpoint. Anyone have any idea what the ratings were for the baseball game compared to the track meet, especially the first hour of the baseball game, since by 10PM there were plenty of track fans watching baseball? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Why do we send these people?
Why do we send slow marathoners to the worlds? That requires a four part answer: 1. We don't have many fast marathoners. Our 8-10th best women's marathoner in recent years will have a PR barely under 2:40, which means we can't realistically expect any better than 2:43-2:45 in a championship race, eeven if she runs well. Given the vagaries of injury, etc, etc, it is reasonable to expect that we will always be sending our 8th best runner if we want to field a full team. 2. The fastest U.S. marathoners can make more money elsewhere and are a lot more likely to get the kind of fast time that will put them high on the yearly list. This is not limited just to the marathon, although the marathon is by far the worst both because you can run so few marathons per year and because even the 100th best marathoner in the world can do OK financially with well chosen races. A 2:35 marathoner can easily win $20K+ per year if she chooses the right 3 marathons and dozen other shorter road races. It is also not limited to the U.S. alone. Marathoners have too many other options, so we will generally never have our best unless they get good enough to contend for prize money at the worlds. 3. The majority of the women's team found out they were on the team with less than 2 months to prepare, several of them after running Boston and taking some down time before training for a fall marathon. I don't see much way around that dilemma other than a series of financial incentives as a result of committing to the team, showing up, and running hard. That would not be fair unless we did that for athletes in the other events, however. 4. So why do we send a team that couldn't do very well even if the top three team members PR'd by two minutes, and knowing that they may not be in good shape, either? The U.S. has a policy of sending as many athletes as they can to world and olympic games. I support the policy because I don't see any down side to sending these athletes and the potential upside is that one or two of them gain the experience and motivation to do well in future years. If the IAAF wanted to change the rules to create Olympic type qualifying standards (and do away with the world cup piece of it), I wouldn't be opposed, and we would only be able to send one marathoner. But as long as they're eligible to compete, I consider it only proper to send as many people as possible. The cost is really not an issue and they are not taking spots away from anyone. The much more relevent questions are: what can the IAAF or USATF do to get the best marathoners from all countries to compete, and what can the U.S. do to improve the quality of its marathoners? - ed parrot
Re: t-and-f: The End of the British Rule in Running
Tom D. wrote: > I think the meaningful part applies to the notion that British athletes > should train harder as Coe suggests in order to beat the Africans. If the > reason for training harder is solely to beat the Africans then the numbers > Entine quotes are meaningful, but if the reason for a Brit to train harder > is to beat the other Brits then the statistically significant numbers are > not meaningful since they would not change the behavior of the Brit trying > to beat all the other Brits. I still don't see how the Brits or Americans training harder to beat the Africans makes either statistical correlations or even genetic/sociological "facts" meaningful to athletes and coaches. Anytime an individual or group has come along and dominated an event, the rest of the world tries to learn from them and adjust their training/focus accordingly. Even if every runner in the world accepts that the Africans have a genetic advantage, so what? How does that have any meaning. This was my only complaint last time this thread came up and I still haven't heard anything to convince me that this research is anything more than just an interesting academic excercise. - ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: The End of the British Rule in Running
> We are talking population genetics. When 7 percent of the world's population > holds 98 percent of the top times in sprinting, and 5 percent holds more > than 70 percent of the top endurance times, it is meaningful. "statistically significant", yes. "meaningful"? I have yet to be convinced it means anything important. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Drugs are talk of the town
> < the start of the race, but Ljungqvist also stated that other athletes > << <<>> > Wouldn't the added fitness from a year's (or many year's) worth of training > on EPO make her physically more fit than her rivals. She wouldn't lose > those gains, correct? I was wondering about that myself. More importantly, however, is how this is yet another example of the IAAF trying to spin everything they do. If you use this logic, we shouldn't bother suspending anyone for any longer than it takes to get out of their system! I have heard some conflicting stuff and I don't assume I have heard the complete truth, but it appears that this is a perfect example of how keeping things quiet until adjudication is complete (the way U.S. law would imply it should be done) would have been in everyone's best interests. If her initial tests were done improperly, which is what it sounds like, then it is the same as if she's tested negative and we shouldn't even have heard about it other than as a statistic involving the number of tests done improperly. If she now has another test that MIGHT be a failure, we shouldn't hear about it until it can be concluded one way or the other. This circus helps no one. Now perhaps it was leak that started this whole thing, and of course there will always be leaks, but even if that is the case, this really highlights the weakness in the way the IAAF operates drug testing. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: 800 splits
Any idea what kind of splits the bronze medalist ran? He was in last at maybe 52 seconds at halfway. - ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Tonight's TV Coverage - 5K?? Steeple??
>Gee, lots of men's 10K coverage at 1:00A.M. Even the women's hammer throw > was on earlier than that. And, of course, still no time to show the men's 5K > or Steeple heats yet lots of time for virtually every heat of every distance > up to 1500. Heck, we get qualifying coverage in field events (at last!) but > not the 5K or Steeple. Oh, and Americans qualified in both, if that matters. I'm not sure if I'd call what they showed us in field event qualifying "coverage". In most events it was less than five minutes with little feel for what was going on. It would have been like showing just the last lap of the women's 10K. I agree about the distance events, but I don't think the field events are really getting that much more coverage. The women's 10K got more coverage than all the field events yesterday combined. As someone who attempts to be a fan of all the events (I must admit I don't know much anything the competitors in the discus, hammer or walks, however), the coverage is disappointing in that we miss a lot, but then again there's always something on I am interested in. I'm thankful for the coverage we get on ESPN, because it has a lot more breadth than the weekend ABC coverage does. And overall, the quality of the commentary (Ms. Lewis notwithstanding) has been good, it's just the time (or lack thereof) spent on some events that is the problem. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: WC thoughts on tuesday's early ESPN broadcast
Some thoughts on the broadcast today: -Women's 1500m. Szabo was as impressive as she ever has been. The 1500m really wasn't close and that's not even her best event. Unless she doesn't run, it's hard to picture anyone else winning the 5K. The Russian women ran a great race as well - her front running tactics could easily have resulted in a mid-pack finish, but she held off a good kicker in Sacramento for the bronze. There seems little question that she deserves to be considered among the top 3 in the world. - M 200m quarters: Kevin Little seemed like a man among boys and has to be considered a possible gold medalist. The same goes for Malcolm and of course Kederis and two or three others. As in Sydney, the race is pretty wide open, and unless someone pulls a Mike Marsh in the semis, we'll still be saying the same thing before the final. - M 800m:The most exciting race of the day, watching Bucher absolutely smoke from 500m to 700m off an already blazing pace. I suspect the last 100m was VERY slow and all those guys were hurting in a big way, but that's what the race should be all about - that's why I like running it myself. Rawson commented on Sepeng being the first black South African to medal at the Olympics - I thought that was Thugwane in Atlanta? - M Vault:I have seen Hysong twice on TV and once live since his victory last year and he has a different look about him since Sydney. Looking at his face his he appears more intense, more focused. He may very well not win but I guess a gold medal does wonders for confidence. The law of averages says someone currently or formerly from the former Soviet Union will win (how many of them are there - 5? 6?) - M Triple:Walter Davis picked a good time to PR, and even though he placed fifth, the ability to perform when it counts bodes well for his future after college. His technique looked Ok until you watched Edwards jump after him. What can you say about Edwards that hasn't already been said. Every aspiring elite triple jumper should be required to watch two hours of Edwards video daily. - M High Jump:This could be the most exciting field event of the Games, even better than the women's vault. The best looking in qualifying (from what little we saw on ESPN) seemed to be Boswell with a huge cushion on his clearance. Given the home track avantage, he seems a lock to place top three if the pressure doesn't get to him. But really any one of at least 6 or 7 men could win and it wouldn't be a complete surprise. Here's hoping we see more of the women's 10K tonight than we did in Sydney. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: Monday's WC
Some random observations of last night's action on ESPN: 1. Michael Johnson hit it head on when he said Marion's form was off. Her right leg has always flared out a little, but this was ridiculous. If you have it on tape, watch the last 1 or 2 steps of the final and it is almost surprising she is still upright. And her shoulders were very uneven, with her right shoulder coming too far forward and up and her left shoulder dropping. She may not feel injured, but something is very wrong. 2. I'd be curious to see Thanou's top-end speed from 60-80m of her semi - It wouldn't surprise me if it was the fastest stretch in any heat by any of the women sprinters. It almost makes you wonder if her poor start gave her a better acceleration pattern. 3. Women's pole vault. One of the most exciting competitions ever, and it was also a textbook example of two things - how much better Stacy Dragila's form is than everyone else's, and how much worse all of their form is than the best men. Part of it is probably a function of speed, but I suspect we'll see 17 feet in the next 10 years as more and more girls pick it up at a young age. The women are excellent at using the energy of the pole, but they have a long way to go to get into the proper inverted position. I didn't see a single triple jump - I must have looked away for 3 or 4 minutes and missed it all. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: CJ Hunter
> on 6/8/01 9:30 PM, Ed & Dana Parrot at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I guess it's OK for the IAAF to cover up a drug test to prevent damage to > > the sport - read: their star attraction - but not OK for USATF to withhold > > names to protect the athletes according to their rights under U.S. law. > There's a world of difference between the two examples you gave. The IAAF > covered up Hunter's guilt but didn't let him compete. ASs I understand it > the USTAF covered up guilt and at least one of the individuals competed. > Randall Northam Actually, I'd venture to say we don't know that for sure. I don't remember exactly what all the press releases said - did USATF admit that one athlete who has tested positive was competing? If so, I imagine the case has been adjudicated by now, so if the person is guilty, we should know who it is by now - who is it? If the person is not guilty then that is a perfect example of why U.S. law works the way it does. And the IAAF's attack was based on something like 16 other instances where USATF did EXACTLY what the IAAF did - covered up guilt on people who weren't competing. If the brouhaha had been about a single athlete who was covered up and competing, it wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal from a PR standpoint. Finally, the IAAF's biggest complaint was "procedural". They objected more to the fact that USATF failed to disclose the names to them than anything else. As I said, this recent revelation certainly removes what little credibility they had left on the procedural issue. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Sprint Respect - warning RESULTS discussed
> Does sprinting get any respect on this list any more ?? When Webb ran 3:54 > the list was abuzz for weeks .. Yet something even more amazing occurred > yesterday at the World's and nary a whisper !! It hasn't been on TV yet in the U.S. so it hasn't actually happened yet! I agree with Conway's comments, although I don't think it makes sense to make any assumptions about what Greene "would have" run if he wasn't hurt. He won in a blazing time and as far as I'm concerned, if he wasn't already there, he has assumed his place among the greats. I'm not saying he's better than Lewis, Owens, Hayes, etc., but sprinter's careers are measured in a small number of years and he has the WR, the Olympic medal, and 3 worlds. Winning worlds in 1997, 1999 and 2001 with an Olympic title in between is certainly equivalent to winning two Olympic titles in a row, which should be guaranteed immortality for any track athlete, let alone a sprinter. Going into the meet, Montgomery was on a roll, and he even managed to step it up a notch in Edmonton. Williams' performance is somewhat like Mitchell's in 1991 - it took an incredible race by two other guys to make us overlook a low 9.9 performance. And lest you be concerned that the 100m is not getting its due, rest assured that about 50% of the 3.5 hour broadcast on ABC yesterday was of the 100m (including commercials), some of which wasn't even occurring on the same day. Meanwhile we got to see a total of less than 5:00 of shot put final, women's long jump prelims, and men's triple prelims, although Edwards' jump was a thing of beauty. At least we got to see the full races of the women's 1500m, although I think that was from a previous day also. One positive note - there was surprisingly little of the human interest BS that I have gotten used to. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: CJ Hunter
>``By keeping him out of the competition we did our duty. To go public and create fantastic headlines, that would be >further damage.'' So much for the procedural high ground, huh? I guess it's OK for the IAAF to cover up a drug test to prevent damage to the sport - read: their star attraction - but not OK for USATF to withhold names to protect the athletes according to their rights under U.S. law. Now just picture what was happening last september. Craig and USATF were being assailed for covering up tests, most notably CJ's test, by the very people who made the agreement for the coverup - the IAAF! No wonder he and USATF were so upset by the way that stuff transpired. I am trying to remember a more blatent example of hypocrisy, but I'm drawing a blank. Oh yeah, maybe the IOC. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Make $400 and find out if EPO works...
> VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO PARTICIPATE IN A PLACEBO- CONTROLLED RESEARCH STUDY > OF ERYTHROPOIETIN IN ATHLETES > > Criteria for Inclusion in the Study > > 1. Be between the ages of 18-40 > > 2. Weight between 90-120% of ideal body weight Interesting. I'd say #2 right there pretty much rules out this study having any applicability to elite distance runners, unless they are using very different standards for ideal body weight than the ones that are generally accepted in the U.S. Most of the elite runners I know, particularly women, are under 90% of the accepted standards. If they're trying to test the effects of EPO on elite runners, they've got a fatal design flaw. It might be more applicable to cyclists, who are generally heavier than distance runners. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: TV-Men's 100, added coverage next week
> By the time ABC finalized its contract with the IAAF to cover the World > Championships, the time schedule for the meet had already been firmly > established. Unfortunately, tonight's final of the men's 100 takes place > after ABC is off the air. It will be shown on Monday night as part of ESPN2's > coverage. > > A similar situation occurs next Sunday, when the men's 1500, both 4x400 > relays, and the men's 4x100 relay take place after ABC goes off the air at > 4pm(MT). To make sure that those events are shown, ESPN2 has added an extra > hour of coverage, from 10-11pm(ET). Thanks for the info, Walt. Is it just me or does this seem like ABC shooting themselves in the foot - actually both feet. Or maybe it's both ABC and the IAAF. I mean except for Marion, don't the men's 100m, 1500m and all the relays constitute the highest profile events? If the ratings stink, We'll surely have an idea why, although I suppose most people won't know what they'll miss until after they've watched most of the way through. Or perhaps it won't matter because the "human interest" segments are what they'll really be focuing on anyway. ESPN should buy 3 or 4 ad spots during the ABC telecasts and hype their coverage. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: IAAF Council decision
> "After requests from many developing athletic nations, Council has agreed > that technical delegates would have the power to approve the participation > of non-qualified athletes in field events as well as running events." > > Wasn't the basis of the uproar-generating proposals to reduce field event > attempts and the one false start disqualification to make track and field > meets less time-consuming? If I'm reading yesterday's Council action right, > this will lead to more competitors in meets with qualifying rounds, making > for more heats and preliminaries and dragging things out even more. I can't imagine that the rule change proposals had anything to do with the length of the meet at the world championships. That is one of the few meets where it is not really a problem. - ed parrot
Re: t-and-f: USATF Release: Team USA roster for World Championshipsannounced
Yeah, but didn't Clark announce this a while ago? Christine Clifton was named to the team and then decided not to run about 3 weeks ago and was replaced (I believe with Rachel Cook). If Clark isn't running, there's been plenty of time to replace her. So, does anyone know if she's running? - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: "Tom Derderian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tony Banovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 6:27 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: USATF Release: Team USA roster for World Championships announced > Because only the roster is announced, not the entries or the declared > competitors or the starters. > Tom D. > - Original Message - > From: Tony Banovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:00 AM > Subject: Re: t-and-f: USATF Release: Team USA roster for World Championships > announced > > > > Why is Chris Clark shown on the marathon team when she has already > announce > > that she'll bypass Edmonton for New York. will someone be named to take > > her place? > > > > Tony > > > > > > At 08:23 PM 7/24/01 -0400, you wrote: > > >CONTACT:Jill M. Geer > > > Director of Communications > > > 317-261-0500 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.usatf.org > > > > > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > >Tuesday, July 24, 2001 > > > > > >Team USA roster for World Championships announced > > > > > >INDIANAPOLIS - With 13 current or former Olympic gold medalists leading > the > > >way, Team USA will enter the IAAF World Outdoor Track & Field > Championships > > >August 3-12 in Edmonton, Canada, in position to defend its status as the > > >World's #1 Track & Field Team. > > > > > >Olympic gold medalists Marion Jones, Maurice Greene, Stacy Dragila, > Angelo > > >Taylor, Allen Johnson, Gail Devers, Bernard Williams, Tim Montgomery, > Antonio > > >Pettigrew, Jerome Young, Jon Drummond, Chryste Gaines and Monique > Hennagan > > >are on the Team USA roster for Edmonton, announced Tuesday by USA Track & > > >Field. Sixty-three of the team's athletes were 2000 Olympians. > > > > > >U.S. athletes who will defend 1999 World titles include Jones, who > returns to > > >defend her 1999 World Championship in the 100 meters and will go for her > > >first 200 title in Edmonton; Greene in the men's 100, 200; Dragila in the > > >women's pole vault; Devers in the women's 100m hurdles; and Inger Miller > in > > >the women's 200. Also entering the meet as a favorite is World Indoor > > >champion John Godina in the shot put, Olympic gold medalist Angelo Taylor > in > > >the 400m hurdles, world record holder Khalid Khannouchi in the men's > > >marathon, World Indoor champion Lawrence Johnson in the men's pole vault, > and > > >Olympic champion Nick Hysong in the men's pole vault. > > > > > >Also announced Tuesday were the women's relay pools. Listed in the 4x100 > pool > > >are 1996 Olympic relay gold medalists Chryste Gaines and Inger Miller, > 2000 > > >Olympic relay bronze medalist Torri Edwards; three-time NCAA 100m > champion > > >Angela Williams, U.S. third-place finisher Kelli White, U.S. > Championships > > >100m finalist Brianna Glenn, and any other athlete on the Team USA > roster. > > > > > >In the women's 4x400 pool are two-time Olympic relay gold medalist Jearl > > >Miles-Clark, 2000 relay gold medalist Monique Hennagan, Olympian Michelle > > >Collins, 400m team member Demetria Washington, Olympic relay pool member > Miki > > >Barber and her twin sister, Me'Lisa Barber, two-time U.S. Indoor champion > > >Suziann Reid, and any U.S. team member. Marion Jones' relay status has > not > > >yet been decided. > > > > > >The announcement of the Team USA World Championships roster carried a few > > >changes or clarifications: Regina Jacobs, U.S. champion at 800m and > 1,500m, > > >has entered those two events. She had placed second in the 5,000m at the > GMC > > >Envoy USA Outdoor Championships and was eligible to compete in the longer > > >event as well. Jacobs will be replaced in the 5,000 by two-time Olympian > Amy > > >Rudolph. > > > > > >Olympic and World Championships relay gold medalist Jon Drummond was > added to > > >the men's 4x100m relay pool, as well as Mickey Grimes. > > > > > >Orin Ritchburg of the University of Washington leads the men's team as > head > > >coach. His staff includes assistants Ron Allice (Southern Cal), Ken > Bantum > > >(former St. John's coach), Ken Brauman (Seminole HS) and Kelly Sullivan > > >(Willamette). Team manager is James Williams (Minnesota State-Moorhead), > > >assisted by Scott Davis (Mt SAC Relays). > > > > > >J.J. Clark of the University of Florida heads the women's coaching staff. > > >Joining him on staff as assistants are Beth Alford-Sullivan (Penn State), > > >Chandra Cheeseborough (Tennessee State), Ramona Pagel (Ken State) and > John > > >Rembao (University of Texas). Head manager is Maryanne Torrellas > (Connecticut > > >Racewalkers Club), assi
Re: t-and-f: Junior qualifying
It may sound asinine, but it is completely accurate in my experience. And I don't consider it an insult. Most (say, 80%) high school coaches are solely focused on the 2 or 3 high school seasons. They don't want their kids racing out of season, so they very reasonably don't bother to learn about what else is out there. Many high school coaches have more background in other sports than track, which simply adds to it. We are NOT talking about people who coach sub-4:10 milers or sub 10.4 sprinters here. We are talking about the masses of coaches who work with the vast majority of the youth numbers that everyone cites as a sign of our sport's health. Most of them never have a kid break 4:30 or 11.5 and are more concerned with having someone in every event and manging their team with limited resources than with worrying about opportunities outside high school. When I was coaching ten years ago, certainly less than half of the 50+ coaches in my district knew the name of any organization that sponsored the junior olympics, except for some vague knowledge of the pre-Amatuer Sports Act AAU. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Junior qualifying In a message dated 7/19/01 9:07:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: my experience that most high school coaches are oblivious to anything that occurs outside the high school framework or even outside their own conference. I wonder if half of them even know there is such an organization as USATF, let alone know that USATF is responsible for selecting international youth teams. In addition, most seem to have no knowledge of or interest in the sport at the national or international level This is the MOST asinine statement ever made on this LISTSERV. And that's saying a mouthful, to anyone who's been on it for longer than a month. Do you really think high school coaches are just a bunch of dumb-***ed know-nothingings just fumbling though the season? Open up Jack Shepard's HS Annual and look at what HS coaches are doing with the talent in the USA. I used to think you had something to contribute to this list. If this is the depth of your insight in what's happening in our sport I guess you're other instant delete candidate. Please reread your written thoughts before hitting Send Now. Save everyone from wallowing in the shallow end of the pool. Andy Ferrara HS Track Team Power Ratings www.hstrack.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eisenhower HS Houston, TX
Re: t-and-f: Whatever Happened to the US Juniors?
