Linford's accuracy is one thing, but this rule has always seemed to negate
the essence of the sport to me. Saying that it's impossible to react faster
than 0.1 seems like an artificial limit, somewhat like saying that it's
impossible to run 100m in faster than 10.0 or a mile faster than 4:00. To
me, as long as you start after the gun, it's fair. As such, I thought that
Linford should have been fair in Atlanta, and has a right to feel
frustrated, wildly inaccurate though he may be.
Mark Haubner
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:47:02 +0100
From: Randall Northam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Linford Christie interview
on 29/7/01 4:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This can't go unremarked. The IAAF rule, far as I can recall, has always
been
> 0.1. The Johnson stuff is pure hokum. Borzov had a string of 0.12s in
Munich
> in '72, with no hint of any false starting, to say that the IAAF
introduced
> false-start technology a decade or so later and had an 0.5 rule transcends
> ludicrous.
>
> Of course Christie was quicker than 0.1 in Atlanta. He also false-started
at
> the time.
>
> gh
Linford Christie has always reacted faster than he can think
Randall Northam
