t-and-f: Korzeniowski walks into Olympic history

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:44:26 -0400,
Paul V. Tucknott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
>Poland's Robert Korzeniowski has won the arduous
>50-kilometre walk at the Sydney 2000 Games to
>become the first man in history to take out the
>men's Olympic walk double. Korzeniowski's first
>gold came in the 20km walk on >16 September — the
>first gold of the Games — which was decided in
>controversial circumstances. Korzeniowski finished
>the race in second, but winner Bernardo Segura of
>Mexico was later disqualified to give the Pole
>the title.

>But there was no controversy over the longer
>distance.

COMMENT:

 Natch. It would have been unfair to disqualify
anyone because all of them were running. Well, at
least the first ten, who were shown on tv here. The
judges must have been blind not to see they were
so obviously lifting. Finishers 8 and 10 were
particularly blatant.

Other sports such as fencing have used electronic
judging for half a century, and it is used in track
races at both the start and the finish. Why not to
ensure that "walkers" are walking?

Palle Lassen, then chairman of the IAAF Race 
Walking Committee, once admitted in an hour-long
discussion that the IAAF had let the cheating
get away from them and were powerless to stop it
now. Note that within the last decade the time-
honoured definition of walking - a progression of
steps so taken that unbroken contact with the
ground is maintained - has been nullified.

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: Capel's start

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

on Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:47:28 -0700
Ed Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Netters:
We saw some very incompetent officiating
yesterday (Thursday) in two Olympic events, both of
which affected the fgold medal.

Firstm, the 200. When John Capel started to roll and
then went =
back, the proper call of the starter was "Stand up"

It is a little more dificult for one starter
to detect such a move when the runners are as spread
out as they are in a 200 

COMMENT:

Mr Grant is right on all counts. Let's remember
that all starts at Sydney were governed solely by
IAAF rules. Other considerations have to be put
aside. In this case the starter fired his gun
before all the competitors were steady, which is
contrary to rule 162.2. Therefore the start was not
fair, and should have been recalled.

If the starter had seen Capel's movement he should
have called the field to stand up. If he failed to
see it, as seems likely, it was because he was
standing in the wrong place.

I could not see the starter in the 200m final, but
in earlier rounds he stood outside lane 8 behind
the runners - the worst possible position because
the angle of vision from lane 1 to lane 8 is at a
maximum. 

The US management should have appealed after the
200m final, if not earlier, and would have had a
strong case. IAAF rule 128 reads "Note: The starter
should place himself so that the whole field of
runners falls into a narrow visual angle." The
Australian starter either had not studied this
rule or had chosen to go against it, and should
have been dismissed.

The Strine officials were similarly unimpressive
at the Melbourne Olympics in 1956 (making at least
three major blunders), and working alongside a
Sydney crew at the US-Empire meet soon after, I
found they had a very limited understanding of
international rules. 

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: Re: Capel's start, Korzeniowski's walk

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

About Capel's start in the 200 final, Michael
Casey wrote:
> 
> All true,
> BUT
> HOW can Capel or the US complain as it was HIS transgression which was
> alowwed pass???
> HIS fault alone
> MIke
> 
COMMENT:
Rule 146 does not bar appeals from athletes who
transgress. But did he transgress? The starter
undoubtedly did. An appeal would have decided
responsibility, and was therefore well worth making.

Re Korzeniowski, Michael wrote:

>The reason that electronic judging is not used
>is that they have not yet come close to a
>satisfactory device. As for cheating I would say
>that the majority of the walkers were NOT cheating
>ie( knowingly breaking the rules for the purpose
>of gaining an advantage). It is a very fine line
>between breaking contact and not breaking contact.
>A number of people have done studies into removing
>the contact rule and are proposing that as a
>solution. Norway seem to be the leaders in this
>approach. Any body out there know anymore about
>that???

COMMENT:

(a) That was not the reason given by the IAAF. And
this is the 21st century; if no-one has designed a
satisfactory device, then no-one's trying!

(b) Walkers (at least in this country, which has
had an Olympic champion) have always pressed for
repeal of the traditional restrictions. So have
long-jumpers with board problems, throwers who
can't stay in the circle, and runners who don't
want to keep to their own lanes . . . .

t-and-f: Antics at Sydney

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

As a non-American, may I to some extent defend the
"antics" of the US sprint relay team at Sydney,
and ask the critics to take them a bit easier - 
especially in light of the following post:

>Some years ago I gave up watching what Americans
>call "Football" and  Basketball in disgust at the
>off-field criminal behaviour and boorish antics 
>of the apparently mentally challenged elements who
>represent those sports  professionally.

>Today I have decided to sever any future
>involvement with what was once a dignified and
>beautiful sport.  I too will join a boycott of
>any products endorsed by "Mo..reese" Greene and
>his ilk who have so disgraced their country in
>the eyes of the world...it is time these clowns
>paid some price for this kind of behavior.  


After their basketball match against the US, the
New Zealand team (making their first appearance
at any Olympics) broke into a Maori haka, which
they had been warned NOT to.

The US team were visibly taken aback (and so no
doubt were many other spectators from the Northern
Hemisphere) at what was happening. But they stood
quietly, watched politely, and even applauded at
the end. The last may not have been the appropriate
response, but I thought they showed admirable
patience and understanding of the kind we all need
when other countries or races are following their
peculiar customs. I'm one New Zealander who really
appreciated it.

Someone else mentioned "the Australian long jump
team", which appears to refer to silver medallist
Jai Taurima. Well, though he was born in and
competes for Australia, Taurima is Maori too. I
would not have been surprised if he too had broken
into a haka! (Maybe he had just forgotten the
words.)

t-and-f: Suzy Hamilton Interview = High Anxiety

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

In trying to explain Suzy Hamilton's fall in the
1500 at the Sudney Olympics, someone suggested:

  Apply Ocham's Razor, which states that
  in nature the simplest explanation is
  most often correct.


That's simplistic.

In simple terms, what Ockham said was that where
a number of separate phenomena are observed, if
all of them can be explained by making "n"
assumptions, and equally well explained by making
"

t-and-f: re: Once was "5 positive names from 1988"

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:17:22 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:

What is the basis of your ideas?  Your title, your accusations, and your
solution are disjointed . . . .


Comment:

You may well be right that my "solution" is disjointed. It
may also be logistically impracticable, prohibitively expensive,
or legally proscribed. It may not even be a solution at all.
But would it not be a good idea to suspend your judgement until
I tell you what it is?

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: interesting article on changes in the walks

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:29:06 -0600 (CST),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part):


  The rules are very explicit that "... no visible (to the
human eye) loss of contact occurs."  (Rule 150, section 2)

If the loss of contact occurs, but is not visible to the human eye, a
technical device could still determine it.  However, that would might
change the nature of the event . . . .

So, with this long prolog, a question to Michael Rohl (or other
walkers):  have you ever looked at slow motion video of walkers, and if
so, do you think it possible that an invisible to the human eye loss of
contact does normally occur in walks so that the nature of the event
would be chnaged by flagging it?

Pat Palmer

--
Comment:

Q1 - undoubtedly. At the Sydney Olympics at least the first
18 finishers in the 50k were breaking contact at every stride
coming into the stadium. That was not apparent to the judges,
but why not is puzzling: loss of contact is caused by a
characteristic floating gait which is hard to mistake, and
which was not often seen until the Mexicans  (walkers or
coaches or whoever) developed the technique in the late
sixties, propelling that nation from nowhere to a position
of pre-eminence among pedestrians.

Q2 - no. Disqualifying walkers for humanly invisible loss
of contact would not change the nature of the event. It
would restore the nature of the event.

The "human eye" dispensation did not appear in the IAAF
rules until the 1990-1991 handbook. For the previous
hundred or more years of internationally-agreed rules
the only criteria for fair walking were (a) continuous
contact, and (b) straight supporting leg. The reason
for this change - which was a FUNDAMENTAL one - was
admitted during a long discussion by the late Palle
Lassen, long-time chairman of the IAAF Walking Committee.
Quite simply, the athletes had "got away" and now
could not be brought back without dq'ing them all and
wiping out every standing record.

In the IAAF's official book on track and field
techniques, their chosen expert wrote: . . . . Loss
of contact is inevitable, even with technically
accomplished walkers, when today's racing speeds are
achieved." So, he said, the rules should be changed
to allow walkers to run, as long as they kept their
legs straight!

The chosen solution was like changing the rules to allow
doping so long as it was done out of sight of the officials.

P N Heidenstrom

Re: t-and-f: interesting article on changes in the walks

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

At 07:02 00.12.18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>(1) This is not true. [i.e. that the first 18 finishers in
>the Sydney 50k were breaking contact at every stride coming
>into the stadium.]

It is futile to bleat "not true". It is on tape. Go and look at
it.



>(2) Again you are wrong.  The "cause" of an athlete to have a "float" phase is
>the premature firing of the calf muscles . . . . ad infinitum.

Read what I said. [i.e. "LOSS OF CONTACT is caused etc. What causes
the float phase does not excuse it.]



>(3) I am not exactly sure what you mean by "nature"
>of the event here. But disqualifying a walker for something
>that the human eye can not see would change the event and it
>would not be the same as years ago.  For one thing by not
>using humans you would use cameras and that would change the
>nature of the event.

  Using a photo-electric timer changes the nature of
a 100m race? What crap.

  The nature of walking is - and was for 100 years - "a
progression of steps so taken that unbroken contact with
the ground is  maintained." By watering down that definition
the IAAF (US domestic rules don't count) changed the nature
of the event.




>(4) Again you are wrong here. [i.e. the reason for the IAAF's
>change of rules, as admitted during a long conversation by the
>chairman of the IAAF's walking committee.]

It is you who are wrong. You were not even there. And you
claim to know the IAAF's reasons better than Palle Lassen
knew them himself? Obviously you know nothing about it.




>(5) This assertion too, is incorrect.  [i.e. statements by the
>IAAF's chosen expert as to the human impossibility of main-
taining continuous contact at today's record speeds.)

Tell the expert he's wrong. Tell the IAAF they should have
asked you to write the book. See what they say.




