Conway says:
>Thank you for the defense .. That was exactly my intent ... Those benefits
>as named are all secondary ... I am referring to the benefit to the
>athletes directly ... I am not sure that we should get into the game of
>changing the rules to benefit the fans<<<
Why not? Why not change the rules to benefit the fans? People seem to
forget that in pro track it is the ticket-buying, Nike-wearing,
Gatorade-drinking, Powerbar-eating, TV-watching FANS that, either directly
or indirectly, fund the entire enterprise.
If all the track fans in the world somehow disappeared next Monday, all of
Maurice Greene's big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsement contracts
would be gone by Thursday. He could still train just as hard and run world
record sprint times if he wanted to, but without fans he'd simply be doing
it in obscurity and poverty.
And in any event, it's not the pleasing fans, per se, that I'm interested in
- it's improving the sport. And improving the sport is what the proposed
false start rule seeks to do - that's why I favor it.
Pleasing the fans and making meets more TV-friendly are very likely good
ideas. People bewail the state of the sport, but as soon as someone tries
to do something to fix it, traditionalists and purists are all aghast:
"We've always allowed false starts at big meets. If we ban them now things
will be...well, DIFFERENT!" Well, maybe a little different is what we need.
>Yeah right ... IN seriousness ... The fans will come to see a quality
>product .. The rules should be made so that the athletes can compete
>maximally thereby providing a quality product<<<
Right, and I think you will agree that an overly-long meet running behind
schedule and riddled with false starts is a low quality product. Stamping
out false starts will not cure all of tracks ills, but it is a step in the
right direction.
Kurt Bray
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
