Ato skeptical on new 100m World Record

[figo]

Re: give me quality control info - ratification

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

http://www.bizrate.com/track_fieldequip ... ments.html
can you say made in China?
http://www.nsf-isr.org/newsroom/article_uncertainty.asp
(article better than nothin)

Now listen. I'd suspect that distance is not a problem, low prob.
But you have to realize that you cannot drop 3 from the equation.
If your 10m tape is out and you do 10x 10m measurements then all looks well.
But 1 cm error = 10 cm for the distance, that's a bit.
Needs looking at.

Here is a story of a bigger con. That is much more outrageous than the above
Bre-X. The biggest gold mining discovery on earth ever. Well no, the biggest fraud. They convinced big corp money to invest including good old G Bush.... What they did was simple. The oldest trick in the book. Since the Bre-X mine was the richest on earth they needed "tight security" to make sure the samples were not tampered with. In the high security area they simply added gold to the samples. No once cared to do their due diligence, everyone assumed that since all the big boys put in $1 billion plus it must be ok.

Well it was not OK. The mine had zero value what so ever and subsequently the mining industry literally collapsed world wide. Many totally unrelated lost their shirt.

Moral of the story. Everybody assumed... everybody.

On top of the above considerations, being a lab guy of many years involved in calibration of all kinds of instruments, balances, mass-specs, pipettes and so on makes me say measure it buddy. Any legit qc program requires it i.e. ISO.

[figo]

This entire discussion points out why winning championships is more important than setting world records.

This is a matter of personal opinion.
The best man on the day is better than the fastest of all time?
Logically this makes no sense.
OG gold is kind of neat though.

[dukehjsteve]

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...

[player]

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:

[eldrick]

Re: give me quality control info - ratification

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 )

[maroon]

Re: give me quality control info - ratification

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.

[DentyCracker]

Re: give me quality control info - ratification

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

[eldrick]

Re: give me quality control info - ratification

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

[gh]

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.

[bad hammy]

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.

[tafnut]

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?

[mrbowie]

This entire discussion points out why winning championships is more important than setting world records.

[bad hammy]

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!

[Daisy]

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.

[gh]

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