(6) Loss of contact does not equal running. In fact to be
running the knees never straiten (sic) . . . .

A quick look at a child's picture book will show how the
knees straighten.




>(7) These two things are not even in the same class.
>[i.e. the IAAF's solution being like changing the
>rules to allow doping so long as it was done out of sight
>of the officials.] One is clearly cheating (doping) and
>the other is no more cheating then fouling in the long jump.


The latter is a poor comparison. Long jumpers are not disqualified
for a foul jump. Runners who cheat by cutting corners are. So are
those who cheat by running (or whatever apologists like to call
it) in "walking" races. So they should be. Most walkers know
perfectly well when they are "lifting", however much they bleat
when disqualified for it. World championhip contestants in this
country have admitted (privately) that they cheated - because
they had to.

Throwers must submit their implements for meticulous measurement
with tapes, gauges, and scales. Throwing officials are not
ordered to detect cheats using underweight or undersized
implements by eye alone. But walking officials are. Why are
walkers given that special dispensation to cheat?



Finally: Carl Lewis's campaign had much to do with forcing the
IAAF to act against athletes who cheat by means of doping. Mr
Rohl could do a lot for his sport (which has elements we can
admire) by rejecting the excuses, the denials, and the sophistry,
coming back to earth (in all senses), and pressing the IAAF to
act against those who cheat in walking.

This country (NZ) has had only one top-class walker in modern
times. I watched many of his races over a period of 20-plus years,
and could never fault his action. He was never disqualified or
even warned. In 1975 he had only two words for what had happened
to the sport he adored and adorned. "Farce." "Disgrace."

I would rather believe an Olympic champion who put a whole
lifetime into his quest for honesty in walking. So please,
Mr Rohl, don't make me any more angry by sending me any more
denials that walking - as most track and field fans won't tell
you because they don't want to hurt your feelings - stinks.

t-and-f: re: interesting article on changes in the walks

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

No-one wants to prolong this go-nowhere argument,
but lister Ed Grant has a brilliant idea that he is
too modest to announce himself. He says, "it's about
time that walking events were simply dropped from the
sport and the walkers allowed to start their own
federation".

Like the idea somebody once suggested for solving the
world-wide problem of crime: maroon all the crims on
a desert island and let them slug it out among
themselves according to their own special rules.

They would very probably kill themselves off in short
order. On the other hand they might j u u u u st
realise that their only hope of salvation is to reform
themselves and live by the standards of the rest of us.
Then they could be welcomed back into civilised society
and we could all live on in peace and progress. Either
way, problem solved.

Maybe one of the walkers could organise a poll among
members of this forum. Assuredly lots of us would like
to have a say. If the idea worked, it could then be
extended to the athletes who take performance-enhancing
drugs. They could be made to cheat each other instead of
cheating those who don't bend the rules.

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: Our kind of posts

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Wasn't it a BBC announcer who commented at the
presentation of trophies after an Oxford-Cambridge
boat race,

"Now isn't that sweet. The wife of the Cambridge
captain is kissing the cox of the Oxford crew."


previously on this show:



Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:40:41 +
From: Randall Northam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t-and-f: my kind of posts

on 21/12/00 3:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 > There goes Juantorena down the back straight, opening his legs and
 > showing his class"
 > (David Coleman at The Montreal Olympics)

 > They are right up there with the classic BBC commentary from an
 > England -West Indies cricket match . . .
 >
 > "The batsman's Holding, the bowlers Willey" . . .

First one - Not so, that was the late Ron
Pickering. I can't remember which BBC man said: "There goes Hoyte-Smith with
Koch inside her." (you have to say it out loud)
Second - there is a much better one from the late John Arlott. Tufty Mann of
South Africa boaling to George Mann of England and giving him a hard time.
Arlott said: "Yet another example of Mann's inhumanity to Mann."

Randall Northam

t-and-f: The ugly Australian

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Garry Hill wrote:

Isn't that [marooning all the crims on a desert island
and letting them slug it out . . .] how we got Australia?
I thought you as a Kiwi would realize that!

gh

--
Yeah, we used to point that out.

But not now that all the Ocker icons are really
Kiwi property - Phar Lap, long drops, pavlovas,
the Melbourne Cup, Taurima . . . .

Happy Christmas all.

t-and-f: once was "5 positive names from 1988"

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

While the Olympics were occupying most of the list, the
problems of drugs in track and field (and other sports) were
still causing some worries. Now there is so little of
consequence to be found on this forum, it may be a suitable
time to reconsider the drug problem, and to hear from list
members other than the one, two, or three who cannot
restrain themselves from monopolising it.

If one read the comments of list members correctly, their
concerns may perhaps be summed up as follows.

  Laws and legal processes can be used to defeat the
  drug rules: athletes, especially wealthy ones, need
  only take or threaten lawsuits against those who
  attempt to punish violations or even name the
  violaters. Faced with the threat of being
  bankrupted, national federations (notably in the US
  and Britain) are forced to hide the violators and
  generally to soft-pedal the drug rules - maybe to
  prompt the IAAF into taking over the risk. But even
  the IAAF is vulnerable because it cannot match the
  powers of the courts and the national governments
  behind those courts. Hence drug testing, in
  addition to the damaging publicity it causes, is
  ultimately futile.

These problems, plus some others that have long plagued
athletes, coaches, and the sporting public, may be soluble.

But since nothing seems ever to be pure gain, any solution
may have to come at the expense of certain customs that are
long-standing, even cherished. Before discussing an
alternative system, we need to consider whether the sport
would be prepared to give up those customs. Here are the
minimum changes that could be involved.

The IAAF would have to opt out of the Olympic Games, at
least until other sports adopted a similar system (if they
did). Probably the title "World Championships" would have to
be changed. Nationalism would certainly have to go. No
national flags, no anthems, not even national teams.
Athletes would represent themselves. No country would be
able to enter anyone as of right. We'd have to do without
marathon runners from East Timor, and Eddie the Eagle
imitations.

But there would be compensations. Since national quotas
would go, each event could feature the world's best - 10
Americans in the men's 100m, for example; 20 Kenyans in the
steeplechase. America's infamous FOTs being unnecessary,
there would be no repeats of the Greene/Johnson/Hartwig
fiascos of 2000 nor the Varoff, Dillard, (nearly) Nieder,
and other debacles of earlier years. There would be no
Olympic qualifying standards to cause anxiety, let alone
angst.

Drug testing would continue, of course, but the sport would
no longer suffer disgrace because no infringer would have to
be disqualified, either before or after the fact. (Further
investigation is needed to confirm the "after" bit, though
it appears feasible.) No disqualifications means no namings,
no shyster lawyers, no interfering judges or juries, no
bankruptcies.

There might have to be a return to the administrative style
of the old IOC when it was ruled by Avery Brundage -
probably even more so. Well, not so much a Brundage, because
the sport would be at least as professional as it is now,
and inspired by the good ol' American private enterprise
dream. For Avery Brundage, maybe write Bill Gates.

Instead of being democratic in the manner it is now, track
and field would follow the pattern of the new millenium
already presaged by the internet, where democracy is being
changed from government by the people to government by the
individual.

But note that such changes would do nothing to correct any
supposed deficiencies in present drug testing. If they
exist, such problems would still have to be solved
elsewhere.

Could Americans accept the changes proposed above? Could
other countries? They would at least buy the private
enterprise aspects because they seem to be doing so now -
even in Communist China and the old Soviet Union. But the
end of nationalism and its quaint by-products? Would even
the land of the free buy that?

Let's hear the reactions of list members (preferably the
less loquacious of them), before further exploring what
changes could be made, and how they might solve the
present problems. Replies to the list, please.

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: AW athletes of the year

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:54:21 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

"Netters

"What can I say?

"The British publication Athletics Weekly has named Robert Korzeniowski and
"Marion Jones as Athletes of the Year."



Someone could say that it was a split decision on
Korzeniowski. Four of the distinguished panellists
voted him No.1, the remaining three distinguished
panellists did not rate him at all. Strange!

Six rated Jones No.1, one rated her No.3.

t-and-f: NZ teenager runs 4:01.32

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Nick Willis will be running as a special guest in the
800m and mile at the U S indoor high-school champs at
New York in March (9 through 11?)


-- "that horse's but's, P. N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl.
(Maybe he meant "butt")


On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:44:34 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote . . . .
Subject: t-and-f: Subj:  [OZTRACK] Kiwi teenager runs 4.01 mile

A teenage middle-distance running sensation competing in his first mile race
broke a 14-year-old record at the weekend.

Nick Willis, 17, of Hutt Valley, ran 4m 1.32s on Saturday in the annual mile
at the famous Cooks Gardens track in Wanganui on Saturday.

t-and-f: Mime-Version: 1.0

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

In a message dated Tue, 23 Jan 2001  13:14:54 EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  an attempt to regain its position as one of the world's leading producers 
of distance talent, New Zealand has adopted the Kenyan model, starting with 
the procedures used to issue birth certificates and passports. Nick Willis 
actually IS Steven Willis!  :-)

gh
--

You COULD be right. Looking at their birth certificates -
same mother, same father, same grandparents, same
birthplace (Lower Hutt), same birthday (April 25) . . .
everything checks . . .
only a small difference in birthyear - Stephen John 1975,
Nicholas Ian 1983.


- "that horse's but's, P. N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl.
(hopefully he meant "butt")

t-and-f: "Four minute mile"

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Thanks to those who joined in the discussion about the
origins of the word "heat", especially Ed Grant for his
research using the Oxford English Dictionary.

Fascinating. And a welcome change from MG, Mr MJ,
Ms MJ, and UTCAA.

A question has been asked here about the first
AUTHENTICATED appearance of the term, "four-minute mile".
Disappointingly, the OED can only date it to Sterling's
"Evil of Day", published in 1955 - a year, of course,
after Bannister actually did it !

Further citations follow from 1958, 1963, and 1969, which
is a surprising lapse, especially when the phrase
is of such historical importance in track and field.

Lawson Robertson uses the term in an article published in
July 1937, but someone must be able to do better than that.
Any takers? Teach the editor of the world's greatest
dictionary something! (He's another of those clowns from
Wellington, New Zealand.)

