Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ato skeptical on new 100m World Record

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by JRM
    Yes, and we can't forget that Bailey ran 9.84 in early May . . .
    Actually, July 29th, 1996 at a little meet down in Atlanta.
    I think that was my point...

    Originally posted by gh
    an eye. But as noted before, since the race was full of other stud muffins, and they weren't in PR range, I have to discount any bad wind reading or clock malfunction
    I don't think that proves anything. Just beause there were other big names in the race doesn't mean that they were ready to run fast. We aren't always guarenteed a sub-10 every time a big name steps on the track. Sometimes they just have bad days or races.

    A 10.1 time from someone who can run 9.8 isn't out of the ordinary -- especially in early May. A 9.8 time from someone who can run 10.1 is. As you say, it makes one raise an eyebrow, which is my position on this. There's probably not enough evidence to make a ruling, one way or another.

    Comment


    • #77
      Fasuba is the son of Donald Quarrie's First cousin.
      Muy Interesante
      why don't people pronounce vowels anymore

      Comment


      • #78
        And how fast did SeƱor Interesante run? (I don't know him well enough to call him Muy)

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by JRM
          A 10.1 time from someone who can run 9.8 isn't out of the ordinary -- especially in early May. A 9.8 time from someone who can run 10.1 is. As you say, it makes one raise an eyebrow, which is my position on this. There's probably not enough evidence to make a ruling, one way or another.
          Since the first two were well clear wouldn't this logic imply that Crawford et al. were in the 10.3+ range? That seems a little slow, even for May.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by JRM
            Originally posted by bad hammy
            Originally posted by JRM
            Yes, and we can't forget that Bailey ran 9.84 in early May . . .
            Actually, July 29th, 1996 at a little meet down in Atlanta.
            I think that was my point...
            It was not obvious.

            See, we need those emoticons so that we can distinguish ironic humor from plain denseness!

            Comment


            • #81
              This entire discussion points out why winning championships is more important than setting world records.
              "Who's Kidding Who?"

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by mrbowie
                This entire discussion points out why winning championships is more important than setting world records.
                The only people whose votes count in that little debate are the meet promoters and athlete sponsors. Do they pay more for WR-holders or OG/WC champs? It's nice to be JG and have just hit the trifecta. Will he make the Big Mil this year? More?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by tafnut
                  Will he make the Big Mil this year? More?
                  If he doesn't he should fire that Skeets-guy agent of his, and sue him for being a major screw-up. He should be looking at way, way over that.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by bad hammy
                    See, we need those emoticons so that we can distinguish ironic humor from plain denseness!
                    I'm pretty sure most people remember how to do :-) and :-( if they really need to.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: give me quality control info - ratification

                      Originally posted by figo
                      No one here has really nailed down any facts.
                      It's all speculation, mostly intelligent, I'll give it that.

                      Where is the data and facts....
                      1) verify video timing franes/sec? HDTV transmission change to 50HZ analysis.
                      2) report by reliable witnesses at track level about the wind.
                      3) how about the distance?

                      If the ratification process reports the data conclusively (1-2-3) then I'm a believer
                      drop 3)

                      an error of any signiicance on that part is not conceivable

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: give me quality control info - ratification

                        Originally posted by eldrick
                        Originally posted by figo
                        No one here has really nailed down any facts.
                        It's all speculation, mostly intelligent, I'll give it that.

                        Where is the data and facts....
                        1) verify video timing franes/sec? HDTV transmission change to 50HZ analysis.
                        2) report by reliable witnesses at track level about the wind.
                        3) how about the distance?

                        If the ratification process reports the data conclusively (1-2-3) then I'm a believer
                        drop 3)

                        an error of any signiicance on that part is not conceivable
                        Tell that to timmy, 4cm=no wjr
                        why don't people pronounce vowels anymore

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: give me quality control info - ratification

                          Originally posted by eldrick

                          an error of any signiicance on that part is not conceivable
                          agreed, at least not under normal circumstances. but with the timing now rounded up to 9.77, everything is now open to question. this is obviously not good for the sport.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: give me quality control info - ratification

                            Originally posted by maroon
                            Originally posted by eldrick

                            an error of any signiicance on that part is not conceivable
                            agreed, at least not under normal circumstances. but with the timing now rounded up to 9.77, everything is now open to question. this is obviously not good for the sport.
                            the track must have neen measured & certified on it's inception a few years ago by a surveyor & is therefore a "fixed" entity

                            the timing systems may be from different companies year-by-year

                            you can't make a connection between the former ( a surveyor ) & the latter ( a watch company )

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by kuha
                              Originally posted by gh
                              Originally posted by bekeselassie
                              Originally posted by gh
                              Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14. The 9.84 was clearly a fraud; I agree.
                              Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell.
                              No, I'm deadly serious. In fact, I'm starting to think that all 100 WRs are fake. Pre-Bailey, look at the Burrell sequence:

                              10.27w, 10.29, 10.08, 10.06, 9.85 WR, 10.12, 10.11, 10.00w(A), 10.39.
                              AH HA!!! I think Dan Browne has already started a book on this massive historical fakery.
                              I doubt Browne will be able to spare the time from his Trials preparation. But Dan Brown might churn a movie script out of it. :wink:

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Times, Shmimes, Crimes, Times, whatever... as always the devil is in the details.

                                Everyone should please remember that THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is WHO WINS in the Biggies, not the times...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X