Well, you have a point, although I doubt that a preponderance, meaning a greater
number, of shot putters have disdain for the no steroid rule. Quite the opposite, I'm
sure. Nevertheless, even the alphabetical experts would
do well to seek in put from the athletes. As regards the no false start rule, for
example, I was speaking with a good sprinter whose opinion I respect quite a bit and
he stated categorically that he felt that the no false rule was fairer for the
sprinters and better for the fans and meet administration. He mentioned that some
athletes who have developed the fine art of a rolling start might be fiercely against
the no false
start because they would thereby lose a bit of an edge.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated Fri, 23 Mar 2001 3:35:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, lehane
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> << How would these athletes rate the two methods?
> If a preponderance of sprinter/hurdlers have disdain for the no false start rule,
>then we should know that and should respect that. >>
>
> I'm all for athletes' rights (and T&FN has long been in the forefront of championing
>them), but I'm not sure I buy Bruce's statement. I'd say that results through the
>years have indicated that perhaps a preponderance of shot putters have disdain for
>the no-steroids rule. I bet every high jumper and pole vaulter would love 4
>attempts--nah, make that 5-- at every height. And that every javelin thrower would
>love 8-10 attempts.
>
> I think too often you'd find that athletes have too tight a view of their specific
>event, with not much of a perception of the larger picture. The IAAF (and other
>alphabet-soup bodies) may not get it right, but I think having a group of experts
>("experts"?) whose job it is to study such things is the lesser of two evils.
>
> gh
