'09 London GP m4x1

[justblaze1011]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19960802&id=-OURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vO0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4158,737172

Marsh ran 10.00 in the Olympic final. Hardly toast. Him, Mitchell and Drummond give US a lead. You need to understand Harden split something like 9.3 on the back stretch.

Burrell had tendinitis of the heel. He was part of the squad and was due to run. Mitchell and Drummond were unhappy that Lewis was trying to manoeuvre his way on to the team having not participated in relay camp.

Cason had run 10.07 that year but was injured. He gets mentioned because he was part of those world record squads - which is the rationale for bringing Lewis and Burrell into the equation in the first place despite them coming sixth and eighth at trials. Greene had qualified for the US 100m the year before running the same time as Marsh and Mitchell and beating Drummond, so that's why he gets mentioned as being a desirable squad member, but he had injury problems and had to wait until 1997 to have his break out year. Montgomery came seventh at trials and was in the squad but again, it wasn't until a year later he and Greene were going 9.90 - 9.92 at trials, so Montgomery wasn't probably an option to start the final at this stage. With hindsight Jeff Williams would probably have been a better pick than Tim Harden once Burrell became unavailable. He beat Harden at trials and came 5th in the Olympic 200m. Michael Johnson hurt himself at the end of the 19.32 and pulled out of the 4x4 so no way was he sprinting in a 4x1.

But the smart thing to do would have been to run the three sub ten guys that year - Drummond, Marsh and Mitchell - and plug Lewis in on anchor. Glenroy Gilbert isn't taking three metres out of Mitchell or Marsh on second leg the way he did Harden. Lewis wouldn't have to run Bailey down. He would be in the lead.

Some of you need to learn how to string a thought together and get your facts straight instead of lazily assuming you're right because of who you know and can get away without knowing how to articulate yourselves coherently.

1. Jeff Williams was the worst due to him not knowing how to take a hand-off, thus killing his chances of being on the relay.

2. MJ was lobbying to get on the relay, but after he got hurt, all that went out the window.

3. If you think Burrell couldn't run and wanna believe what the article is staying then I got Kim Kardashian pregnant right now and she is naked laying on my lap as I type this.

I got FACTS, from people that was in the Olympics, Harden coach, Harden himself, and others. So you go ahead playa, you won't win this going against me buddy.

[scratchman]

Marsh didn't get roasted by Surin though did he.

The trouble with acting like you know it all is you keep saying really dumb things. Perhaps you should try a bit harder. Come on. I know you can do it. You'll be out the bottom half of the class in no time if you put your mind to it.

Guess you never saw the race.

[dakota]

Marsh wasn't roasted by Surin. The damage was done by Gilbert against Harden. Harden ran like crap.

That relay was riven by politics and they got their ass kicked. I wouldn't trust a single word any of the participants have to say about it. People remember what they want to. For example, everybody laps up what Carl Lewis has to say these days don't they :roll:

JustBlaze, most of your comments revolve around you stroking your own ego in your lap so that remark was no less deluded than everybody expects from you.

Keep it up....

[dakota]

Here we go. NY Times report on the race from August 1996:

http://tinyurl.com/l4o5bk

[scratchman]

Marsh wasn't roasted by Surin. The damage was done by Gilbert against Harden. Harden ran like crap.

That relay was riven by politics and they got their ass kicked. I wouldn't trust a single word any of the participants have to say about it. People remember what they want to. For example, everybody laps up what Carl Lewis has to say these days don't they :roll:

JustBlaze, most of your comments revolve around you stroking your own ego in your lap so that remark was no less deluded than everybody expects from you.

Keep it up....

You are correct.
The REAL damage was at 2nd.
But Marsh didnt make up ANYTHING on Surin. The guy absolutely BEASTED that curve. And my point was (and still is) that there was nothing Carl wouldve been able to do about it. ZERO! It was Canadas day, and they ran one of the most impressive relay races I'd ever seen to this date.
Real Talk!

[dakota]

It seems to me what happened is after Burrell got injured Mitchell, the US champion who ran 9.99 for fourth place in the Olympic final, put his foot down about surrendering his glory leg to Lewis.