gh wrote: > 1. Not to take away from what USATF staff does in any way, shape or form, but > does the Junior meet REALLY need heavy staff involvement? Used to be both > nationals were put on solely by local organizers, and while there was the > occasional clunker, system seemed to work pretty well. Now that the Senior > meet has heavy advertising and marketing concerns, I understand the need for > heavy staff involvement. But is this a must at the Junior meet? I don't think so. I agree with this assessment, but it is possible there would be problems getting officials. I don't know how many of the same officials work both meets. As for combining the meets, it doesn't make sense to me. As people have said, the real problem is not that there are not enough different weekends, but that there are too many youth championship meets! Finally, the Junior meet can't be expected to be anything like a "Prep" championship, if nothing else because it has a lot of college freshman. As has been said many times, the Amateur Sports Act accomplished many positive things, but only paid lip service to the concept of integrating the NGB with high schools and college. Until that happens, USATF will always be a poor sibling when it coms to serving and promoting high school athletes (unless they are good enough to challenge for an open international team spot) - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Junior qualifying
> That again goes back to your association. I'm both a high school coach and > club coach as well as youth chair. We regularly have mass mailings as well > as word of mouth. We pass out literature at the high school coaches > association meeting and that association even has a seat on our board. In > other words high school coaches and usatf kinda work together, so the word > gets out. Those that don't know here don't want to know. It has nothing > to do with money from the USOC or the national office of USATF. It has to > do with how active your association chooses to be in the high school arena. First, high school athletes are probably the best served segment in our entire sport, with the possible exception of a dozen or so Olympic medalists every four years. The high school experience certainly varies in quality but overall, it serves a huge number of kids of all abilities. The one drawback is the lack of continuity from youth to high school to college to open, and if it wasn't for that single reason, I'd say we should all but ignore the high schoolers and focus on the segments that need it more - namely pre-high school athletes. This is where other sports are kicking our ass. 6000 runners at the national junior olympics? Big deal. There are 6000 youth soccer players in single cities alone. Until we can focus on widespread, local programs and abandon this ridiculous focus on the national competitions and qualifying (15% of our youth membership go to national junior olympics - it should be less than 1% if we had strong local programs), we are sunk. And by the time they get to high school, it's too late. And in most states, the high school federations want nothing to do with USATF and while the coaches associations may tolerate USATF, they care little about our meets. I am not talking about a few individual coaches who choose to get involved and are supportive - it is the other 95%+ of the coaches who could be handed junior olympic flyers three different times during a season and none would ever find their way to the kids. And forget handing out flyers at meets - certainly some meets will allow it, but many will resent it and I have seen USATF people told to stop doing it in some cases. In Connecticut, we even tried to form a cooperative coaches education program with the high school federation and between their stubborness and the USATF national coaching ed requirements (don't get me started on that stupidity), it was hopeless. Finally, I have to say it IS about money and national support. Many associations would have far better programs if they had $5000 per year to pay a youth coordinator. Pacific just appointed a youth coordinator (I don't know his salary) because they recognized that a program this critical needs to have that kind of position. It's all well and good to say that any association could follow their example and come up with the money, but that would be ignoring the fact that it hasn't happened and is not likely to happen. I know in Connecticut, lack of volunteers and volunteer coordination is the biggest problem. Having money to pay people for certain jobs would definitely free up volunteer time and make a huge difference in how good the youth program could be. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: 100m conversions (RW article)
> 2) Assuming that paragraph does not contain any typos (I have no reason to > assume otherwise), Lewis and Thompson both ran their times with a 5.2 > tailwind, both had 0.21 seconds added on as an adjustment, but Thompson > ran at 1080m additional altitude. Why wouldn't his adjustment be greater > than Lewis'? Maybe the faster the time, the less adjustment there would be (I don't know what the formulas say, but this stands to reason for the altitude at least). But even with that taken into consideration, you are right that it seems like Thompson's adjustment should be greater. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Junior qualifying
>2) Whatever meet(s) are used, something has to be done about the abysmal failure (and not just for junior meets) of too many >local USATF units to properly emply the local media to get the word around. Having been involved with this on the ground level, the solution is simple - the local USATF units either need more volunteers or a paid staff person to do the media work. Until the national organization decides that more funding and focus on local programs is a priority, it will not happen. >In the best of worlds, the USOC would run the Junior Olympic program as it does the US Olympic team itself--farming out the >qualifying to designated organizations such as USATF. Since it evidently doesn't want to do this---it has had 20 years to pick >up the ball---then the only multi-sport organization around to do this would be the AAU. In either case, the USATF could run >its JO qualifying meet, send these athletes to a multi-sport competition and, at the same time, send those qho qualify to the >World Youth Games. There would then, perhaps, be an end to the redundancy of two junior competitions run each summer by >USATF. Or would that be too simple a solution? You said it yourself, the logical thing would be for the USOC to farm out the qualifying to USATF. But you also pointed out correctly the failure of many (most?) local USATF branches to put on quality youth programs, which is what leads to the national junior olympic and youth meets being much less competitive than they could be (Junior Nationals is pretty well attended, relatively speaking). The AAU is no more capable of staging a nationwide track program than USATF is, and unless it is fully funded (not likely by the USOC), a multi-sport national youth championships would not be successful without strong local programs. Sooner or later (probably later), people will realize that there is a direct correlation between the state of our youth programs and the quality and depth of American athletes at the elite level. Hopefully this realization will be accompanied by a desire to give the grass roots programs the funding and focus they deserve. Lord knows I've sounded like a broken record to USATF people on this over the past few years. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: WC qualifiers
Looking through the list of WC qualifiers, I noticed that none of the women's javelin throwers have met even the "B" standard for the world championships. I was curious how many times the U.S. has failed to send any athletes to the WC in an event due to having no qualified athletes? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: re: World Youth Qualifying
>There has also been scheduling problems between Junior Olympic local and > regional meets and the "State Games" in many places. The problem is that the > State Games are multi-sport and Junior Olympic Regional meets are > multi-state. Scheduling that works for track may not work for swimming etc. > and scheduling that works for one state in a region may not work for > another. The only real way to solve all these problems would be for the USOC > to step in and designate certain summer weekends for each kind of > competition since the NGB's , AAU, and National State Games Association are > all USOC members. USATF, AAU, and the state games wouldn't have to listen to the USOC, though, would they? Or does the use of the word Olympic in the Junior Olympics mean that the USOC could tell people when they could have their meets? Some of the state games don't have any choice about when they can hold things, based on availability of the facilities for the various sports. And even if the national USATF youth committee agreed about junior olympic dates, I know numerous USATF associations have their own limitations and might refuse to change and force some sort of punitive action. The only way it would work is if the USOC served as an impartial mediator rather than telling people what to do. The USOC has zero credibility with anything other than super-elite programs (and even that is shaky at best, despite their being a major source of funding), so that does not seem likely. IMO, the "real" way to solve the problem is for Congress to go the rest of the way with the amateur sports act and allow someone - logically the NGB's - to actually be in charge of each sport at all levels. Otherwise, no one will give up their current power. But the NCAA lobby is much too strong, and Congress has more important things to attend to anyway. One other note - if the USATF junior olympic program was really a program rather than a mish-mash of various local meets around the country (regionals and nationals are irrelevent to 95% of the kids), the AAU would not be a problem. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: This will scare the hell out of you!