(Robertson writes, "I hope that during his final year in
college he'll switch to the mile and concentrate his
efforts on that distance. If he does, I think it is more
than possible that he'll turn in that four-minute all
track fans are expecting." He's left a few clues behind.
Anyone like to make a guess as to who was in his thoughts?


"that horse's but's, P. N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl
(hopefully he meant "butt")

t-and-f: "Four-minute mile"

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Reporting progress in the quest for the earliest
recorded use of the phrase, "four-minute mile" :

Richard Hymans, in England, found a reference to
Jesse Abramson using the phrase in a New York
Herald-Tribune report on Lovelock's world record
run (4:07.6) at Princeton, NJ. That was in July
1933. (We had thought the article was from the
"Amateur Athlete", published by Dan Ferris and the
AAU, but no doubt Ferris was quoting the NYHT.)
So the "record" so far is July 1933. Can anyone
beat that?

Regarding Lawson Robertson's 1937 article hoping
that an American runner would become the first
four-minute miler, both Bob Hersh and Dave Johnson
put forward (rightly) the name of John Woodruff.

Woodruff's best mile was 4:12.8 in 1939, his senior
year at Pitt. With his 46.8 400 speed and enormous,
leisurely stride, he could well have made Robertson's
hope come true. But he was never given the chance.
He was too busy winning three straight NCAA 880s
and three straight 440-880 IC4A doubles.

For what it's worth, the prestigious British Medical
Journal of 1987 June 27 published a letter from a
doctor who was secretary of the club of which Lovelock
was captain. It related how Lovelock, having sworn his
friends to secrecy, ran a sub-four on the cinder track
at Paddington, followed by another at Motspur Park. The
distances were confirmed by engineer's tape and the
stop-watches had been newly checked.

Don't ask me; I wasn't there.


- "that horse's but's, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl
(hopefully, he meant "butt")

t-and-f: re: 'Real' cheats prosper claims drugs chief

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

 > This seems to me to be one of the most basic principles
 > of justice - it just can't be right to punish accidental
 > and deliberate drug taking exactly the same way. Surely.
 > Can it?

  There's a third way of committing an offence - negligence.
It can be punished in law just as severely as the deliberate
act. So many 'accident' theories have been put forward by
suspended athletes that those who do not brew their own tea,
keep their toothpaste under lock and key, and so on, could
be considered to have lost the right to plead 'tampering'.

That excuse was often put forward by people accused of
drug-smuggling, too. Apparently the authorities are
confident that the courts will reject the 'tampering' excuse
if Customs officers have asked, before inspecting luggage,
"is this your own luggage?" and "did you pack it yourself?"

Why could drug-testers not put corresponding questions to
any athlete about to be tested?

So, a question. Does anyone know what action Customs officials
take when a traveller says, "Now that you mention it, when
I was walking down a street in Bogota on my way to the airport,
my case fell open and a total stranger stopped and helped
me put my things back in. Wasn't that kind of him?"

- "that horse's but's, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl.
(Hopefully he meant "butt".)

t-and-f: Reaction time (WAS unsportsmanlike conduct)

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Right! And I've never felt comfortable with the rumour
that reaction is always equal and opposite to action -
because the next action to come around the bend may
contradict Newton's notion.

Scientists can never "prove" anything because ultimately
all science (meaning knowledge) depends on observation,
and no scientist (or all the scientists who ever lived)
can ever claim to have observed every occurrence of a
particular kind. Hence all "laws" of the universe carry
the implied disclaimer, "so far as we have observed".

This is simply what Mr Clouder and the IAAF are saying
is the justification for the reaction-time rule.

Of course most human beings will accept a theory put up by
Newton, Einstein, et al, and ignore my discomfort with it,
until I (or someone else) can produce a reliable
observation that contradicts it. Likewise, sensible people
will accept the IAAF decree until someone can demonstrate
that he is the "black swan" who contradicts IT. That option
is open to every athlete - and every scientist who is
uncomfortable with it. We're waiting . . . .

  --"that horse's but's, P.N. from New Zealand - M M Rohl
Hopefully, he meant "butt".
-
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:01:42,
"Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 >I don't know anything about the tests that were used to generate the current
 >limit, but speaking as a scientist who gathers and analyzes data for a
 >living, I have to say that I side with the sprinters on this one.

 >I've never been comfortable with the statement "No one can react as fast as
 >xxx", if for no other reason than it's a logical fallacy to try to prove a
 >negative. But that is just what this rule attempts to do.

 >It's like saying that swans are never black.  You've looked at 25,000 swans,
 >and they were all white.  Fine.  But you haven't "proven" anything, because
 >the very next swan to fly around the bend may well be totally black.

 >The best that can be said is that no one has ever been observed to react as
 >fast as the limit.   But the current rule is flawed because it makes no
 >allowance for the athlete who is way beyond "normal" - one who CAN react
 >that fast.  Like the black swan, it's impossible to say that such an athlete
 >cannot come along.

t-and-f: Gerry Lindgren (WAS World XC)

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

The race was in 1965, and Lindgren's time (for three
miles) was 13:04.02. When converted to 5000m using
the Portuguese Tables (arguably the world's best
at that stage) the time became 13:33.6.

But ten months later he ran 12:53.0 at Seattle,
equivalent to 13:22.2.

Pretty good even today, they then ranked 5th and 2nd
in the world all-time lists for 3M/5k.


--"That horse's but's, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl
   (hopefully he meant horse's butt)

---
  On Mar28 David Dallman
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   On reflection (my track books are all at home) I think it was 1964 and
13:04.8 for Lindgren.


Earlier on Mar28 he wrote:

   I first saw Gerry Lindgren at London's White City stadium in, I think,
1965. Ron Clarke had taken the world 3 mile record down from about 13:14
to just over 13 minutes and this day was about to take another 8 seconds
off. In those days Ron just ran away from everybody much of the time, and
the best British runners were nowhere after a couple of laps that day. But
this little American guy, not looking at all like a runner next to the
rather majestic style of Clarke, stayed with him all the way until about
the last 2 laps, and finished in 13:07 something, which must have been
second best all-time at the time. Hard to appreciate for you younger guys
when we are talking about these times or better for the 5000 these days,
but it was great running at the time, really going into unexplored
territory in a fearless way.

t-and-f: Kerbless tracks

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Sorry, but this discussion is getting off the
"rails".

Cones are NOT legal, except to replace part of
a kerb which has been temporarily removed for a
field event (such as a javelin runway), or where
there is a diversion for the steeplechase.

Tracks without kerbs are ILLEGAL unless they are
grass ones, and then they must be FLAGGED (as well
as being measured 10 cm further inwards).

Since this discussion is scarcely contemplating grass
tracks, IAAF rule 161.1 applies, and is abundantly clear:

"Unless it is a grass track, the inside of the track
shall be bordered by a kerb . . . ."

This is the legal "shall" and makes a kerb compulsory.
Maybe kerbless tracks will do for HS meets, but for
any meet run under IAAF rules they are not legitimate,
and anyone doing a record time on one would be unable
to claim it. So be warned. The IAAF is right. Others
are not.

--"that horse's but's, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl
(hopefully he meant "horse's butt")

--
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:02:23 -0500
"Wayne T. Armbrust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

David Dallman wrote:

 >  I hope I have got this right, Wayne will certainly correct me if not.
 > Although tracks with and without a curb (kerb in England) are both
 > allowed, the distance away from the inside at which the 400 metre distance
 > is measured is different in the two cases. This is precisely because it is
 > easier to run right on the inside line if there is no curb than if there
 > is one. Therefore it's not just a question of saving up to buy a curb and
 > laying it down on the inside line. In fact it would have to be laid down
 > slightly further in, by the amount specified in the IAAF rules.
 >   I imagine the rules consider a track marked with cones to be a track
 > without a curb. However, while putting down cones might stop runners
 > running even inside the inner line, putting them along the inside line
 > would actually penalise the runners somewhat by making them run too far.
 > How much is difficult to judge, it would depend on how close the cones
 > were to each other. If they were touching, it would be like a real curb,
 > if they were only every 50 metres it would be like having no curb.
 >
 >   David Dallman
 >

The measure line for tracks with a curb (kerb) is located 30 cm. out from 
the curb
(kerb).  For tracks without a curb (kerb) the measure line is 20 cm. out 
from the
outer edge of the painted line in lane one.  David is quite correct in his
observation that you can't simply put down a curb (kerb) on a track without 
one.

- --
Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computomarx™
3604 Grant Ct.
Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA
(573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX)
http://www.Computomarx.com
"Know the difference between right and wrong...
Always give your best effort...
Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..."
- - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)

- 

t-and-f: Genetics

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

 > I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
 > The lack of scientific sophistication on this point
 > is unbelievable.

   (snip)

 > You may not like such statements...but as a
 > GENERALIZATION, it is absolutely accurate...

   (snip)

An ... absolutely ... accurate ... generalization!
And this pinnacle of absurdity follows an accusation,
only nine lines earlier, that someone else lacks
scientific sophistication.

But Mr Entine is not really to blame. He is just seeking
to advertise his book, in contravention of the list
charter (Guideline 8), for which he should have been
busted years ago. It is the rest who egg him on or
encourage him in other ways who are prolonging this
boring, go-nowhere debate.

No-one who possessed any manners or was not a crank would
dominate the list with one interminable sermon as Mr
Entine has done. Therefore, would he and those who can't
resist continuing this harangue without consideration
for others, please do so privately and give the rest
of us just that - a rest. Please.

P N Heidenstrom 

Re: t-and-f: Genetics

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

At 21:03 01.05.06, Michael Rohl wrote:

>< Mr Heidenstrom, you are wrong(again.) Mr.Entine
>long ago stopped trying to
>sell his book on his list.

(snip)

  You contributed nothing of substance too the
conversation and managed to insult Mr. Entine.<

Comment:

The last two digests I have received were # 3604 and
3605. In both, Mr Entine promotes the book. In the
second, he even includes "a few relevant paragraphs from
'Taboo'". Both posts are dated 2001 May 05. How long
ago is that?

