Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Netters Darrell wrote: > The good thing is that the sprinters know this, > and it enables them to tolerate the ignorance that comes from the peanut > gallery. Oh now isn't that a nice statement! :) Let them eat cake! "scratch a liberal and you know what you find under his skin? An aris

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated 03/21/2001 3:54:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You have left a lot of people disillusioned with HSI as a result of your aggressive and patronizing intervention in this debate. Key word is aggressive.  Something that is clearly foreign to this collect

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

http://www.csuchico.edu/psy/BioPsych/neurotransmission.html Look that up in your Guyton and Ganong!!! malmo > The limiting factor for reaction time is not due to the speed of > the impulse through the nerve fibers (an electrical event, hence > very fast-instantaneous for purposes of this d

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated 3/21/01 6:36:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Taking your tiny, statistically irrelevant sample of reaction times, you > > yourself are able to point to three occasions on which you have managed a > > reaction time of 0.1, out of how many races in y

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated 3/21/01 6:36:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Taking your tiny, statistically irrelevant sample of reaction times, you > > yourself are able to point to three occasions on which you have managed a > > reaction time of 0.1, out of how many races in y

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated 3/21/2001 6:36:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PS Every time you or Darrell sends one of your blatantly self-interested posts, you lose respect and fans, although it's clear from your other posts that you don't give a fuck about that. You have left a

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated 3/21/01 4:04:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you are going to insult people you could at least have the balls to sign your name.   Insult people!  Excuse me, but I was the one being attacked, Taking your tiny, statistically irrelevant sample o

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated 3/21/2001 4:34:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why try to eliminate false starts??? Its all part of the sport:- people trying to get as fast out of the blocks as possible...there are bound to be mistakes yeah...why is that s hard for others (suppose

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Justin Clouder wrote: There are very very few > reactions in the 0.1 to 0.12 range, if any. There > has never been evidence of > any athlete, even you Mr Drummond, being able to > react faster than 0.1. At some point in the past someone could have written the following: "There are very very f

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Why try to eliminate false starts??? Its all part of the sport:- people trying to get as fast out of the blocks as possible...there are bound to be mistakes. Sean --- "Wayne T. Armbrust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever that is) wrote: > > > I read, but very r

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Quoting particular examples of apparently very short reaction times proves absolutely nothing. As has been pointed out, there can be many distractions after the "set" command which could lead to a start in anticipation of the gun. Thus you would actually expect some very low readings due to this

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Gary wrote:   It's not a controlled scientific study   I can't argue with any stat, but as you said this wasn't a controlled scientific study.  I am not arguing reaction time, as I have said, I have no problem with the .100.  I am arguing that the new false start rule will be an unfair

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:31:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I think I am accurate in saying that the reaction time is unresearched because the last time it's been researched, as you have stated, was up through 1980's. It's 2001. The world record has

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

>Perhaps they have microneural transplant splices surgically implanted at >the neural junctions. Nanotechnology - the future of track? > >Don It might be easier to just exercise mind control over the starter, so that he fires the gun exactly WHEN YOU WANT HIM TO. ---Madame Clio, now available a

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Thomas wrote: < While I can agree with much of what you say -- and I am today a very active starter at major events -- this statement is indeed "shooting from the hip" and just not true! Where do you arrive at this conclusion? From what body of evidence? Last year(?) when this was a threa

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

The limiting factor for reaction time is not due to the speed of the impulse through the nerve fibers (an electrical event, hence very fast-instantaneous for purposes of this discussion), but to the transmission of the impulse from one nerve cell to another, or between nerves and muscles (a che

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Netters Brian Wrote: > After reading this I get the feeling that [EMAIL PROTECTED] > and [EMAIL PROTECTED] might > really be the same clown ... err, I mean person. No, that is really Jon's adress I have it from another source.

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

 I must say you need to do more research.  I have reacted .100, .101, and .102 in my career.  I also have reacted with consistany .112.  Infact, Ato Boldon posted a .054 in Gotenburg, Sweden in the finals of the mens 100m in 1995.  Others in Gotenburg have also posted reaction times under

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Justin says: >As I understand it there has never been a test done among any group which >showed a reaction time to aural stimulus of less than a fifth of a second. >Top class athletes are thus allowed to react twice as fast as anyone else >has ever been shown to do. That, to me, is more than gene

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

CPoTaF = "Clown Prince of Track & Field"...Jon Drummond? s.devereaux       "Mcewen, Brian T" wrote:  After reading this I get the feeling that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] might really be the same clown ... err, I mean person. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailt

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

After reading this I get the feeling that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] might really be the same clown ... err, I mean person. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:58 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: t-and

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001 2:17:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << 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

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Wayne wrote: > >What is your suggestion, Prince, on how to eliminate false starts?< > > Ý You can't! ÝShould every distance runner be expelled from the > race if > they touch or push a runner? ÝCome on, get serious, it's part of the > game. > ÝThe 2 false start ru

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Justin says: >As I understand it there has never been a test done among any group which >showed a reaction time to aural stimulus of less than a fifth of a second. >Top class athletes are thus allowed to react twice as fast as anyone else >has ever been shown to do. That, to me, is more than gene

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Hi All On this point: > >My understanding is that this has been extensively researched, with a > generous allowance made below the fastest reaction tested.< > > You're correct, but this test was done on military men, not > athletes! > As I understand it there has never been a test do

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

Wayne wrote: >What is your suggestion, Prince, on how to eliminate false starts?<   You can't!  Should every distance runner be expelled from the race if they touch or push a runner?  Come on, get serious, it's part of the game.  The 2 false start rule aids that purpose.  Very rarely do you

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever that is) wrote: > I read, but very rarely do I feel the need to post. All you > armchair > athletes have the audacity to sit here and say that false starting is > unsportmanlike conduct?!? LOL Give me a break. I've also read that > it is > unfair to anticipat