> How big are ticks? They are visible to the naked eye, right? > Ticks vary in size. Deer ticks, which are the most likely to carry Lyme disease, are tiny. It would pretty much be impossible to see one without stopping and looking very closely (unless one landed on your eyeball). But technically, sure they're visible to the naked eye. The nature, duration, and onset of the symptoms of Lyme disease can vary greatly, but what Mike has described is perhaps the most standard situation. So take precautions. Tall grass is the highest risk area, but in most of New England and parts of the midwest, any kind of off-road run, especially between April and October carries some risk. Use bug spray before running off-road and that will help. Also check the entire body very carefully after running. If you find one attached to you, you are generally OK, because it usually takes quite a few hours for them to transmit the disease. But do NOT pull it off or the head will remain embedded and you are still at risk. Some people suggest lighting a match and burning the tick off. I have had luck with smearing them with vaseline so they suffocate and pull their head out of their own accord, at which point you can remove them safely. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: A China syndrome to be avoided
> >I'm no scholar of ancient history, and I don't have a reference source to > >back up this contention, but I'm pretty sure that the "stopping the wars" > >thing, like "amateurism," is revisionist history foisted on us by > >deCoubertin and his cronies. > > > I am an amateur student of ancient history (scholar is too strong a word in > my case), and from what I've read there really was an Olympic Truce in > ancient days, but it was not what it is now commonly described. It was not > that all wars stopped for the duration of the games; it was that all > athletes and spectators traveling to and from Olympia for the games were > guaranteed safe passage even if they had to pass through enemy territory to > get there. And Olympia itself would not be attacked. The overall conflict > was not suspended. Kurt's understanding is what I have heard as well. And since many of the finest soldiers competed in the games, the battles often were paused during this time. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: LASSITER, DOWNIN,SCHWALD (was U.S. STEEPLECHASE RECORD SET!)
Jack Moran wrote: > > Also, Lassiter (at least) got his A qualifier. Any word on how Downin or > > Schwald did? > > and MF wrote: > Lassiter won the 1500 at 3:50.78 with Downin in second at 3:51.06. Schwald > ran 4:07.33 for 4th in her race. Apparently the weather was kind of > crappy..."an overcast and windy day" according to the report that I read. Ok, which is it? 3:50.78 for 1500m doesn't sound like an "A" qualifier to me. Are these two different meets we're talking about? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: A China syndrome to be avoided
> Perhaps sport has been made that morally threadbare by the drugs and the > money it found after pimping itself to TV. Perhaps the spirit has been made > that dark by the scandals radiating around those who run sport. Maybe there > is no sense left in expecting a higher ethical standard therein. Maybe the > lightness of spirit which marked the Sydney Games was a dying kick. Whoa, you don't see stuff like this in most papers in the states. While I sympathize, we must remember that the Olympics has nearly always been an event organized by and for the upper classes or government-sponsored athletes, with little regard for the niceties of what I consider my own ethical code. TV has simply made the pie bigger and instant worldwide media scrutiny has only made things more obvious. And the widespread drug problem began long before the coffers were filled with TV money - we just were blind to it. We're kidding ourselves if we think somehow things are WORSE just because the Games will likely be awarded to China. The ancient Greeks, who invented this stuff, put down their weapons and paused wars in order to compete in athletics contest. Athleteics was supposed to rise above all that (and did to a large extent). Instead we wallow in the political expediency of making a statement against our "enemies". It was bad enough with the boycotts of the 1970's and 1980's and it is just as bad now. As personally abhorrent as I find the human rights record of China, this consideration has no place in the decision of whether to award the Olympics to the most populous nation on earth. We have no problem buying billions of dollars of their goods (and selling them some of ours) but now it is unethical to give them the Olympics? And saying it is only the government to blame but not the people is the worst form of politically expedient cop-out. Maybe China isn't the best site for the next Olympics, but it should have nothing to do with the government's policy on human rights. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: Borzakovskiy
Getting watch Borzakovskiy again on TV at the meet in Rome reminded how explosive a talent he is. It was never more evident than in his heat at the Olympics (I think the semis). Even when he doesn't win, his ability to turn it on and his incredibly smooth form make me think he will be the guy that breaks 1:40. He may never reach his potential (or I may be wrong about it), but at this point there's no one I'd rather watch run the 800m. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: a huge loss to the sport
>The Amateur Sports Act requires 20%+ of the USATF Board of Directors to be "active" athletes but USATF (then TAC/USA) >agreed in the early 1980's to give the athletes 20%+ of every committee. The Athletes Advisory Committee (AAC) oversees >the appointment or election of athletes to all the committee slots. It also passes resolutions advising USATF of athletes' views >on various matters. By the way, anyone who competed on a USA national team in the past ten years qualifies as an "active" >athlete. Ed Koch is correct that at least 20% of the Board must be athletes who are capable of representing the U.S. in international competition. However, the members of the Athletes Advisory Committee do not have be capable of representing the U.S. in international competition - they must be ELECTED by athletes who are, though. In practice, the committee members pretty much all are US team caliber athletes. One other note - in votes on bylaws and general USATF matters, the athletes advisory committee does not really have a direct vote (they get only 10 out of hundreds of votes). The voting for such matters is largely made up of the hundreds of people representing the USATF associations around the country. Now 20% of these people need to be active athletes, but they do not generally have to be "elite" athletes - a 50 year old recreational 5K runner will suffice. And since the elite athletes are rarely involved with their local associations (this is the fault of BOTH the athletes and the associations - plenty of blame to go around), most of them do not get named by their associations to represent the local association in voting matters. I am oversimplifying slightly, but I guess the point is that while the Athletes Advisory Committee wields quite a bit of practical power (despite conflicts between the stars and the rest of the national caliber athletes), ultimately they need to get involved on the local level to ensure their full voting rights. There are pros and cons to this but it is food for thought. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: theoretical match-race amongst young gods
> so let's suppose that Webb and Ritz and met at either GWI or the Stanford Invite (choice of meet is simply the weekend >exactly between the showing of peak form for each, Webb in the Pre mile, Ritz in the USATF 5K). > > And choosing a distance "exactly" between 1M and 3.107M (5K), they go head-to-head at 2M. > > Who's the winner? The fans :) - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Gabe's and Lassiters form?
>You simply cannot overstride and develop a 98+ turnover. Get off your seat and try it. > It can not be done. So for the lay person or someone like myself who is physics deprived and research deprived (again >Hunt to me), simply counting the times the right foot hits the track over the course of 15 > seconds and multiplying by 4 gives me an indication that the athlete may > need to work on increasing the turnover rate. Sure you can - it won't be a normal running stride, but you can. Try leaning backwards and you can do it easily. Remember, overstriding does not mean you are taking too long a stride, it means that you are coming down in front of your center of gravity and therefore "braking" yourself more than you should. That's why I consider the most important element of form work for distance runners to be getting your feet down quickly under your body, allowing a strong drive into the recovery part of the stride. I would NEVER tell a runner to shorten his/her stride, I'd say get your feet down quickly. What's more, I'd rarely tell a distance runner to get their feet off the ground quickly - if you focus on getting the feet DOWN quickly, the equal and opposite reaction occurs and the feet invariably come off the ground more quickly. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: booing Maurice (was a huge loss to the sport
> It's not his fault if USATF left him the loophole. That doesn't mean I don't think wild cards shouldn't be made to run in >the meet, however. They should, even if I'm not sure what the best methodology is. I think I like the suggestion another >poster made about a free pass to the final. The Soviets used to put Borzov in the finals of their natinals without his having >to run the prelims, and it happens frequently on the GP Circuit. Whether or not this is the answer, the point is that there are a variety of different approaches to the thing. As great as the Olympic Trials are for the spectator, I'd love to see the whole qualifying process changed to something more along the lines of golf's Ryder Cup points selection. It could certainly be done in a way to enhance the other meets in the U.S., as well as reward someone who is the defending world or Olympic Champion. It may be that the athletes are opposed to something like this, but there are a number of different ways to approach it. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: analogies...
> Try getting Martinez OR Clemens to pitch for FREE, folks, then maybe you have > an almost/nearly appropriate analogy. Bottom line is this -- until we pay our > "stars" like other "professional" sports, we have very little reason to > expect them to satisfy our every whim. Heck, how many of you do your jobs for > free? Hands up, everyone... didn't think so. The real issue with both sides of this argument is how do the athletes feel. If they really are opposed to this requirement ( we have heard from some who are), then I'd say drop the requirement. Whether it's the best thing for the sport or not, the athletes ARE the sport, and it should be their right as a group to make that decision. The major team sport athletes worked hard to develop unions and that is probably what needs to happen with track & field. Otherwise we'll never really know how the athletes feel. Unfortunately, there is not necessarily enough money out there now to support a union, let alone the energy to develop one. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: a huge loss to the sport
> Their were guys (and GIRLS!) who ran 2 or 3 events. Alan Culpepper ran both > the 5k and the 10k, and he is running the Worlds. Look at what Regina > Jacobs did. Could actually running all rounds of the 100m or 200m be that > ruinous to someone? That's not really the point. I am not necessarily opposed to the policy, because I know that it partially stems from the athletes themselves (although as we have pointed out, the AAC does not always seem to represent the athletes the way a lot of them would like). But if two or three stars are missing from the meet, especially if they are there to sign autographs and do PR, then it shouldn't be a problem for a healthy sport. What needs to happen is for nationals to be such an attractive meet, that everyone participates. I believe that the relatively small amount of prize money this year was a good first step. I also wonder about the idea of having the meet during July, as has been suggested before, during the break in the European season. Would the athletes want that? It would make selecting teams for Worlds more difficult.. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: a huge loss to the sport
I'd suggest that one of the primary responsible parties is the Athletes advisory committee. They are the ones who are supposed to communicate the desires of the athletes. Yet I have heard many athletes tell me that they don't adequately represent the athletes (or worse). One note on the rule changes - the Board just voted to oppose the IAAF rule changes because the athletes were opposed to them - that seems like a far superior attitude than any USATF, TAC or AAU Board has EVER had. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:20 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: a huge loss to the sport A big push for the nationals would be the reestablishment of the relationship between the federation and the athlete. There is none right now. It began decades ago and is now blowing up right before our eyes. This current wave of rule changes and proposals drove a stake between the two parties. The athletes feel as though they have a very limited voice, and that voice is often ignored. We will see a resurgence when the athletes feel as though they have a stake in the program. Right now they feel like slaves, and clowns performing for the masses. On top of it all, the athletes are the ones that get criticized, and take the hit, and the federation leaves them in the lurch. Bad business. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
Re: t-and-f: Gabe's and Lassiters form?