--"that horse's but's, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl
(hopefully, he meant "horse's butt")

Re: t-and-f: Genetics

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

At 19:24 01.05.07, Mr Rohl wrote in part:


>. . .
>
>So quoting from a book is trying to sell it now is it?  Certainly Darrell 
>has a
>quote from a book that he believes strongly in.  I don't believe he is 
>selling it.
>  Several others quote from books.


Comment: Good question. And an important one for those
who care about the survival of this list.

Yes. Quoting from a book IS trying to sell it, if the
book is your own and you are urging people to get it.

Mr Smith has never done that, nor has anyone else -
except Mr Entine - in the seven years I have been a
subscriber.

P N Heidenstrom
("that horse's ass, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl)

t-and-f: "Automatic" timing

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
   quoting Charlie Francis' book, Speed Trap,

". . . But in 1968, when the IAAF
began to make the transition from hand to electronic timing, it bungled
the job.  As an electronic clock would start the instant the gun was fired
(eliminating a human timer's reaction gap), times would be more than two
tenths of a second slower.  Rather than adjust for the change by putting
the clocks on a delay, as proposed by East Germany, the IAAF let the new
and slower times tand.  In so doing, they severed the 100 metres' link to
its past progression of world records dating from 1896.  They had, in
effect, created a new event."

Comment:

The IAAF first implemented photo-timing at the 1964 OG
at Tokyo. The timing had to incorporate a delay of 0.05s,
and times were rounded off to the nearest 1/10s. Hence
a time could appear to be up to 1/10s faster than  it
really was. A study of FULLY automatic times from the
Games of 1952, 1956, and 1960 shows that many 100m times
were certainly not more than 1/10s faster than the
official (and recognised) hand times.

The built-in delay was removed before the 1972 Games.
Rounding-off [to the nearest 1/10s] was changed [to
the full or next full 1/10s] in 1977 and dropped altogether
in 1981. These dates apply to races NG 400m; for longer
distances there were variations, but now all FAT is, of
course, to the full or next full 1/100s.

Just in case no-else has pointed out Mr Francis' error.

--"that horse's ass, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl

t-and-f: re: automatic timing in 1 9 5 2

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:28:12 +0300 (IDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: t-and-f: "Automatic" timing in  1 9 5 2

Not in 1952! The hand timing in 1952 was horrible! Look up Bob Sparks'
deciphering of ET . the quartet of runners given 10.4 and the two (Sukhraev,
treloar) given 10.5 in the 100m final actually ran over 10.70!

UG


Comment:

Right. Well, half right. Almost.

1952 was sloppy typing for 19 thirty 2 when, at Los
Angeles, the automatic times that have survived were all
no more than 1/10s slower than the official manual times.
Which suggests that in those days manual timing was
very accurate - unless the Kirby two-eyed camera was
faulty.



QBTW, the manual timing at the Helsinki Olympics was not
as sharp as at Rome and Melbourne. But to say it was
"horrible" is simply untrue. The men's 100m final was so
far out that it may well have been due to a fault in the
Omega photo-electric timer. Such faults used to occur
from time to time in the one first used in NZ.

In the 100m preliminaries there were five cases where,
as I said, the discrepancy between FAT and manual was
not more than 1/10s. In the men's 200m prelims there
were eight cases, including heat 9 where three of the
four discrepancies were <1/10s and one was NEGATIVE.

Whatever the reason, the 100m final was clearly an
aberration. Even if it was not, that single case cannot be
the basis of a blanket claim that "the hand timing in
1952 [or any other Games] was horrible." One might as
well conclude from the McVeigh case that Americans are
horrible!

- "that horse's ass, P. N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl

t-and-f: Dept of useless information

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

After Sebrle set his world decathlon record
last month his marks were converted in terms
of some of the earlier scoring tables, but (if
memory serves) not for all of them. For the sake
of the record (alias the department of useless
information) here is the full set. The year is the
one when the table was first used in practice.
(Thus the table adopted in 1950 and later
minimally altered was not used until 1952.)

  No attempt has been made to allow for changes in
techniques (HJ &c) or implements (PV &c), and
especially not for timing; anyone who believes in
massaging times or points with the IAAF's special
brand of snake oil (ugh!) will have to do it for
himself.


- "that horse's ass, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl

EVENT   MARK'85'64'52*   '34'20'12

10010.64942895   1061953990.480   1038.08
LJ  8.11   1089   1041   1304   1125   1124.951154.35
SP 15.33810808915958999   1053
HJ  2.12915959   1380   1210   1266   1308
40047.79919909   1036   1014   1015.416   1022.936

HH 13.92985972   1156   1137   1102.6 1102.6
DT 47.92827835874963   1102.981245.48
PV  4.80849   1005   1455   1308   1459   1588.6
JT 70.16892881992   1004   1251.9 1421.575
15   4:21.98798645591690848.92 888.52
   ---
   9026   8950  10764  10362  11161.246  11823.141
   ===

   * this table does not accommodate 1/100s times

t-and-f: Access

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 18:59:31 -0400
"John Dye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: RE: t-and-f: Access

Break the minutes and seconds into different fields.
Convert everything to seconds for ranking purposes and then put it back in
minutes and seconds format for display and reporting purposes.

-
Comment:

While you're about it, why not translate everything
into elvish, encrypt it in Martian military code,
convert it into Mongolian ideographs, and then put
it back into English?

Isn't it incredible how junk software can change an
elementary, trivial task into a complex, tiresome,
inaccessible mess, and exact payment of some hundreds
of dollars for the privilege?

Instead, you might consign access and other packages
like it to the nearest long-drop and do the job in a
fraction of the time using a simple line editor and
DOS batch file. They will produce in a few seconds all
the ranking lists anyone could ever want or conceive,
such as an all-time list for any country, or for the
world, on any date since the sport began - results which
are impossible for any reach-me-down software on the
market either today or at any time in the past. In
short, follow Thoreau's advice: simplify, simplify.

 > >-Original Message-
 > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Miguel Goncalves
 > >Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 12:07 PM
 > >To: t-and-f
 > >Subject: t-and-f: Access
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >Hi everyone,
 > >
 > >I am constructing a database for athletic performances in Microsoft
 > >Access.  However, I am having some difficulties to create a field for
 > >the
 > >long distance events.  I want to create a field that allow to input
 > >data on the format mm:ss.cc.  The date/time default in access has
 > >a hh:mm:ss, and nothing else.  Does anyone tried to input athletics
 > >data into access?  Does anyone have a solution for this problem?
 > >
 > >Thanks,
 > >Miguel
 > >

t-and-f: Access

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 06:43:28 -0400
"John Dye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: RE: t-and-f: Access


And how is your Model T Ford holding up these days?

Comment:
---
It may look like a Model T but it's really a NZ design
with few moving parts, does a thousand km to the
litre, has never needed a repair, and conveys me at
Mach 2 in total safety to any part of the world -
including remote places where others would like to go
but can't. By the way, it is used not just on
track and field business but on one of the largest
statistical jobs in this country, where it proved
all but infinitely superior to the American and
European models in the garages of UN agencies like
the ILO and WHO. The Scandinavians buy it too. At
international motor shows my American friends were
so convinced they went home hoping to get something
like it. But their compatriots preferred Model Ts
running on snake oil, because those were measured
in feet, inches, and gallons. They still do. Thoreau
never died - or even lived. He must of been a myth.

So, J D, what's it been like hot-footing around your
backyard since your good ol' Edsel cracked up? If you
would of bought the New Zealand model, you would not
still be fooling with Fords.

P N H

J D was replying to:
---

Isn't it incredible how junk software can change an
elementary, trivial task into a complex, tiresome,
inaccessible mess, and exact payment of some hundreds
of dollars for the privilege?

Instead, you might consign access and other packages
like it to the nearest long-drop and do the job in a
fraction of the time using a simple line editor and
DOS batch file. They will produce in a few seconds all
the ranking lists anyone could ever want or conceive,
such as an all-time list for any country, or for the
world, on any date since the sport began - results which
are impossible for any reach-me-down software on the
market either today or at any time in the past. In
short, follow Thoreau's advice: simplify, simplify.

t-and-f: U.S. appeal successful

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:13:57 -0400
"malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  


But to the point:

1) There is no "steps" rule.
2) Where there is a material advantage gained (stepping inside on the
turn) there will be a DQ
3) Where there is no material advantage gained (stepping inside/outside
on the straight or outside on the turn) AND no other competitor is
obstructed there WILL NOT be DQ.

Simple, and easy for coaches and fans alike to remember, isn't it? No
amended or emended sub rules, subparagraphs, subscripts, superscripts or
other annotations anywhere to confuse.

Comment:

Simple, but unfortunately wrong.

The word "outside" can have many meanings, including
"not in". The grammar and logic of IAAF rule 163.3
and its involved ancestry show that here "outside"
does not imply movement towards the outside of the
track, but simply "not in"; that is, the opposite of
the earlier word, "within". Replace "outside" with
"out of" and the true meaning of this rule will be
clear. In brief, if a competitor has run OUT OF his
lane, he shall be disqualified, irrespective of
whether there has been material advantage, but with
the exceptions in rule 163.4.

In Edmonton as in the past, the IAAF have evidently
found their own rule too draconian and set it aside.
Under essentially today's rule, England's Terry
Higgins was disqualified in the early rounds of the
1950 Empire Games, after which the late Harold Abrahams
declared he would have the rule changed to include
material advantage; it was, but it has since been
changed back.
  

t-and-f: Goodwill 5000 results

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

In this professional era we seem to have forgotten
what track and field is really about. I'd like to
quote a report of a 3-mile race between Murray Halberg
and Bill Baillie, two of Arthur Lydiard's earliest
pupils and both world record holders. It was a race of
absolutely no importance, but the most engrossing it
has ever been my pleasure to watch. By contrast, the
race at Christchurch in 1962 when Peter Snell broke the
world 800m/880y records was infinitely boring.



"... It was the 1959 New Zealand championships. Bill
Baillie was superbly fit and was after Halberg's blood.
His plan soon became obvious: he would play the sprint
cyclist, use Halberg as a windbreak until the time
came, and try to take him by surprise from behind.

