On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Dan Kaplan wrote:
> That's all well and good, but where does it get us beyond mental
> gymnastics? Should we also analyze which of the two slowed down the
> quickest after the finish line in order to determine who's spikes provide
> the best braking in inclement weather? The point is, the start is part of
> the race and Tim ran the fastest legal time ever, taking all the current
> requirements into account. Had Maurice been in the race, he probably
> would have held true to recent form and run 10.1 to 10.2. And guess what?
> He would have done so under similarly perfect conditions to Tim!!!
>
No, we're talking about accounting for effects which may have differed
*BEYOND* those which the athlete can control. OK, so reaction time was
brought up -- even without that consideration (0.01-0.02s at most), that
9.78 was still greatly assisted by external influences.
Many people fail to realize that some things weigh heavier than others.
The general consensus is: "there are so many factors at work, we can't
hope to account for them all, so it's pointless". Truth is: we don't
*have* to account for them all. That's how real science works.
I weigh the three major factors influencing sprint times as: (1) wind, (2)
altitude, and (3) temperature. The latter is the only one I haven't
accounted for, simply because there are added physiological factors which
are difficult to model. These corrections don't account for how the
athlete feels, or what they had for breakfast, or how much sex and beer
they had the night before. Those considerations are simply irrelevant,
insofar as the big picture goes. Everyone does different things, which
make for different race preparation. But that's not what we're talking
about here: we're discussing environmental issues only.
No one is saying that Greene, in *that* race, would run 9.77. I agree
that he would have run a sub-par time, assisted by a 2m/s wind -- but
that's his problem, not mine (or Tim's). I even question if he'll be able
to regain his sprint record next year. But what Greene did in that race
has no impact on his 9.79, either.
The point is: was 9.78s the fastest "legal" race ever? Yes.
Is the term "legal" well-founded and physically justifiable? No.
J.