> --- Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nearly all the top distance runners derive the > > huge majority of their power from the pushoff/calves. > > Is that correct? I haven't seen any studies differentiating distance runners and sprinters in this respect, but the numbers I >have seen (two different sources spanning at least 10 years) show that the calves actually produce very little of the power >while sprinting, something like 7%. I should have said what I meant - the majority of the power comes from the pushoff - you are correct that most of it is not from the calves. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Gabe's and Lassiters form?
> Interesting because I hosted a distance clinic in Eugene on Sunday and > the panel spoke on the very issue you mention here. The athletes spoken > about were the shufflers like Jennings or Michael Johnson versus the > swing kickers like Hamilton. The panelist who spoke the most on the > subject was Jeff Johnson who suggested that swing kickers have a more > difficult time reacting late in the race against shufflers. The theory > goes that swing kickers derive most of their power from pulling from the > hip flexors/thighs whereas the shufflers derive their power from the > pushoff/calves. It sounds to me like the panel complicated something that is relatively simple. Biomechanically, you have many times the leverage on pushoff that you do with the hip flexor and thigh pulling - which sounds like one the points the panel agreed on. Nearly all the top distance runners derive the huge majority of their power from the pushoff/calves. I do not think that the individual variations in form - some runners with "bouncier" strides with more pulling, while others "shuffle" more - account for large differences at the elite level. Most distance coaches have for years realized that running more efficiently will help you. As a general rule, the way to get more efficient is to practice better and smoother turnover through pushing off better. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: World Champs Relays
> We have MO and Bernard from > last year's relay team that will be on this year's 100 squad ... The trials > winner (Montgomery) has run the relay on several international squads ... > And Trials 100 5th placer Drummond has pretty much been a fixture on the 1st > leg on international teams for the past 8 years ... Should be an easy call That's sound logic. Obviously Mo is on the team, and it would be unreasonable to leave the trials winner off the squad even if he had no experience, which as you have pointed out he does. Williams' experience last year and his second place this year should guarantee him a spot as well. And from a practical standpoint, Drummond has proven himself one of the top leadoff men of all time. There may be a little grumbling from Johnson and Mitchell, and I can sympathize to some extent. The U.S. will always have some sort of relay controversy, but that is the price of putting together the best team. The only real alternative is to make it the top four at the trials, period. But then neither Mo nor Drummond would be on the team and that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. I'm curious how the sprinters feel about the way some other countries, like the French a few years ago, handle their relays. Would it make sense for the U.S. to require a bunch of training sessions over a period of months or years in order ot keep together an "ongoing" national relay squad? Would 4 sprinters who could "only" run 10.05 but practiced together all the time be able to make up the difference with superior handoffs? Maybe it wouldn't be fair enough to the stars, even if it did result in a faster team. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: U.S. World Championships Team
> Assuming that information is correct (and I've no reason to doubt it, > although I haven't checked it), we have this situation: In the steeple, > 5,000, and 10,000, eight of the nine who finished in the top three have > World A qualifiers; but in the 800 and 1,500, five of the six in the top > three do not. Ver-r-r-r-y interesting. Also as someone asked earlier, if no more 1500m runners got the "A" qualifier, would the rules allow Krummenacker's 1500m "A" qualifier to put him on the 1500m team with Stember and Jennings? Were there any other 1500m entries (not finalists) who have "A" qualifiers - they would be chosen ahead of Krummenacker, right? Or would he have to have been entered in the 1500m at nationals to be considered at all? How about the 800m - how many other entrants have "A" qualifiers besides Peterson? - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: Medley
Another way to look at how impressive the South Lakes DMR is: In how many state meets would the combined time of the 400m winner, the 800m winner, the 1600m/mile winner and an extrapolation of the 1200m from the 2nd place miler or 800m runner beat the South Lakes time? Certainly in California (and Virginia) but would there be more than 10 states that could field such a DMR out of the whole state? Few states have a state mile champion under 4:10, which pretty much eliminates any chance of the record. Yes, the event is weighted heavily in favor of the miler and I find a 4x100 or 4x400 more exciting, but what South Lakes did was pretty impressive. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
> USATF's policy is to take as many people as possible per event. If Webb wins, > and doesn't meet the standard in doing so (and doesn't chase it in Europe), > then Michael Stember and David Krummenacker, assuming they run in Eugene, > will go to Edmonton. This is also assuming that Gabe Jennings doesn't run, > and no else who finishes ahead of Stember and/or Krummenacker in Eugene > reaches the standard before the deadline of July 23--got all that??). Does Stember have the "A" standard? I thought he made the Olympic "A" standard but not the world "A" standard - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
> Except that unlike Golf in Track and field performance is paramount. There > is room to let old duffers in in a golf tournament with nearly unlimited > space to play, In track there is limited space. So though allowing a > Steve Scott to run would remove a better runner from the field where as in > Golf that doesn't happen. Are you kidding? Golf is just as bad as track. The first two rounds of the U.S. Open take literally from dusk until dawn to complete. They can't fit any more people, and when they have rain delays like they did this year, they end up not finishing on thursday and friday. Every exemption that is granted means that one less person can qualify, exactly like it does in track. The fact that 150 people can compete in the tournament doesn't mean that the 151st person isn't more deserving than others who got in through an exemption. > Allowing exemptions would put these choices into the hands of people I and many athletes do not trust. I've said for years that either the athletes or the grass roots associations (which I am involved in) could control the organization if they wanted to. But both groups have chosen to fight amongst themselves instead. Hey, if you're opposed to exemptions, I can respect that. But why not have a subcommittee of athletes advisory determine possible exemptions each year? If the athletes were united, they could accomplish this. >Tell me, aside from the marginal promotional value why a high school kid missing the 1500 mark by one second should >be let in over a walker missing the 20k mark by 10 seconds. Marginal promotional value? If we were basing it on promotional value, there would be no walks, hammer throw or 10K. There is loads of promotional value in having Hall and Ritz compete. If that promotional value ends up not being talken advantage of - that's a different story. I would grant an exemption to Hall and not necessarily to an adult walker, sprinter, whatever, who missed the standard. It depends on what other reason the athlete had to be considered for an exemption. As I said, I certainly can respect the opinion that no one should ever be given an exemption - I just don't agree with it. That said, I agree that the kind of sliding of the standards that appears to have happened here has some problems. It needs to be part of a more formal and public process - I actually don't know who made the decision or what "process" was used, so maybe there is some official procedure regarding this. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote: > Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last > qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a > 3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q > time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the > BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin Assuming this info is accurate, I say more power to them. I don't know how many entrants there are in the 1500m and the 5000m, so perhaps they are just "filling the fields". Having just watched the U.S. Open in golf, it becomes clear how many things they do that would be good for track & field to emulate. They are smart enough to leave open the possibility of offering exemptions to an athlete who's presence will benefit the sport - like Jack Nicklaus in past years. Instead of the contention that so often pervades anything like this in track and field, you get most of the other players, as well as the media applauding such a decision. And you also get guys turning down exemptions when they don't think they deserve it. And you never get guys ASKING for exemptions - they are respectful of the process and figure that if they are not asked, they don't deserve it. In fairness to USATF, the athletes have made it pretty clear over the years that they are not in favor of something like this. I think it would be great to have up to two allowed exemptions per event, granted by USATF or even better by the athletes advisory committee itself. But based on past history, there may never be the kind of mutual respect and humility between USATF and the athletes that the PGA, the USGA and the golfers currently have - without that, the exemption concept is probably doomed to failure. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Medleys
>I'm sure most of us will think of the record as "Webb's other HS record", and rightfully so since most of the credit for the final >time goes to him. I agree that Richard Smith's 3:03 1200 was exceptional, but many teams could field a 50.2 400 runner and a >1:56 800 runner. But could many teams field a 1:56 800m runner for their third best 800m runner? A few could, perhaps, but not many. I don't particularly care for medley relays, either, except for the "short" sprint medley - 100,100,200,400. In that relay, handoffs become more important and while the 400m runner is obviously the most important, there's plenty of other variables. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
> it would seem to be the same situation as 2000 Oly mens/womens Marathon > Trials if Webb wins > > the WC "B" standard is 3:38.40, which he's already met with 3:38.26 so he > would be able to go to Edmonton if he wins no matter how slow Unless two other Trials finalists break 3:36.20 afterwards, right? That is where t&f is different than the marathon was. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: WC 'A' standard holders in distances?