 But Halberg was not going to fall for those
tactics, and the race soon became a dog-trot. After
three laps Halberg decided to try burning Baillie off,
and he ran the next one in 67s. When Baillie was
unmoved he ran one in 84s, trying to force Baillie into
the lead. That trick failed, too. By this stage Howard
Wilson, who eventually finished third, was leading by
the length of the straight. A few laps later he was the
length of the straight behind.

 The race was as funny as it was fascinating. One
newspaper called it ridiculous, which it was in a way;
but no race was ever in more deadly earnest, and no two
rivals ever more unremitting. As lap followed lap the
tension mounted higher and higher as Halberg, like the
Ancient Mariner, held Baillie with glittering eye.

 It was not until the last 220yds that Baillie
struck. Halberg reacted instantly, and the two looked
like Siamese twins as they went for their lives around
the turn and up the long straight. Halberg the crafty
kept his rival outside him on the bend, which was how
he managed to win by a foot.

 Never was a more tigerish resolve engraved in
Halberg's face. But why? There was no money in the
race; no fame, because Halberg was already Commonwealth
champion; no record was about to get broken; it was not
for the sake of a national title, because both had won
five already; there was no enmity, no score to settle,
because Halberg and Baillie were good mates.

 So it could only have been what the poet calls th'
unconquerable will, the dogged determination never to
submit or yield that enabled Halberg to overcome a
severe schoolboy injury and become not only a runner,
but one of the greatest runners who ever lived. "


   That race also reveals the secret - more
significant than mere training methods - of what
made Arthur's boys feared throughout the world.

P N H

t-and-f: sectors

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:33:31 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part):

page 59: IAAF is reducing the discus and hammer sectors from
a 40 degree arc to 34.92 degrees.
Un-huh.
Okay, what wise-ass T&FN clerk slipped that one in?
An arc measured in a HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE???  Hah!
You're six months too late.  This was supposed to be in
the April 1st issue.


comment:

Javelin throwers have put up with a sector of 28.955
degrees for more than 50 years now. Why should other
throwers object to 34.92 degrees?

- "that horse's ass, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl

t-and-f: Adjusted 200s

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 Jonas Mureika wrote (inter alia):

>Careful:  you can't apply the calculation to the 200m.  It
>only
>applies to straight races: 50m, 60m, 100m.
--

Comment:
You can, of course. Indeed, it's ALL you can do!

The official wind reading - ignoring all manner of
other potential errors - measures the component in
the direction of the home straight, and only for
10s from the moment the leader enters the straight.
Hence that reading is not for a 200m race, and
bears no relation to one. It is just the same as
for a 100m race, as if the first 200 metres had
not been run at all. Therefore the same corrections
can be used for both distances.

It will not give one much insight into the true
worth of the performance, though - simply because
the wind reading does not give such insight either. 
Many people think that the wind reading announced
after a 200m race is a 200m-race reading. Such a
reading has never existed - with one exception as
far as I know - and cannot ever exist while the
present type of anemometer continues to be used.

To compensate a 200m-race reading you would need
to know the angle from which the wind was blowing,
and no wind gauges provide that information. (This
is a simplification, of course, and ignores the
other potential errors mentioned earlier.)

The exception mentioned above took place in New
Zealand in the early 1950s when IAAF rules did not
even contemplate wind assistance in 200m races.
However an engineer who was responsible for wind
readings at the NZ championships had the idea of
mounting the anemometer on a swivel, placed halfway
around the turn. As the runners negotiated the
course he turned the anemometer in "tune" with
them.

Highly unofficial, and strictly unnecessary - but
novel and interesting. I've always wondered how
accurate such readings might be compared with
readings for 100m races - which are admittedly
very dubious in themselves. But if (as seems
likely) they were no  m o r e  INaccurate, why
shouldn't the IAAF adopt this easy method in place
of the present nonsensical one? It could hardly
be any worse!

I hope this is reasonably clear. Putting it another
way, if you accept the IAAF's assumption that for
the first half of a 200m race the wind does not
need to be measured, then you can apply the same
correction as for a 100m race. You are then simply
correcting for the second half of the 200 and
ignoring the first - which is exactly what the
official wind reading is doing. If you don't accept
that assumption, then a wind reading for a 200m
race is impossible at present because anemometers
are fixed and give no record of the wind's velocity.

Readers who are interested can find a discussion
of these problems in the ATFS annuals published
in 1993 and (to a lesser extent) 1991:

1993, pp. 121-124
1991, pp. 123-126

P N Heidenstrom

Re: t-and-f: Adjusted 200s

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

Since these statements appear to be contradictory,
I'm at a loss to know which to reply to. But the
final one is correct, being just what I said last
time - namely that you still can't use the
calculator to correct the official (200m) race
times.

Whether Mr Mureika's calculator or any other
calculator you care to name - they are all wildly
inaccurate, so there is no point in either using
them or producing them.

People who want to comment on this matter should
first read and understand IAAF rule 163.8. The wind
reading for a 200m race tells nothing about the
wind during the first half of the race. Therefore
any purported "correction" for the wind throughout
a 200m race cannot possibly be correct. To repeat -
hopefully for the last time - ALL YOU CAN DO is
correct for the second half of the race, and ignore
the rest.

It is pure guesswork, and should not enter into any
informed discussion, to assume that the wind during
the first half is blowing in this or that direction
during an actual 200m race. Even if it was, which
obviously is most unlikely, the official wind
reading would (a) not tell you it was (is it
necessary to explain why not?) and (b) would
either overstate or overstate the effect of the
wind over the whole 200m.

For actual 200m races we can only follow the IAAF's
lead, ignore the wind during the first half, and
forget about trying to compensate for it.

Finally, talk of "splits" in this connection is
incorrect. Again to repeat, wind readings in 200m
races are taken for the 10s after the leader hits
the straight - "splits" (even if they are timed)
are irrelevant.

Other comments have been answered off-list. Maybe
this group can now get on to topics that might
conceivably have a chance of getting us somewhere.

----
Jonas Mureika wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, P. N. Heidenstrom wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 Jonas Mureika wrote (inter alia):
> >
> > >Careful:  you can't apply the calculation to the 200m.  It
> > >only
> > >applies to straight races: 50m, 60m, 100m.
> > --
> >
> > Comment:
> > You can, of course. Indeed, it's ALL you can do!
> >
> > The official wind reading - ignoring all manner of
> > other potential errors - measures the component in
> > the direction of the home straight, and only for
> > 10s from the moment the leader enters the straight.
> > Hence that reading is not for a 200m race, and
> > bears no relation to one. It is just the same as
> > for a 100m race, as if the first 200 metres had
> > not been run at all. Therefore the same corrections
> > can be used for both distances.
> >
> 
> Yes, this is how the wind readings are taken for the 200m, but you cannot
> apply the method of the caculator to 200m races.  Physically, the
> calculator is based on the assumption that the wind speed is purely at the
> athlete's back (or face) for the duration of the race (i.e. for the
> interval of time you enter for correction).  Since the athlete is rounding
> a curve for over the first half of the race, the wind speed is constantly
> changing as a function of the angle of the athlete to the wind direction.
> 
> The numbers I've come up with for 200m corrections suggest that for legal
> winds purely in the direction of the straight (no cross-winds), the 100m
> splits only vary by a couple hundredths of a second.
> 
> If you enter 200m times in the calculator, it just doesn't do what you
> want it to do.  The calculator hardcodes the race distance into the
> algorithm.  For example, a +2.0m/s wind (no crosswind) should probably
> assist a 20s 200m race by about 0.12s or so, but if you just enter the
> 200m time into the calculator, you get a time of 20.35 (not 20.12).
> 
> > I hope this is reasonably clear. Putting it another
> > way, if you accept the IAAF's assumption that for
> > the first half of a 200m race the wind does not
> > need to be measured, then you can apply the same
> > correction as for a 100m race. You are then simply
> > correcting for the second half of the 200 and
> > ignoring the first - which is exactly what the
> > official wind reading is doing.
> 
> As I have indicated, their assumption isn't far off the mark, according to
> my figures.  However, you would need to know the splits in order to
> correct like this.
> 
> Your assumptions about wind assistance in the 200m race are reasonable,
> but you still can't use the calculator to correct the official race times.
> 
> J.

t-and-f: Bell Lap

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
GW Dameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>In honor of the marathon being one of the highlights of the Olympic Games,
BELLLAP.ORG has posted the training diary of Josh Cox, the
youngest
qualifier and 18th place finisher at the Men's Marathon
Trials in May.  The
diary details his daily runs (with personal comments) from
February through
the big day in Pittsburgh.>

In recent years our leading resident lexicographer
compiled a dictionary of New Zealand English. He had
noted the expression "bell lap", used by followers
of track and field in these islands, but had not
been able to find it used in other countries. He
also found differing interpretations of the term.

Clearly the term is used in the US, and may have
been for a long time. I'd like to invite anyone
who is interested, to let me know their
understanding of the term - what lap does it refer
to? - and when they first used it or heard it
used.

Please email me direct, not the list. Thanks.

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: Greene on fire in Sydney

[P. N. Heidenstrom]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:49:21 -0700,
"Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part:


>Murphy is right .. If you start the watch when you
>actually see the smoke from the gun .. And then stop
>it when you actually see the body cross the line
>then you are timing accurately and should be within
>hundredths of the actual time .. I am usually
>within .02 +/- in any given race ..>


 Unfortunately the accuracy of your manual timing
will also depend on the accuracy of your watch.
If it is one of the digital timers advertised
nationally (in the US and elsewhere) it will not
be anywhere near accurate.

Tests on dozens of samples of several brands of
digital watches showed errors of up to 10/100ths
within a range of 14/100ths. These errors were not
in long-term accuracy. They were in the programs
controlling the start/stop/counting operations.
Consequently they affected all distances equally -
whether 10,000m, 100m, or 1m.

The distributor of two brands (advertised in a
well-known magazine) was told about these
discrepancies by an irate customer. His reply was
"I'm not surprised" !

So if the time on your digital hand timer agrees
with the fully automatic time, your timing
technique is almost certainly wrong!

