2007 Athletissima (Lausanne) M-800m

[REngelhardt]

According to the meet website, the 600 split for the pacer was 1:18.39 = 1:44.52 pace. If that was "slow," the contenders, including KD and Borza, should have been able to "explode" through the last 200. They didn't. Pacemaker Tangui did a great job through 600M to set up a 1:44 race, but the field under-performed.

[EPelle]

I didn:t take it as such. I disagree, you disagree, but we agree (possibly) that the race was slower than anticipated, but, perhaps not given the temps. Cool. Next issue.

[stallion]

I should not have resorted to the ad hominem attack, Epelle, I guess let's just say there is disagreement and both of us are rather recalcitrant.

[EPelle]

What you are misunderstanding is that the pacer was given a chore to accomplish the first half of his race. He didn:t fulfill that obligation. Therein is the field pacing problem. Why? Field, assuming pace would be fast, didn:t respond well when they went through 400m in 51-52 -- specifically Khadevis Robinson. It showed through their 1.18 600m split -- which Cory Primm, a CA high schooler, would have led. They closed back in 27, but at this point, the race plans were shot to shit. Why is the pacer important despite what the field was "capable" of? Two were current-form 1.44 guys used to having their races go out in 49-50 splits and utilising a certain form of efficiency in doing so. They have every right to request a certain pace is executed by a rabbit, as pace -- 49,5 -- would have strung out the field. What happened? Robinson was nearly up on the rabbit at the bell. Not what his goal was, I can assure you.

[stallion]

So is the pacer responsible for the 55 second last lap? ... Epelle, you must not confuse the pacer having not, according to you, executed his assignment perfectly, vvith the field simply not running up to your expectations. This is not a cause and effect relationship here, and any of your attempts to connect them are simply nonsense.

I:ll let the guys at Eurosport, who made the initial comment, know that.

As for my own judgment of the race? It didn:t meet my expectation, and take a look at my opening remark: Borzakovskiy couldn:t kick down the field in this race with his dumb racing tactics. Everyone says he can:t catch a 1.43 guy in a 1.43 race -- he couldn:t win a 1.45,8 race doing the same. There was not enough wind nor rain nor cold temps to produce a 1.46 end-through. You:re telling me that this was the EXACT day that Borzakovskiy would happen to run his first 1.46+ final since 2005:s WAF walk-and-jog?

You:re confusing an issue here: Rabbit didn:t do his job. That is one point. Field, what they chose to do with the rabbit is another point. I:m not confusing the issues. However, if the field had anticipated going out in 49-point and, instead, hit 51, therein went some of the pre-planned race tactics... or did they simply show up and wing it?

Epelle, you suffer from a serious logic deficit. Earlier you say PROBLEM HERE is rabbit didn't do his job. You've chosen to amend this by saying the field did not respond vvell to the rabbit. This is all nonsense. If you think a field cannot respond to the minor vicissitudes of a rabbit you must not hold them in any respect at all.

[EPelle]

So the Mutola-led group was supposed to be better than the field assembled for the men:s race? 55,1 at the 400m for pacer... surely these women can:t run 1.50. Sinclair runs 1.59,14.

[EPelle]

So is the pacer responsible for the 55 second last lap? ... Epelle, you must not confuse the pacer having not, according to you, executed his assignment perfectly, vvith the field simply not running up to your expectations. This is not a cause and effect relationship here, and any of your attempts to connect them are simply nonsense.

I:ll let the guys at Eurosport, who made the initial comment, know that.

As for my own judgment of the race? It didn:t meet my expectation, and take a look at my opening remark: Borzakovskiy couldn:t kick down the field in this race with his dumb racing tactics. Everyone says he can:t catch a 1.43 guy in a 1.43 race -- he couldn:t win a 1.45,8 race doing the same. There was not enough wind nor rain nor cold temps to produce a 1.46 end-through. You:re telling me that this was the EXACT day that Borzakovskiy would happen to run his first 1.46+ final since 2005:s WAF walk-and-jog?

You:re confusing an issue here: Rabbit didn:t do his job. That is one point. Field, what they chose to do with the rabbit is another point. I:m not confusing the issues. However, if the field had anticipated going out in 49-point and, instead, hit 51, therein went some of the pre-planned race tactics... or did they simply show up and wing it?

[26mi235]

Look at the quality of the results: 13:10 (plan had been 12:50 pace); 4:03 (62 first lap); 1:48-high, 45.2. Anything but the sprints are not very good at all, and it gets worse the longer the race, and the sprints were not that good. If the w800 does not break 2 then you REALLY know there is a problem. The w800 was 1:59, not bad but not at all stellar. The mHJ was mediocre, the m1500 winner would have been 8th or worse in Paris.

but Walker just won in 5.91.

[stallion]

Problem here is that pacer went out (50,85) more than a second slower than ordered.

So is the pacer responsible for the 55 second last lap? Richard is manifesting the more logical analysis here. The pacer is not responsible for either the conditions or the caliber of the field. The pacer did not make or break this race, and logic dictates that if he'd taken them out much faster the repercussions are more likely to have been detrimental than advantageous in terms of final results. Epelle, you must not confuse the pacer having not, according to you, executed his assignment perfectly, vvith the field simply not running up to your expectations. This is not a cause and effect relationship here, and any of your attempts to connect them are simply nonsense.

[REngelhardt]

So, in conclusion, pacer was asked to run a pace (sub-50) that was not appropriate for this field tonight. Instead, he ran 50.85, ideal pacing for where they're at right now (mid-1:44's), but the field disappointed with across the board sub-par performances... I agree completely with you, EPelle.

[EPelle]

Pacer paid to run 49,5. Pacer ran 50,85. Pacer paid for a race which he, himself, took out more than a second slower than he was requested. That:s a pacer dummying up. His first lap had zero to do with the quality of the field - whether they were in 1.41, 1.43 or 1.44 shape. His job was not executed out front.

[REngelhardt]

So explain "pacer dummied up." In my opinion, it was perfect execution for this race on this night.

[EPelle]

Hold the horses... nobody claimed that the field should have run this, that or any other time... simply disappointed one man broke 1.46. Thanks.

[REngelhardt]

Of course I changed it - 50.85 = 1:41.7 pace. 50.85 was perfect for this field on paper. They're simply not ready to run 1:43 yet - should change soon.

[EPelle]

Uh, you came up with the 1.43 and changed it to 1.41. Nobody had a time on this one that they:d expected, just an honest pace. Pacer dummied up.