> > BTM > > "I was lookin' at a Flashback Sunday, slow-motion weekend got me > > DNNN!" J.Geils, 1981 > Unless you were one of the people lined up to buy the album on the day of > release (didn't everyone?), you never heard this song in 1981, as it did not > debut on the top 40 until March of '82, when I dutifully recorded it in my > notebook. The peak, at number four, was in April-May. (I had a LOT of spare > time in seventh grade.) But I believe it debuted in the Billboard top 100 in January or early February, plus the radio stations were playing it the day after it came out. - Ed Parort
Re: t-and-f: Top HS milers-is there a Trend Yet?
> 14 4:02.7 Andy Powell Oliver Ames MA '99 Didn't Powell run a 3:43 1500m in Boston that converted to slightly faster than this 4:02.7? Or was his 1500 slower than that? I seem to recall the 4:02.7 was at a big mile in Seekonk, MA. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Allen Iverson- 400 meter runner?
> > Uh, maybe I'm wrong butcan't most WC guys who run 3:53 and better run > at > > least 47-48? Just wonderin'. I assume you mean 3:53 for the mile not the 1500. I think it varies greatly. I bet at least half of the WC qualifiers can run 47 point (regardless of whether they actually have done it in a meet). But I've coached a number of 4:20-4:40 milers whose best quarter was only 7-8 seconds per lap faster than their mile pace, so I suspect that a few of the WC qualifiers might be around 50 or just under for their best. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: times on NC state records
>>And sometimes - such as the boys 3200 - it is actually six seconds > >slower than someone has run for a longer race in the state meet. (Old 2 > >mile > >record 9:02; current 3200 record 9:08.) < > > > >I'm not sure what the equivalent would be, but I suspect that if something > >that stupid were ever done to a basketball record in North Carolina, the > >Governor would intervene. We discussed this last month when Webb broke the "high school competition only" national 1600m record. The real record should be Ryun's 3:58 mile in high school only competition, but somehow the powers that be can't get it through their thick skulls that since a mile is 1609 meters, the time should count as the 1600m record as well. Forget "conversion", which is not an acceptable thing to do with a record - just use the mile time. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Allen Iverson- 400 meter runner?
> > Are you absolutely nuts? First, I've seen a 45.6 guy run > > 4:35 in the mile I feel fairly certain Mark Everett could manage in the low 4:00's. While it is true that some sprinters have a lot of difficulty with running something as long as a mile, not all of them do. I'd bet that at least 2 or 3 of the top ten 400 meter runners could at least run a 3:50 1500m, especially if they trained for it. That's not anywhere near world class, but I don't think these guys have as little endurance as is sometimes attributed to them. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Just a thought
> I commend the members of this list that have kept the Casey Martin decision > in an appropriate context. That is the context of common sense. I guess your common sense is different than mine. This really is a case of where do you draw the line. The Court said that walking is not an integral part of the game. Fine, I disagree with them. If he had asked to use a non-conforming club in order to make up for his disability, perhaps they would have made a different decision. If he had asked to be given 5 strokes per round as an accomodation, they obviously would have said it was unreasonable. So they have their own "lines" to draw as well. I could argue back and forth with someone who thinks walking is not an integral part of the game and we'd likely never agree. The only other part of the decision that makes me uncomfortable - I'm not saying it's totally wrong, but it makes me uncomfortable - is the idea that because the advantage of the cart does not outweigh the disadvantage of his handicap, it is appropriate. While I recognize the value of this line of reasoning in ADA cases, I don't think is appropriate to apply to a professional sport. I understand that the even if court members agreed with this, they may not have felt that legally they could "alter" the ADA without constitutional justification. But to me that begs the question of what "common sense" really would dictate. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Bad decision
> To call a golf pro a "customer" of the PGA is totally absurd. A customer pays a fee knowing what he is going to get and what he is >not going to get. A professional golfer, if he indeed has to pay an entry fee, does it in the hope that his reward will be, and usually is, much >greater than what he puts in. The PGA abolished entry fees in 1997 or 1998 (they were silly - how about that, a sport that realizes when something is silly and gets rid of it). Other levels of professional golf do have entry fees for the most part. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: adidas Meet TV?
> Bottom line is they weren't in there. It should be SOMEBODY'S job to make > sure they are in there. the onus is definitely on > the "Powers That Be" of t&f in this country to get the word and get the > results out there. Not just put on the wire and leave it up to the papers. > Demand it. Don't tell fans that they need to call the papers or contact > editors. OK, when I was in USATF/Connecticut, I called many of the papers. I asked what they would need to get results in. They said that they couldn't guarantee any results but that if I gave them results, they'd try. I gave them results and they put them in 25% of the time. I followed up to find out why and they said that the public made it clear to them through phone calls, letters, and emails, what was important and what wasn't. Track - even national caliber performances that occurred in Connecticut or by Connecticut people - was considered way, way below the local bowling leagues. I know that USATF national has experienced the same thing on a much larger scale. So what should we do differently? Just who are we going to make our DEMANDS to? If I had demanded anything, my success rate would have likely dropped from 25% to less than 10% because I would have pissed them off. So what specifically do we do? We're open to suggestions. It's easy to point fingers without giving realistic suggestions. Newspapers only listen to two things - their advertisers and their readers. So either the readers have to call in, or we have to get to the advertisers - any ideas how we do that? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: 1 for 11
Ed Koch wrote: > One less radical idea that I haven't seen discussed as an alternative to shorten the time of competition for the vertical >jumps would simply be to tinker more with the height increments, especially at the lower heights until the field narrows to >five or six competitors. Actually I posted a link last week to an article where Sergei Bubka suggested just that. It can be found at: http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sa/news/reuters/20010531/reu-bubka.html - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb
A couple days ago, I finally got to see the mile on TV. Webb's performance was even more incredible in the watching. You hate to put even higher expectations on the kid, but he sure looked under control, like there is more there. I got the impression that he didn't really know what he was capable of until he actually did it. He was so relaxed down the final straightaway it was scary. He may very well lose in a tactical race at USATF nationals (although I certainly wouldn't rule out a victory). But if nationals goes sub 3:35, I'd say look for Webb in the top 3. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: results : 2001 adidas Oregon Track Classic
> Final MEN'S POLE VAULT SOBE > event used IAAF 2 miss rule (GP II test) 1. Pat > Manson, USA 5.35m (17-06.50); - Lawrence Johnson, USA NH; - Derek Miles, USA > NH; - Russ Buller, USA NH; - Tim Mack, USA NH. Any more info on this? Was it windy? What was the opening height. While one would expect the new rule to result in lower heights, this seems a bit ridiculous. Maybe they did it on purpose to ensure that the rule doesn't get adopted (I'm kidding)! - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: NJ Group meet
> The public school meet did not get by without some more official idiocy. This time, it was the disqualification of a 3200M girl runner >for "showing her navel" The rules required shirts to be tucked in and hers was at the start of the race but pulled loose during the >competition. Thanks to Ed Grant as usual for a great summary of the NJ meet. It's too bad such a great competition has to be marred by things like the issue above. New Jersey certainly isn't alone in this stupidity and we've been talking about this issue for the past couple weeks. I'm reminded of a quote made by a co-worker of mine at a long since defunct internet start-up: "It's not that we shoot ourselves in the foot that bothers me - it's how quickly we reload!" - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: USATF and Nationals and Money
> How would the 'grass roots' end of track & field > benefit from such an arrangement? If the elite > end of the sport could go straight to for-profit, > maybe the USOC funding could go straight to the > grass roots. The USOC approach to funding makes USATF look like the champions of grass roots, so don't go looking there. The USOC rules on allocation of funds are one of the primary reasons USATF has always been elite-focused. Short of a major revision of the Amateur Sports Act (needed but will never happen - just look at the name of the act and you can tell it is inadequate), USOC focus will not change to that extent. Last year the USOC underwent a major house-cleaning, and changed a lot of their rules on funds allocation, so there is some hope for the future. But any organization that would seek to replace USATF at the grass roots will need to find its own funding. And as most major road race directors will tell you, the funding comes because of BOTH the elite athletes and the grass roots support. We hear all this stuff about how we need to go after the most financially successful side of the sport - road racing - yet the organization (USATF) doesn't bother to follow their example of what has worked for them. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: USATF and Nationals and Money
> It is my impression that USATF doesn't really have that much money that they > can afford to just GIVE it away. As always, who says you get to be paid for > running or for track & field? The money comes from the USOC for development - a lot more than just the 300K+ that is being awarded at nationals (although not nearly the amount that is needed!). USATF took a relatively small part of this money and diverted it from awards based on year-end rankings to prize money. As for payment for track and field, I must disagree with Grote. To me, the idea of track athletes being professional is so basic that I can't even make an argument in its favor - it seems obvious. But I can respect a different opinion. Malmo's post was right on about one thing in particular - grass roots is where the action is. That's why I am heavily involved with the USATF associations committee, which focuses solely on grass roots. This does not mean that I think associations are doing a great job - with a few notable exceptions we're doing a lousy job by most standards. But I believe the focus of associations is in the right place. I still believe that prize money at nationals is a positive, long overdue thing. The problem with grass roots in USATF is that the organization has chosen to put most of its focus on the elite segment of the sport. We had four years of little but lip service about grass roots (and worse before that during the Cassell era), but new president Bill Roe has already done more in six months than had been done during the previous four years. Nevertheless, until either a critical mass within USATF finally realizes that grass roots is the key to long term development, or the 57 associations stop protecting their own turf and band together to seize control of the organization (which is technically very possible), it will be an uphill battle. - Ed Parrot
Re: T&F Fw: t-and-f: Pole vault question
> Points in favour, points against, but is it in accordance with the > rules? What would happen if a record was set? > David Dallman There are numerous situations where the games committee can make changes in the way a meet is conducted. Perhaps Bob Hersh or someone else could correct me, but I doubt a record would be disallowed simply because a "five alive" situation was used. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: adidas Meet TV?