For anyone who finds these results hard to believe,
full details are available. The tests were done
with a satellite-controlled clock having an r.m.s.
accuracy of 1/10,000,000 second.

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: Guns silenced in China

[P N Heidenstrom]

Somebody wrote: "Okay, so there weren't any
world records at the Chinese National Games."

Not even in the heats?

Why not?



- "that horse's ass, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl

t-and-f: Flo-Jo and the 10.49

[P N Heidenstrom]

FLO-JO AND THE LEGEND OF THE 10.49

  The story so far:

  At the US final Olympic tryouts at Indianapolis in 1988
Florence Griffith Joiner lowered the world record for 100m
from 10.76 to 10.49. Others in that and the next
quarterfinal also turned in superfast times. The wind
reading in both races was officially zero, compared with
+5.0 in quarterfinal 3.

  Peter Huertzeler of the Omega crew was quoted by "Track
and Field News" as saying he had thoroughly checked the
"machinery" and found it was working correctly, but admitted
he had never seen two consecutive zero readings before.

  Flo-Jo herself said she did not believe her 10.49. Bert
Nelson in TFN agreed, and so have an increasing number of
track statisticians in the ensuing years. Australian
physicist Nick Linthorne has produced strong statistical
arguments to support all the doubts but the IAAF still
recognises the time. NOW READ ON.

  At the recent New Zealand schools championships there were
not two successive zero readings, but five.

  Out of the 25 100m readings, in fact, over half (14) were
zero.

  True, both days were unusually calm. But not calm enough,
because out of 87 readings in all track races there were no
others within 0.5 m/s of zero, in either direction. That is,
they were always over +0.5, under -0.5, or zero.

  Twelve months earlier and 1000 km away, using a similar
integrated setup and same brands of software, there were
also five successive zeros on a day when, as at
Indianapolis, winds were gusting over 5 m/s.

  A possible explanation of all these aberrations is that
the anemometers were automatically resetting to zero before
the real reading had been registered.

  Alternatively (or additionally) program errors may be
affecting the resetting process. Such errors are the reason
why virtually all digital timers are inaccurate in varying
degrees, even timing an interval of one second. That would
also help explain the following succession of readings at
the earlier NZ meet: 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8.

  Statistics of 13,000 wind readings over a period of 50
years suggest that even at NZ's least windy tracks the odds
of having five genuine zeros would be over 800 million to 1
against. So any meet referee encountering more than an
occasional zero would be wise to disconnect the anemometer
and have it operated by an intelligent human.

  In a recent BBC documentary, researchers into "artificial
intelligence" cheerfully admitted that programs can be so
complex that no human being can properly understand them
or predict how they will behave. (Some would say the same
applies to a great deal of reach-me-down software!)  And
computers, of course, are no more infallible than the people
who instruct them.

  Since it is now obvious that automatic equipment is prone
to phony zeros, and that whether or not it is operating as
intended is no guarantee of accuracy, the IAAF no longer has
any reason not to remove Flo-Jo's 10.49 from the record
book.

  More importantly, the designers of such equipment no
longer have any reason to be satisfied with it, and would be
well advised to institute reviews just in case somebody's
algorithms have succumbed to his biorhythms.


- "that horse's ass, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl

t-and-f: We have a winner!

[P N Heidenstrom]

Ah, but who was the first Afro-American to run
the mile in a world record time?

t-and-f: Running afoul of copyright?

[P N Heidenstrom]

Last June, to a netter seeking a site with
all-time high school lists, Walt Murphy wrote:

"I know this might strike terror into the hearts
of those who think that everything should be free,
but you can still buy copies of Jack Shepard's . .
. ."

Now a US coach, Ross Dunton of Tennessee, appears
to have run afoul of copyright.

As Walt hints and Mr Dunton may be discovering,
copyright is not yet dead and still carries a
nasty sting in its tail. A good time for some
brief notes that may help members understand their
rights and obligations under copyright law.

In a nutshell:

1. You must not try to save yourself work by
copying the work of others.

2. If you do so without authority it can be very
costly.

3. Copying a copy does not let you off the hook.

4. Nor does adding to or amending the original, or
copying only a small part.

5. You copy at your own risk.

If you are unsure, ask yourself . . .

 is the material a compilation?

 is the material original?

 is the part to be copied a substantial part?

If all the answers are YES, then the material is
copyright and it would be breaking the law to
reproduce all or part of it without the permission
of the owner.

Unlike patents, copyright is automatic and applies
immediately in most of the world. There is no
application and no waiting time.

Usually the author is the first owner of the
copyright unless he does the work in the course of
his employment, in which event the employer is the
first owner.

The owner may give you permission to copy, or sell
you permission, or refuse you permission. He may
also assign the copyright (in writing only), or
waive it. No-one else can do those things. And
permission is not transferable.

The copyright symbol, a small "c" within a circle,
is a warning that the owner reserves the
copyright. But its absence is not a licence to
copy.

What matters is the material, not where it is
copied from. So it is no defence to say you copied
an author's work from another source (say, a
website) that copied it first. You copy at your
own risk.

This also means that if you own a website you will
not be able to prevent others from helping
themselves to its contents and on-selling them.
(The technical term is "poetic justice".) Only the
true copyright owner is protected.

What constitutes a "substantial" part is not
defined because it varies from case to case. The
courts have punished someone who took only 1% of
another's work. Here are some guiding principles:

1. What is worth copying is, on the face of it,
worth protecting. (So it is probably safe to copy
anything not worth copying!)

2. You cannot evade copyright by adding extra
material or making alterations.

3. The great majority of the work may be your own,
but if it cannot stand without a small part you
have copied, the latter will still be a
substantial part.

4. There is no ban on producing exactly the same
compilation as someone else before you, but you
must be able to prove you have done for yourself
what he did earlier.

If you infringe someone's copyright the courts can
make you pay damages and order infringing articles
(e.g. computers and disks) to be handed over for
destruction.

A novel format or arrangement (e.g. of web pages)
can also be copyright.

You become liable when you reproduce copied
material, even if you do not advertise or sell
any.

An aggrieved copyright owner must be able to prove
copying. Authors should therefore try to leave
"fingerprints" on their work - such as details
(especially fictional ones!) that could not be
known to a copier. Authors should enquire whether
they can (or even must) deposit a copy of each
work in an official library as a means of proving
ownership.

WARNING: Many things may be copyright besides
compilations, which are singled out here because
they are of special interest to members of
t-and-f-list. Also, copyright law can differ in
detail from country to country and is changing
rapidly in the information age.

So these notes are general, and must NOT be taken
as legal advice, which should be obtained in your
own country - preferably (in my experience as a
successful litigant) from a lawyer specialising in
the subject. If in doubt, play safe and contact
the copyright owner first. As well as being the
ethical way, it should also prove the cheapest.
Lawyers and court cases can be extremely costly.

There are some who see the internet as the freedom
highway, where anything goes and everyone is fair
game. But anyone who steals intellectual property
is just as much a thief as one who steals money or
goods. Moreover, if authors spend time, skill, or
money to inform or entertain us only to see their
work pirated by freeloaders, they will be less
ready to share it with us in the future, or even
to produce it at all. Then we all lose.

P N Heidenstrom


t-and-f: We don't got no winner!

[P N Heidenstrom]

Why we don't got no winner? Maybe no-one don't
know. Maybe no-one don't care. Maybe there ain't
never been one, and John Entine's theory is right.
Play it again, John.

t-and-f: Now if more people had balls like these . . . .

[P N Heidenstrom]

>Agence France-Presse

>LIEVEN, France (February 21, 2002 02:12 PM EST) - The controversial
>Russian distance runner Olga Yegorova has not been invited to run in
>Sunday's indoor athletics meeting because she failed to meet the
>organizers' "family-friendly" criteria.

A French promoter has also hit on the idea I tried to put to
this list a couple of years ago (but no-one was interested).

Simply carry this decision a little further and all the legal problems
concerning anti-drug rules that US members get so uptight about would
be solved overnight. 

But first just stop talking and think. The answer should not be too
difficult to see.

P N H

t-and-f: New WMA site

[P N Heidenstrom]

Way to go, WMA. Get shot of that sexist word
"master", which ignores over half of all vets, but
keep that site the way it's going. Health,
friendship, and self-expression is what the sport
is about, so spare us the minutes of meetings, the
flannel from fishheads, the advertorials, the
merchandising, and above all the pizzazz.

(A scholarly American friend confides that pizzazz
was originally two words in which, by some kind of
Grimm's law, the four terminal letters have
changed from s to z.)

Most vets are too old and wise to stuff themselves
with Coke, Marlboro, McDollops, and other dog
tucker - or to want those brands latching on to a
healthy way of life. So dump the sponsors too.

Remember the W in WMA means WORLD, and think
international. One hesitates to question the
sanctity of an icon, but don't give us one of
those college sites with the visual appeal of
downtown Las Vegas on New Year's Eve.

t-and-f: Relay bulges

[P N Heidenstrom]

To the many members of this list who must 
coach 4*100m relay teams: My question is, do
you have a standard bulge, or an initial trial bulge which
you then vary to suit the runners in practice? If so, what
is the distance of the bulge?

"Bulge" is used here to mean the distance (measured
along the lane of your relay team) by which the outgoing
partner in a baton handover starts ahead of the incoming
partner so that both (hopefully) reach the chosen handover
point together.

I would like to know as many different choices of bulge as
possible, or even that you don't direct the runners but let
them work out their own bulges in fear and trembling.

If there are any replies, a summary of them will be posted
later, or individual summaries will be sent to respondents.
Please reply direct to me, not to the list.

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: No M40 record for Danny Martinez

[P N Heidenstrom]

Anyone who is so uncertain of his opinions (or himself)
that he must hide behind an alias is not worth listening
to at any time. 

When he is a sniper as well, it is a blot on this list and
those who allow it.

P N Heidenstrom

=
previously on t-and-f :-

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 13:13:01 -0700
From: "Paul Banta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: t-and-f: No M40 record for Danny Martinez

If you block Malmo, then there is nothing interesting on the t-and-f
list. His messages seem to me to be right on the point most every time.

