Re: t-and-f: chip vs. gun times at Chicago

2002-10-14 Thread Martin J. Dixon
They have adjusted the chip times from yesterday to today. The 42nd place finisher, for example, had a 25 second differential yesterday and now it is 5 seconds. The chip time has been increased. Regards, Martin "Post, Marty" wrote: > I might have missed some of the follow-up conversation on this

RE: t-and-f: chip vs. gun times at Chicago

2002-10-14 Thread Post, Marty
I might have missed some of the follow-up conversation on this but I do not see where you are getting this information from. I am looking at a set of results from the press room and the following is a sample of the times: Place/Name/Chip Time/Gun Time 11. Ben Kimondiu/2:13:55/2:13:57 12. Kyle B

Re: t-and-f: chip vs. gun times at Chicago

2002-10-13 Thread ghill
on 10/13/02 14:08, malmo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Your computer screen goes blue and doesn't work sometimes, > right?>> Not if you have a Mac :-) gh

RE: t-and-f: chip vs. gun times at Chicago

2002-10-13 Thread malmo
Culpepper too! Think "outside of the chip". You're looking for a logical answer. There is none. Your computer screen goes blue and doesn't work sometimes, right? Chips in there. No answers. No sense in looking for one either. Shrimp Plate $1.99 malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PR

Re: t-and-f: chip vs. gun times at Chicago

2002-10-13 Thread Benji Durden
> Looking at the Chicago results, virtually every person outside the top ten, > including names like Kimondiu, de la Cerda, Dowling, Cox, and Shay, had gun > times that were 20-25 seconds slower than their chip times. > > I've seen pictures of the Boston start, and heard similar stories from New