> For every Maurice or Marion that doesn't need the prize money that USATF is > offering, I think it's safe to say that there are many more athletes who will > welcome the influx of cash, as modest a sum as it may be. What did you > expect, $50,000 per event from the start? How about giving USATF some credit > for at least trying to make improvements in the sport. Absolutely. Prize money has to start somewhere. This is part of the money that has been in the past allocated based on year-end rankings. In some of the high profile events (like the 100m) it may be a case of the rich getting richer. But for the large majority of events, the top three are not necessarily jetting off to Europe to earn hefty fees. This money will help a lot. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Pole vault question
It means only five vaulters will be vaulting at one time. Let's say the first five vaulters all miss the opening height. Instead of the sixth vaulter attempting, the first vaulter gets another crack. The sixth vaulter will vault at the normal place in the order, but not until at least one person has cleared. So only five vaulters are "alive" in the order at any given height. Once there are only 9 or fewer vaulters remaining, I believe it means all nine would vault in order, rather than keeping only five vaulting at one time. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: Martin J. Dixon To: Track & Field List Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 4:23 PM Subject: t-and-f: Pole vault question Below is a posting to the Canadian list early this afternoon. Would any of you know the answer to the question? "The startlist for the NCAA women's vault this weekend might be of interest.Can someone explain the meaning of "5 alive until less than ten remaining"?" Regards, Martin
t-and-f: Bubka's pole vault comments
Bubka made some comments about how the pole vault needs to speed up. He is more in favor of raising the bar more quickly rather than the IAAF proposal of only 2 jumps at a height. The article is at: http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sa/news/reuters/20010531/reu-bubka.html I'm a huge Bubka fan, but I had to chuckle reading this. There were few athletes who waited longer on the runway than Bubka. At many meets, the time limits were stretched for his attempts. Some have even opined that strict enforcement of the time limit rule is one of several reasons Bubka only has one Olympic medal, although I think they follow similar strict guidelines at Worlds (and he kind of did OK there!) - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Official idiocy
As has been discussed on this list before, there are quite a few high school associations that take a dictatorial approach to governing track and field. While I personally have not heard about an example quite as egregious as the one Ed Grant cited - rounding hand times up to the next highest tenth is pretty basic stuff - some bad stuff happens. Those who have dealt with high school competition in Connecticut know about the "old boy" network that both governs the sport with an iron fist and in many cases hires their cronies for officiating. There have been a number of near lawsuits due to one individual in particular. Rather than spread any more specific rumors for which I don't know all the specifics, let's just say that the alleged offenses are more along the lines of making bad decisions that suit a personal opinion, as opposed to the pure incompetence that Ed Grant described. Didn't anyone have a rulebook handy? I bring one half the time when I just go to WATCH a meet. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: Uri Goldbourt, PhD To: Ed Grant ; track net Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:07 AM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Official idiocy World class refereeing leads to world class track and field. Now, seriously, who APPOINTS these referees- or are they simply the only ones prepared to volunteer their time? Uri -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed GrantSent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:42 AMTo: track netSubject: t-and-f: Official idiocy Netters: This actually happened at one of our sectional meets last weekend. I wasn't present at this meet, but me source is unimpeachable. First, some background. While the meet had an auto-timer present and picture sof each race were taken, it was to be consulted only when there was some dispute about trhe order of finish or when the hand-wtahces showed a "tie" and the AT was neded ot break it., At least, that's the way it was supposed to be. Two things heppened during the set of four 400 rinals (two boys, two girls). In one boys; race, there was a question over timing. Two boys from different heats had hand "times" of 50.33 and 50.37. The AT head man suggested that this could only be resolved bylooking at the auto-times since the hand times, by the rule book, have to be rounded up to 51.0. Not so, insisted the finish line chief, the hand times were to be taken as valid to to hundreth of a second. But that was nothing. There ws no question who had finished first in the other f=400 final until the times were taken. Somehow, the second place time was faster than the first. Instead of simply adjustiung the time, the same head official reversed the order of the finish, giving precedence to time over place. It was quite a while before that one was settled and the right boy given the gold medal and the points. Ed Grant
Re: t-and-f: a Webbism
> However, a sub-3:58.3 mile time at Raleigh or any other fully-prep race would > give Webb the fastest ever prep-only mile record, but it won't be considered > by the Federation. A sub 3:58.3 mile time at his state meet would at least remove most of the one question mark that was debated several weeks ago on the list - the idiocy that has the Federation not recognizing 3:58.3 as the 1600m mark as well. If he were to break 3:57, it would even remove most of the argument about the "intrinsic value" of Ryun's 3:58.3 mile for a 1600m. Then we'd simply be left to argue the issue of high school vs. open competition. But not only may it prove a difficult task both physically and mentally to come back from Pre and run sub 3:57, Webb may also have other goals/things to work on for the meet. To come back after what he did and run an all-out mile in a high school meet with little competition has got to be at least a little letdown, so even a time around 4:00 would be a solid effort. Is he planning on running the mile at the VA meet? - ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb #19 all-time US
Looking at the list, I saw two names that I don't recall hearing before - my youth is showing, I suspect. What were the careers of these two guys like? > 10. Richie Harris 3:51.39 > 15. Tony Waldrop 3:53.2 - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: The Courts are at it again....
> There is no doubt that allowing Martin to use a cart would > not fundamentally alter the nature of petitioner's > tournaments, given the District Court' s uncontested > finding that Martin endures greater fatigue with a cart > than his able-bodied competitors do by walking. While the specifics of the decision are a good sign for track and field, this decision is nevertheless a travesty. I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Scalia on a decision. Note the language above. You cannot quantify the effects of walking on golf performance at the elite level - there are two many variables for which you can't control. And "fatigue", as used by the court, is so vague as to be laughable. The premise that what he is gaining is less than what he loses from his disability is the most ridiculous. Who cares? I consider myself significantly left of center, but this bleeding heart crap smacks of the same "everyone's a winner" concept that is becoming more and more prevalent. Guess what - if you were born disabled, you will be at a disdvantage in sports. I suppose this is the one instance where Jon Entine's theories might come in handy - some people are born better athletes than others and we should make no excuses (nor should we dwell on it, however). I sympathize with the pain and difficulty that Casey Martin has walking - so don't play golf if it hurts too much! I was born 5'8 with a small frame and I'm smart enough not to play full contact football with 300 lb players, no matter how much I'd like to. And after hitting a couple trees, I decided that glade skiing was not for my level of coordination. Most animals avoid pain and move on - instead we try to figure out a way to make everyone else change so that we can do what we want and not feel the pain. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: half-joking thought about Webb...
Aside from the time and energy spent studying, going to class, etc, which would be a problem for some runners and not a problem for others, there are two main problems with very talented runners at any distance proceeding from high school to college competition: 1.Coaching. There are plenty of mediocre coaches out there. This isn't a problem for Webb going to Michigan. What might be questionable is leaving a coach with whom he obviously works very well and has had success, regardless of who his new coach is. But he's making that decision knowingly. If he wanted to go to college and compete on the team but still be guided by his high school coach, there are programs out there who would be willing to take him with that arrangement. 2.Competition. When Webb becomes a 3:50 miler, he will not have sufficient competition in the NCAA. That's not to say that one year of learning to race faster with other sub-4:00 milers around will hurt him, assuming he doesn't over-race. He may even lose on occasion. And if he makes the world 1500m team, he certainly shouldn't be running cross country after extending his high school season by over two months. But if he's thinking about the 2004 games, grand prix seasons in 2002 and 2003 would certainly be a good learning experience. At what point does the NCAA schedule become too great a liability for someone who is trying to become the best in the world? - Ed Parrot
Re: RE: t-and-f: Alan Webb
> However, in HS you have zero chances of running a 1500m on a regular basis > (Unless you live in Oregon or Connecticut [I think]). > Or unless you go to prep school. I actually only ran the mile once bfeore I graduated from high school - at a summer all-comer's meet. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: my Pre Classic comments
> However, let's not proclaim that US distance running is back or that he
is the next great anything. Distance running has >improved greatly since
1964 and he still has a long way to go to be a contender. {Morcelli is # 20
on the
> all-time junior list with a 3:37+)
Hmm, so Webb runs approximately the equivalent of Morceli at a year younger
(his split was low 3:38). Maybe he'll only be as good as Morceli was. . .
For Christ's sake, he ran 3:53, leading the U.S. list. He did it with as
much hype and pressure as anyone has short of the Olympics. And yours is
the first post I have seen in a while to suggest one way or the other that
U.S. distance running is back or that Webb is the next great anything. Why
bring it up?
What we had here was a tremendous moment for any fan of the sport in
America. It was a pure, unabashed, breakthrough performance and I feel sorry
for anyone who feels the need to qualify it. Webb might never run that fast
again but so what?
Usually I agree with Kebba, but to mitigate the joy of Webb's accomplishment
today (not in the past not in the future but NOW) that with a disclaimer is
a tragedy.