Paul

- -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Geoff Pietsch
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 8:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: t-and-f: No M40 record for Danny Martinez

   A suggestion concerning Malmo - and other intentionally
obnoxious/nasty 
posters: use block sender. I did for Malmo. It works! Delightful.  Geoff

t-and-f: Mime-Version: 1.0

[P N Heidenstrom]

The work of Nick Linthorne has been extended by
that of Tony Ward-Smith in Britain. Neither included
combined wind+altitude conversions in his published
papers. The only researcher who did is Jesus Dapena
(Indiana U.) Tables based on his research appeared
in TFN's "LITTLE Green Book".

=
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:04:31 -0500
From: "Wayne T. Armbrust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t-and-f: 9.85w by Fredericks

The effect of wind alone will be less, but the combined effect of wind
and altitude will be greater than that of a 3.0 m/s wind at sea level.
The assistance due to both will be less than the sum of the two in the
absence of the other.  This was discussed on this list quite extensively
almost exactly four years ago to the day.  Several people, including
myself, have studied this question over the years.  The latest and best
information on the subject is the work of Dr. Nick Linthorne from
Australia.  Unless I am mistaken, a table of the combined effects of
wind and altitude is contained in the Big Green Book sold by T&FN.

t-and-f: 9.85w by Fredericks

[P N Heidenstrom]

On Sun, 26 May 2002 17:57:23 -0500
"Wayne T. Armbrust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>P N Heidenstrom wrote:

>> The work of Nick Linthorne has been extended by
>> that of Tony Ward-Smith in Britain. Neither included
>> combined wind+altitude conversions in his published
>> papers. The only researcher who did is Jesus Dapena
>> (Indiana U.) Tables based on his research appeared
>> in TFN's "LITTLE Green Book".
>

>They call it the BIG Green Book now.  See the advertisement on pate 21 of
>the December 2001 T&FN.

- --
Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--

My mistake. I think Wayne is right that tables based on
Jesus Dapena's research into wind+altitude in 100m
sprints have been published in the BIG Green Book.

Certainly the tables in the LITTLE Green Book were based on
now outdated 1920s research which overlooked crucial dynamic
artefacts. As the provider of that information I ought to advise
anyone who has the LGB to make a note that it is now
superseded.

My apologies if anyone has been sent down the wrong
path.

Using Ward-Smith's wind formula and Dapena's altitude
formula, Fredericks' 9.85 with a wind of 3+0 at altitude
1675m is equivalent to 10.027 in still air at sea level.

Incidentally Wayne Armbrust was the first person to my
knowledge to propose the elegant concept of combining
the two factors (wind and altitude) into one "equivalent
wind" which could then be used to "adjust" actual times
and approximate their value as if the race had taken
place in still air at sea level. 

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: 9.85w by Fredericks

[P N Heidenstrom]

On Tue, 28 May 2002 10:57:53 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Actually, with all due respect to those involved, the first person to 
actually understand this problem was Don Potts back in 1955.  I well remember 
discussing these matters with Don as a grad student back in 1969.  He 
actually had a table which included the rudimentary efforts at combining wind 
and altitude.  In those days, there were very few of us who cared or 
understood the physics of the problem.  Don was simply too modest to publish 
most of this material but I have it all as a result of the acquisition of his 
library.
Scott Davis
--

Don Potts's contributions to track and field statistics and history
were indeed monumental and covered many aspects of the sport.
He was also very generous in his acknowledgement of the work
of others, and would have been full of praise for the researches
of the British biochemist A V Hill 30 years earlier had he been
aware of them.

Hill was the father of exercise physiology, one of his many
discoveries being the mechanism that causes fatigue in muscles
 - something that affects every athlete - for which he received a 
Nobel in 1922. While a visiting professor at Cornell (where one of
his subjects was three-time IC4A champion Henry Russell) he 
also investigated the influence of wind on a sprinter. He had all the
numbers, meaning that he produced the formulas which made it
possible later for anyone who did the arithmetic to produce tables
"adjusting" (compensating) actual times for wind, altitude, or both. 

Hill's researches were not revisited for another 60 years, which
shows how far ahead of his time he was. (He died in 1977.) Most 
of the story from then on may be followed up in the 1991 and 
1993 editions of the  ATFS annual.

It's important to keep the historical record straight, and I hope
this will help to do so.

P N Heidenstrom

t-and-f: Women's decathlon?

[P N Heidenstrom]

The event is now recognised as official by the IAAF,
Roger. Apparently the first world records will be 
ratified  after 2003 December 31 when the event has 
settled down. 

If you intend holding a competition, it is worth
mentioning that the new table for the 100m (women)
has become garbled. Below 15.49s (392 points) it
changes into the bottom section of the men's 100m
so that 15.50s gets only 133 points. Presumably the
IAAF will only need to reissue a couple of replacement
pages.

Maybe after all I should send a cc to the list in case 
someone decides to hold a competition during the 
Northern  Hemisphere summer, before the table is 
corrected.

== Original message 

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:21:44 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Ruth)
Subject: t-and-f: Women's Decathlon?

Does anyone know what progress is being made toward establishing the
decathlon as a women's event? Are any plans underway for holding decathlon
competitions in the 2003 season? Have any already been held?

In part, my interest stems from knowing of several current vaulters
(including Stacy Dragila) who moved to the vault after earlier specializing
in the heptathlon. It seems to me that the big advantage they would hold in
that one of the events to be added to the heptathlon program would make it
of special interest to them.

Answer off-list, if you like, but there may be other subscribers who would
be interested in this information.

Cheers,
Roger

t-and-f: Bob Hayes's 8.6 (LONG)

[P N Heidenstrom]

  Sports Illustrated's admission of responsibility for Bob
Hayes's reputed 8.6s anchor leg at the Tokyo Olympics opens
up an interesting view of its feasibility.

  Did SI's reporter wait opposite the mid-line of the fourth
passing zone, start his watch as Hayes arrived, dash 100m to
the right, and stop his watch at 8.6s as Hayes reached the
finish? I don't think so. Therefore he must have used the
standard method of those days by waiting opposite the
passing zone, starting his watch at the gun, stopping it as
Hayes reached the mid-line, and deducting that time from the
official winning time. Since 8.6s is the remainder from
39.0s, SI's time must have been 30.4s.

  The distinction is important because, before Tokyo, the
30.4s would have been a TRUE time - with two built-in
deficits due to anticipation by both the SI reporter and the
official timekeepers at the finish. But the 39.0s (which we
now know was 39.05s rounded down according to the rules of
the day, and 39.06s on today's rule) was a fully automatic
time (FAT), without the anticipation that shortened the SI
time. SI's split and the winning time are not comparable
unless some recalculation is done.

  Comparison of automatic and manual times for races where
starter and timekeepers were 100m apart (actually at the
1972 Olympics) showed an average discrepancy of 0.24s, which
was adopted by the IAAF as the "official" conversion factor.
It is the best we have. It must be added to the SI time.

  Add 0.24s to the SI time: 30.4s + 0.24s = 30.64s

  From the official time subtract the new SI time:
  39.06s - 30.64s = 8.42s

  Compare that time for 100m in the relay with Hayes's true
time in the 100m final, now known to be 10.05s. The
difference is 1.63s and is due to the fact that Hayes had a
running start in the relay.

  The best evidence available suggests that for top 100m
sprinters a running start is worth close to 1.1s on average
- and apparently irrespective of the decade. (The evidence
is long and involved, but is available to anyone who would
like to study it. Please e-mail me off-line.)

  For a sprinter with a comparatively slow pick-up - in fact
Carl Lewis - the advantage could rise to 1.2s. But Hayes
displayed a super-fast pickup at Tokyo, so we should expect
the advantage in his case to be less than 1.1s - maybe even
1.0s. Hardly the 1.63s that SI would have us believe.

  This does not cast doubt on reports that Hayes gained 6m
compared with third-placed France in that relay. It compares
Hayes with Hayes.  But it suggests that SI's watch was about
0.5s fast, that Hayes's legendary 8.6s belongs in the same
category as Flo-Jo's 10.49s and should be revised to, say,
9.1s. (Pace Justin Clouder.)

  P.S. The 100m final was aided by a 1.05 m/s wind, worth
0.07s according to the latest research (by Tony Ward-Smith).
Unfortunately no-one thought to measure the wind during the
relay.

t-and-f: Even RARER books for sale

[P N Heidenstrom]

FOR SALE

Archie's Little Black Book, 1953 Edition - S, XF, 100 pgs.,
RARE (signed by Archie - which he did for every copy sold).
New price $1.00
 AND
Archie's Little Black Book, 1959 Edition - S, XF. 90 pgs.THIS
COPY IS NOT MERELY RARE, BUT UNIQUE AND PRICELESS -
being a pre-release copy, signed person-to-person by Archie,
with his messages of thanks, plus in-text acknowledgements. 
World-wide, a maximum of five such copies were ever issued.
Original price $1.00.

ELSEWHERE PRICED AT $50.

My price $0.02 (one cent each) for anybody who cares to pay the
postage from New Zealand.

Apply off-line. First come, first served.

This is a genuine offer for genuine fans -
NO SCALPERS PLEASE.

WHY PAY $50 ? ? ?

t-and-f: Even RARER books for sale

[P N Heidenstrom]

Scott Davis calls into question the honesty of my advertisement
for a certain copy of "Archie's Little Black Book 1959". That
must be answered.

Mr Richardson wrote a personal message in some copies
acknowledging the addressee's part in a committee that
conducted an international goodwill correspondence team
championship for boys under 19. There were six members of the
committee. Since Archie was himself one of them, and would
hardly have been likely to write a thank-you to himself, that left
a maximum of five such copies. 

This can be expressed as

6 - 1 = 5.

Q. E. D. 


As to the reference to membership in ATFS - so what? Was that
any worse than having been a member of the Communist Party,
which some now respectable people were at one time?  Many of
us have committed youthful indiscretions and been trying to live
them down for the next 50 years or more. To drag up somebody's
past after all that time is hitting below the belt, isn't it?

