Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

¶m5000: Bernard Lagat 13:27.47

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #76
    i ran track for a d3 college in wisconsin. the rule at our conference meet (at least it used to be a rule, not sure nowadays) to avoid such cases as this, was that if you were entered in multiple races, you needed to start AND finish the former races in order to start the latter ones.

    Comment


    • #77
      m5000

      Originally posted by go pre
      i ran track for a d3 college in wisconsin. the rule at our conference meet (at least it used to be a rule, not sure nowadays) to avoid such cases as this, was that if you were entered in multiple races, you needed to start AND finish the former races in order to start the latter ones.
      The 1st time I heard of the NCAA "honest effort" rule involved Roscoe Divine of Oregon who ran about 2:20 for an 880 heat after qualifying in the Mile. This was at the altitude of BYU in 1967 & he successfully blamed the altitude. This rule has teeth because of team scoring.

      I've never heard of a similar rule in open competition.
      none

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: m5000

        Originally posted by Gleason
        Originally posted by go pre
        i ran track for a d3 college in wisconsin. the rule at our conference meet (at least it used to be a rule, not sure nowadays) to avoid such cases as this, was that if you were entered in multiple races, you needed to start AND finish the former races in order to start the latter ones.
        The 1st time I heard of the NCAA "honest effort" rule involved Roscoe Divine of Oregon who ran about 2:20 for an 880 heat after qualifying in the Mile. This was at the altitude of BYU in 1967 & he successfully blamed the altitude. This rule has teeth because of team scoring.

        I've never heard of a similar rule in open competition.
        The "honest effort" rule has been adopted by many H.S. and college conference but really has no place in the OT as far as I'm concerned because of what was mentioned about team scoring. I just think that what was pulled with Rupp and Rohatinsky shouldn't be done and those involved in the decision should know better.
        "Long may you run"- Neil Young

        Comment


        • #79
          And what makes it even stranger to me is that some friends of mine had tickets near the finish line. They said that after Goucher dropped out, he stayed on the track and watched the clock, not the race. When he saw that Solinsky had dropped a 58, he was visibly ticked off, as if he felt he shouldn't have dropped out. Weird stuff.
          Well, he still had zero chance of meeting the standard. For some reason TN does not have any 5K splits except last 200/400s. I'd be interested to see the last 5 laps.

          In any case, Goucher's chance for 13:21 was gone long before he took the lead.
          Cheers,
          Alan Shank

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by dj
            I'm guessing most of the people who are on this board and at the meet are out-of-towners. But if any of you are locals, or happened to be sitting near locals, what was the reaction to Rupp's not running the final?

            The locals sitting in front of me were disappointed at first, then annoyed when they heard that it was part of a planned option. Is this a general Eugenian reaction or just that of the people I was near?
            dj, from a local who was there--the incident struck me as very self-centered, unsportsmanlike. I was more disappointed in Rupp's/Salazar's behavior than in the fact he didn't run.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Alan Shank
              And what makes it even stranger to me is that some friends of mine had tickets near the finish line. They said that after Goucher dropped out, he stayed on the track and watched the clock, not the race. When he saw that Solinsky had dropped a 58, he was visibly ticked off, as if he felt he shouldn't have dropped out. Weird stuff.
              Well, he still had zero chance of meeting the standard. For some reason TN does not have any 5K splits except last 200/400s. I'd be interested to see the last 5 laps.

              In any case, Goucher's chance for 13:21 was gone long before he took the lead.
              Cheers,
              Alan Shank
              The splits are here:

              http://www.flashresults.com/2008_Meets/ ... June30.htm

              Billy Mills had much better chances than the runners that would otherwise have qualified for the trials. As I understand it, the games committee could have replaced the scratched runners if they wanted to -- I might not be correct, but I think that is what someone posted.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by 26mi235
                As I understand it, the games committee could have replaced the scratched runners if they wanted to -- I might not be correct, but I think that is what someone posted.
                In a normal championship meet a scratch does not advance someone else. But this is also a selection meet, and the games committee can override the rules, even its own rules, as it sees fit. See the Goucher situation in the 10,000 as an example.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by 26mi235
                  Originally posted by Alan Shank
                  And what makes it even stranger to me is that some friends of mine had tickets near the finish line. They said that after Goucher dropped out, he stayed on the track and watched the clock, not the race. When he saw that Solinsky had dropped a 58, he was visibly ticked off, as if he felt he shouldn't have dropped out. Weird stuff.
                  Well, he still had zero chance of meeting the standard. For some reason TN does not have any 5K splits except last 200/400s. I'd be interested to see the last 5 laps.

                  In any case, Goucher's chance for 13:21 was gone long before he took the lead.
                  Cheers,
                  Alan Shank
                  The splits are here:

                  http://www.flashresults.com/2008_Meets/ ... June30.htm
                  Thanks. Well, at 2K Vaughn was still in the lead at 5:26.8, so they were already 5-6 seconds behind. If they ran the next 2K the same, (10:53.6), Goucher would have needed a sub-2:28. But Vaughn was fading fast, and nobody wanted to maintain that pace. I don't know how aware Goucher is of his splits in a race and what they mean, but he should have known right then that he needed to take the lead and get going. If he didn't feel capable of that, he should have dropped out right then. He just wasted a bunch of energy staying in the race at all, let alone taking the lead at 3K and "pushing" a 2:43.8.

                  I see that he has been added to the 10K, leaping over several other runners who were ahead of him on the provisional list. I will be very surprised if he finishes the 10K, even more so if he makes the top three.
                  Cheers,
                  Alan Shank

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Alan Shank
                    [I don't know how aware Goucher is of his splits in a race and what they mean, but he should have known right then that he needed to take the lead and get going.
                    Alan Shank
                    Do you seriously doubt his ability to be aware of what pace he needs? 64s, 4:16 1600, 8:00 3k = 13:20 pace. It's pretty simple, and as someone entering the race needing the A standard he surely must have known where he was lap by lap, no?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X