- Ed Parrot
Re: Re: t-and-f: Bengt Saltin (and others) on muscle fiber type
> When you are on top (World/Olympic medalists) you need it > all: genetics, training, luck, etc. But to win a few good races: Boston, > Falmouth, European Track, etc I think you can get by without a serious > genetic gift. It's only when you are racing THE VERY BEST that you lose out, > because the very best have it all. It is EASIER to win Boston than to win the Olympic marathon??? With the money and the fields not limited to 3 from each country, Boston, Chicago, London, New York, Rotterdam and a few others are harder to win than the Olympic marathon. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Bengt Saltin (and others) on muscle fiber type
> There are 3 different types of heavy chains or isoforms: I, IIa, and IIx. The type I isoform is referred > to as a slow fiber and the IIa and IIx isoforms are called fast fibers. > >it seems that through a weight training regiment, some fast IIx fibers are converted to IIa fibers. > Oddly enough, no study has been able to confirm if it is possible to turn fast type II fibers into slow type I. > The implications of this are that marathon runners are born great athletes and not made. The large proportion > of slow type I fibers in their muscle cannot be built up like sprinters who can through training convert their slow type I fibers >into fast type II fibers. Ok, when I was doing reviews of literature on this in 1993, I recall some information that was interesting in light of the above. I can't recall the names of the sources, but I found this information in several places, not just one study - maybe someone can help me out with the citations. At any rate, this is what I remember as being very widely accepted: 1. The feeling was that the Type II fibers could be broken down further than two categories. At the time, the fibers were called Type IIa and IIb, and researchers had recently found some evidence of a type IIc. If I recall correctly, Type IIa were the fastest contracting muscles and could not be trained to metabolize oxygen any more efficiently. Type IIb was a fast-coontracting type that acted like Type IIa, but contained more mitochondria and other structures necessary for oxygen metabolism. These fibers were able to be trained for greater oxygen processing ability. The theory was that middle distance runners needed to have more of these trainable fibers than anyone else. The third type, type IIc, had just been discovered and was a fast-contracting muscle fiber that could be trained to contract even faster. It sounds like this latest research's designation of Type IIx corresponds to what initial research considered Type IIc. But what ever happened to the Type II fibers that were trainable for better oxygenation (then called Type IIb)? Has that research been discarded and is it now considered wrong? At a minimum, SOMETHING must be able to turn Type II fibers into Type I fibers, based on the studies cited during this discussion last month - that muscles revert to type II fibers when they are completely unused and can then be trained back. And finally, then end of the part I pasted above implies that sprinters can convert Type I fibers to type II fibers but not the other way around. If it can't go the other way, then any such training effect would be permament (in terms of fiber composition), right? That doesn't really seem to make sense - when Type I muscles "revert" to type II fibers due to removal of all stress on the muscle, are they not trainable back to type I? Interesting stuff in some ways. What would really make it interesting is if knowing your composition of fibers could indicate exactly what kind of training would be the most effective for any given person for a given event. For example, would a sprinter with more type IIx fibers do best with a different kind of training than a sprinter with more Type IIa fibers? Any studies out there on this? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Howard and Clark
I have wondered exactly how the IAAF/USATF deals with the "off-season" issue, or for that matter how they deal with someone who says, "I need to take something for medical reasons - how long do I have to not compete after taking it?". Does the off-season issue have to do with when/how often you will be tested. Or is it that the rules say that you are allowed to take certain stuff during the off-season but not during the season? - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:32 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Howard and Clark And if the world were so simple, we would not have this discussion. But you are right, 90% of athletes do know. That was the original point of this thread. Why the need to start a gossip thread. 2 athletes took some things that cost them something, end of story. Oh, it is not the determination of the athlete that worries me, it is the timetable of the federations. See, when does the IAAF or USATF say when the off season ends? That is all that really matters. It matters not what the athlete calls the offseason because they are not the ones testing, nor punishing. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
Re: t-and-f: Amazing
Wow, it sounds like the HS distance runners aren't the only ones putting up some marks. I know they've always had some fast guys in Texas. How unusual is it for the Texas state meet to see 3 times of 21.00 or faster? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: 52 foot long jump
My knowledge of this is limited to a biomechanics class I took at Springfield College. They used this as an example in discussing the mechanics of the long and high jump. I remember seeing that some contemporary (1970's?) jumpers had attempted to duplicate it and were getting into the mid 40 foot range pretty quickly, but I can't remember the exact source. Could just be one of those urban legends - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Amazing
Catch me up - Who are the two excellent HS 200m sprinters and where did theyr un their times? - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: Conway Hill To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:38 PM Subject: t-and-f: Amazing This past weekend in track adn field some amazing things happened ... Mike Powell shook off the cob webs and jumped 26'5" to lay claim that after all these years he may still be America's best in the long jump ... Mo Green cruised a 9.96 and Time Montgomery ran a windy one ... Very fine performances with Nationals still a month off ... Two high schoolers ran 20.37 and 20.59 ... Times that are every bit as exciting as say sub 4:05 miles ... Tennessee showed awesome sprint strength at the SEC championships and their group is young ... American pole vaulters showed that last year was no fluke and they are now consistent well above 19 feet ... Tyree Washington set a PR 44.28 and every indication is that he will be the next sub 44 Qmiler ... And all this list can talk about all week is cold medications ?? Conway Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Howard and Clark
> What is the point of prohibiting an asthmatic from using vasodilators? It > gives him no advantage over a healthy competitor, it merely evens the > playing field somewhat. Regardless of whether you believe dispensations can be granted, I fail to see how you can make the above conclusion. A vasodilator enhances the performance of non-asthmatics and asthmatics alike - it just enhances the performances of asthmatics more because they are starting with lesser abilities. > Denying athletes prescribed medicines that allow them to function normally is both unhealthy and unethical. What is the > point? Is the sport of athletics so "pure" that only the perfect may compete? Actually, in some sense it is. The more "perfect" you are, the better you will do, all other things being equal. Many asthmatics need very little medication except when they are exerting themselves, so you could argue that what is unhealthy is having them try to compete. I do sympathize with the point about "prescribed" medications, and apparently so do at lkeast some of the IAAF members. > Originally, doping regulations were brought in to protect athletes from > excesses: for instance the ICU started its first doping controls after a > spate of amphetamine-induced cycling deaths in the late 60's. It has now > been extended to include some fuzzy ideal of "purity", and this ideal now > apparently supercedes health considerations. I'm not sure that's totally true. As I posted in an earlier email, doping violations have hurt the public image of sports in the past, even when it wasn't against the rules. And there's nothing wrong with things being "fuzzy". That's the nature of life - rarely are things black and white. Some semblance of "purity" is one of the reasons we watch the sport. The fact that we each may define purity differently does not mean we should abandon attempts to keep things "pure". On a larger scale, arguments about this type of thing are the bread and butter of sports fans everywhere. I am not against the way that stimulants are handled, and I am not sure exactly how I feel about medical dispensations. But make no mistake, when an athlete is allowed to take a drug that is known to be performance enhancing that the other athletes are not allowed to take, the playing field is not level, regardless of the medical condition. It would be like allowing an amputee to use a powered wheelchair to race against Mo Greene, reasoning that you are only correcting an existing disability. In high school and college, I was prescribed several banned drugs and I can absolutely guarantee you that not only did they fix the condition they were intended to fix, they quickly and noticably made me better than I was before. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Howard and Clark
> I personally know two athletes with asthma. They take medication containing > substances on the doping lists on a daily basis, and have to be very > meticulous about getting dispensation before races with testing. Even so, > they continually face an uphill struggle: to stay on the right side of the > rules, remain healthy, and still train hard. Friends and colleagues admire > them for their perseverance and hard work. Behind the scenes in this whole debate is the issue of what is "normal" and proper vs. what is an attempt to gain an advantage. Some of the posters suggest that colds are something everyone gets and taking over-the-counter cold medecine is normal and expected - while it might be abused occasionally, the majority of positive testers were simply trying to relieve cold symptoms. Others suggest that the information about what to take and not to take is readily available and there sould be little excuse for testing positive. Asthma medications bring things to another level. Someone has a physical condition - in the case of asthma possibly genetic, certainly semi-permanent - that will make them less able to compete, so they are allowed to take medication that would be otherwise banned. To me, this smacks of the same crap that we hear people spout all the time - It's not fair that someone has a physical advantage over me, so let's level the playing field. You see it among slow road racers all the time - how the heck did we EVER wind up with a clydesdale division? Hey, if you have asthma or you are very susceptible to colds, you are at a disadvantage just as if you had the wrong muscle composition for your event or you were a 4 foot tall high jumper. I know this is not a very sensitive way to look at things, but true competition is not very sensitive - that's one reason it is so great. The rules should be the same for everyone (at least to the extent that different nations' courts allow). There are a number of ailments that require taking steroids for the rest of your life. Do you give a dispensation? No - then why do it with asthma? Why do it with anything? That's not to say that the athletes who think avoiding stimulants in over the counter medications is tricky are totally off-base. Any suggestions to make these rules easier to follow (other than allowing the substances)? - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: stimulants
Regarding stimulants, it seems like, for once, the IAAF has taken a pretty reasonable stance. As some may know, in the 19th century 6-day races were an immensely popular spectator sport. The races were run on indoor tracks and places like Madison Square Garden were filled night and day. The betting that went on was huge and newspapers were plastered with accounts of the races. At their height, the winners often received many thousands of dollars, which would certainly be worth 6 figures nowadays. One of several reasons that the popularity of the races diminished was that the competitors started using all kinds of different stimulants to keep themselves going - most of it was not banned. After a certain point, no one wanted to go see a bunch of guys using chemical means to achieve victory, and the "golden age" of ultra running came to an end. And this wasn't a case of people "testing positive" or breaking the rules, but the public recognized that the "pure" struggle represented by athletic competition had strayed over some invisible line and was no longer worthy of their attention. Balancing the needs of the athletes with the need to protect the sport is not an easy thing. So, who thinks Powell will break 27' at the USATF meet? Will he be in the top three? - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: Pre Classic
We know the Pre Classic mile is going to be spectacular. What do the men's and women's sprints and the women's mile look like? I seem to recall that usually there is a top 400m runner or two. Any predictions? - Ed Parrot