===
On  Mon, 04 Nov 2002 12:58:01 -0800
Scott Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote to t-and-f list:
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Even RARER books for sale

I was quite disappointed to get this message from you.  First, I need to
correct your information.  You are incorrect when you say that Archie
signed all of his books.  This is completely flase.  In fact, of the
some odd 40-50 of his books that I have bought and sold over the years,
at least 75% of them were NOT signed.  Also, your statement about the
1959 edition is not right.  I currently have two of the copies and you
claim to have a third; I would be interested in hearing from the other
TWO people who own a copy.  The book is quite scarce but there are more
than five available, I assure you.

I am quite offened by your statement which indicates you will not sell
to scalpers, implying that I may be one.  You should know that I have
bought and sold some of the largest libraries and collections available
in the US and world wide over the past 25 years, including the Amos
Alonzo Stagg collection, the Maxwell Stiles collection and the holdings
from the Robert Kaiser estate.  I am well familar with the scarcity of
certain items and their associated value.  I sell material to true track
fans at very reasonable prices.  I have always worked on the theory that
if I can buy something at a very reasonable price then I will sell it at
a very reasonable price.  As an example, and I have not yet advertised
this book, I have a copy from Don's collection of the 1912 Swedish
Olympic report.  This is a scarce book to say the least.  I purchased
my  copy of this book in Stockholm some years back for 350 US dollars.
It is well worth 500-600 US dollars at this time.  However, I will sell
Don's copy some day for right around 150-200 US dollars once I find a
fan who is truly interested in having the copy once owned by the
maestro.

Again, regarding the Potts material, you should know that I am trying to
place as many of these of these items in the hands of true track fans
who appreciate the fact that they were once owned by Don.  The money is
going to the Potts family, not to me.  I am taking only my expenses for
postage and shipping cartons.  And I am putting very low prices on these
items for those very reasons.  If you want to sell your copies of the
Little Black Book for a penny each, that is totally up to you.  But your
implications of what I am trying to do with Don's copies are simply
unacceptable.

Finally, since you are a former ATFS member and someone who knew Don, I
am saddened that you would think I would dishonor his memory by selling
off his material for his family at "scalpers" prices.

Sincerely,

Scott Davis
Secretary General - ATFS, President - FAST

t-and-f: Long jump with a flip

[P N Heidenstrom]

Some more, for those interested in a little US/NZ history.

When John Delamere jumped 25' 6"3/4 at the 1974 Pacific
Conference meet he tied with Randy Williams, the reigning
Olympic champ. He did not just wow the crowd; the officials
at the pit suddenly became speechless. John's best legal 
jump otherwise (he cleared a windy 25' 9"1/2 in 1973) is 
7.53m,  so you COULD say that the vault style improved 
his distance by 10"1/4.

John likes to be known these days as Tuariki John Delamere
because of his Maori ancestry. He joined the ITA circus in
1975 and was amateured in 1982 after the change in the
IAAF's attitude to professionalism. Later he became a
Cabinet Minister, becoming only the second NZ track and
field champion to reach that rank.

The first happened to be also a Maori and a LJ champion,
Te Rangi Hiroa alias Sir Peter Buck. Older scholars may
recall him as Professor of Anthropology at Yale.

The only reason so far advanced for why the IAAF banned
the Flip was its supposed danger. But they allowed the HJ
Flop, which sometimes develops into a somersault, albeit
a reverse one, with similar or greater dangers. Moreover
the Flop had an enormous impact on HJ standards, surely
far greater than the O'Brien or Oldfield SP styles had, or the
Flip might have. Has anyone done a study to find more
clearly what effect the Flip might indeed have had?

==
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:16:05 -0800
Garry Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Subject: Re: t-and-f: long jump with a flip

A quick history, just off the top of my head: Idaho State coach Dave Nielsen
is pictured in the pages of T&FN around '73 using the technique. At the '74
Pac-8 meet in the LA Coliseum, John Delamere of Washington State absolutely
blew the crowd away by using the style. As I recall, jumped somehting like
25-4 3/4 wind-aided. In '75 Bruce Jenner used it and added about a foot to
his best, but the IAAF shortly thereafter banned the technique, citing
"safety issues." I think they were premature in so doing.

I think Delamere went on to become a member of the New Zealand parliament.

gh 

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:16:05 -0800
From: ghill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t-and-f: long jump with a flip

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:57:36 -0500 (CDT)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: t-and-f: long jump with a flip
> 
> Someone who knows far more about track than I do wrote:
> 
>> I seem to recall that long jump with a flip looked like a mechanical
>> improvement before it was banned.
> 
> That must have been a truly revolutionary technique.  Who was doing it, and
> when, and how far?  >

A quick history, just off the top of my head: Idaho State coach Dave Nielsen
is pictured in the pages of T&FN around '73 using the technique. At the '74
Pac-8 meet in the LA Coliseum, John Delamere of Washington State absolutely
blew the crowd away by using the style. As I recall, jumped somehting like
25-4 3/4 wind-aided. In '75 Bruce Jenner used it and added about a foot to
his best, but the IAAF shortly thereafter banned the technique, citing
"safety issues." I think they were premature in so doing.

I think Delamere went on to become a member of the New Zealand parliament.

gh 

Re: t-and-f: long jump

[P N Heidenstrom]

The IAAF handbook for 1965-66 said (at rule 148.4.d):

Records in field events must be measured by three field
judges with a certified steel tape graduated in centimetres,
or by a scientific apparatus . . . . Measurements for world
records for field events must be MADE [my emphasis]
and submitted in metres to the nearest centimetre below,
except that in the case of the discus, javelin, and hammer
throws . . . 

I do not have the 1963-64 handbook, but the 1961-62 edition
allowed the tape to be graduated in either centimetres or
quarters of an inch, so the change must have been made in
1962 or 1964. Nearly 40 years later, surely it's time the tail
stopped trying to wag the dog over this issue?

If the Modesto judges used the wrong tape they may well
have robbed Boston of a record at 8.36. That's because 27'5"
has an average value of 27'5"1/8, which is universally equal
to exactly 8.359775m. So there is a 50% probability that a
jump measured as 27'5" according to the old rule would have
been credited as 8.36m if measured according to the "new" one.

Statisticians are not usually a pain in the arse - they are
numerically literate enough to understand metric measures.
But some others - who don't - are.


on Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:23:25 -0800
ghill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Long jump

Hmmm, once a statistian, always a statistican (aka, pain in the ass).

This raises an interesting bit of history that I can't pin down from exactly
at this point, but I know that conversion table say 8.35 is equal to
27-4 3/4, not 27-5. I also know that Boston jumped 27-5.

In looking at old T&FN Annual Editions (when I was still just a lad) I see
that at one point they list Boston as the AR holder at 27-5 and WR holder at
27-04 3/4, so I have to assume that was in the era where the IAAF was still
recognizing WRs in English measure, but chose to round down to the mtric
equivalent. ???

Anybody have any good facts on this dichotomy?

gh

t-and-f: Pseudo-techno-crap

[P N Heidenstrom]

1. This is a commercial advertisement and as such is
expessely forbidden by this list charter. Mr Entine has
sailed near the wind and been roundly condemned by
many on this list (while Mr Scott Davis has clearly
infringed and continues to get away with it.) But this is
blatant touting for business - if members do nothing,
raise no objection, the list can look forward to being
swamped with what can only be described in that grisly
expression, "infomercials".

2. It's also pseudo-techno-crap. Reaction time has no
correlation with a sprinter's final time - unless it is
a negative one.  When reaction-time systems began to be
used in the early 90s the first artifact they showed up was
two or three New Zealand 100m runners having easily the
fastest RTs at world junior champs - and finishing last -
while the US sprinters - who placed highest in the fields -
typically had the slowest RTs.

So much so that some coaches and bio-mechanics experts
suggested this supported the old maxim, "More haste, less
speed" and showed that control, not quick reacting, was the
key to fast overall sprint times. Some sprinters were impressed
enough  with the comparisons as to "slow down" the early
stages of their races in favour of control, and found their final
times improved accordingly. Of course these were not
controlled experiments, which would be necessary to prove
any correlation or otherwise. But the athletes themselves were
convinced enough to reject the sort of claims made in this
advertising.

The greatest sprinter of all time (in terms of records as well
as world and Olympic titles) was Carl Lewis - consistently
a far slower starter than his opponents. Did he worry about
that failing (if it was a failing?). Has anyone ever speculated
on what his times might have been had he worked on his
start? Did his coaches complain loudly? Was he a great
sprinter in spite of his slow start, or a great sprinter because
of his slow start? 

We need answers. We don't need press releases - this list
is not the press, anyway - certainly not badly-written spam
put about by people whose only concern is to make a fast buck. 


 <  PRESS RELEASE 

t-and-f: Pseudo-techno-crap

[P N Heidenstrom]

I'm glad to be able to post Mr Norton's email as he
suggests.
P N H

==
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:26:50 -0500
>From: Giles Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en,x-ns1ZHJFQ0M9Nh4,x-ns2Vb60bt0F638,ko
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: t-and-f: Pseudo-techno-crap
>
>Dear Mr. Heidenstrom,
>
>A couple of points in response to your post on the track list.
>
> I am unable to post to this list so perhaps you could post this on my
>behalf?
>
>I was totally unaware that a press release that I approved on behalf of
>Lynx System Developers, Inc. was going to be used for any other purpose
>than to help attract young athletes to a Sprint Clinic hosted by Carl
>Lewis. The intention of our participation in the clinic was to give
>coaches and athletes the chance to work with the same false-start
>detection technology that is currently being used at many IAAF meets,
>and to present them with a chance to make their own decisions as to the
>value of the data this technology can produce when it is integrated into
>a sprinter's training program.
>
>The fact that this Release made its way onto this forum is something
>over which I had no control and which took the information away from
>the context for which it was intended. I hope that this makes our
>position clear. I apologize if you or others viewed the posting as an
>'infomercial.'
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>-- 
>Giles.
>
>
>
>
>Giles Norton Director of Corporate Communication
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
>Lynx System Developers, Inc   1-800-989-5969
>175N New Boston Street   Fax: (781) 938-0580
>WoburnMA 01801
>
>   Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus 
> ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
>
>
>