Afterwards he said ''What difference would it have made? I did as good a job out there as anyone could have. I think Carl knows it.''

This is telling. It's all about his own pride. Whether he was good enough to anchor. He misses the point. It's his fault Harden is on the team giving up three metres to Gilbert. Drummond-Marsh-Mitchell gives US the lead. There's a chance Lewis could have clung on with Bailey closing. They don't get blown out by four metres in any case.

Drummond's quote ''It's better it happened this way. If Canada had beaten Carl, everybody would have blamed Carl.'' is disingenuous.

Bailey's react ''Carl is a better businessman than that. It wouldn't be a smart investment to go out and embarrass himself. He wanted to stay golden. There was no gold medal available.'' is a champion's showmanship.

Burrell got irritated with reporters who said he wasn't injured. ''This has nothing to do with Carl. I'm getting sick of people insinuating that.'' Giving up his spot to Lewis is one thing but if the coaches and other athletes didn't want Lewis on the team why would Burrell give up his spot to Harden if he was healthy? It's ridiculous. If Burrell really was faking it they should have run Drummond-Burrell-Mitchell-Lewis - the much vaunted best man at every position squad which never actually raced together despite having shares of various world records between them, although obviously the intention was to run Drummond-Burrell-Marsh-Mitchell which would have drastically narrowed the gap with Bailey having to run down Mitchell instead of getting the baton in the lead and going away.

I agree Mitchell probably does a better job against Surin in 1996 than Marsh. Mitchell didn't break nine seconds on anchor but that may be misleading because he had no chance of reeling Bailey in - whose split was also affected by celebrating early. Mitchell was good for an 8.9 that day so could have lit up the curve. The Canadians ran out of their minds but 37.69 even with a little early celebration isn't an unassailable mark for a group of legendary relay runners optimally selected for each leg. Putting Lewis second wasn't an option because he hadn't practised and wasn't used to running in that order. Mitchell and Lewis had years and years of practise and set world records together running third and fourth. It really should have picked itself. Harden's quote says it all: ''We haven't practiced that much.'' They should have gone with experience instead of involving a newcomer in two of the three changeovers.

Running a rookie who split 9.36 and passed poorly was suicide when there were better options available.

It came down to hubris.

[scratchman]

It seems to me what happened is after Burrell got injured Mitchell, the US champion who ran 9.99 for fourth place in the Olympic final, put his foot down about surrendering his glory leg to Lewis.

Afterwards he said ''What difference would it have made? I did as good a job out there as anyone could have. I think Carl knows it.''

This is telling. It's all about his own pride. Whether he was good enough to anchor. He misses the point. It's his fault Harden is on the team giving up three metres to Gilbert. Drummond-Marsh-Mitchell gives US the lead. There's a chance Lewis could have clung on with Bailey closing. They don't get blown out by four metres in any case.

Drummond's quote ''It's better it happened this way. If Canada had beaten Carl, everybody would have blamed Carl.'' is disingenuous.

Bailey's react ''Carl is a better businessman than that. It wouldn't be a smart investment to go out and embarrass himself. He wanted to stay golden. There was no gold medal available.'' is a champion's showmanship.

Burrell got irritated with reporters who said he wasn't injured. ''This has nothing to do with Carl. I'm getting sick of people insinuating that.'' Giving up his spot to Lewis is one thing but if the coaches and other athletes didn't want Lewis on the team why would Burrell give up his spot to Harden if he was healthy? It's ridiculous. If Burrell really was faking it they should have run Drummond-Burrell-Mitchell-Lewis - the much vaunted best man at every position squad which never actually raced together despite having shares of various world records between them, although obviously the intention was to run Drummond-Burrell-Marsh-Mitchell which would have drastically narrowed the gap with Bailey having to run down Mitchell instead of getting the baton in the lead and going away.

I agree Mitchell probably does a better job against Surin in 1996 than Marsh. Mitchell didn't break nine seconds on anchor but that may be misleading because he had no chance of reeling Bailey in - whose split was also affected by celebrating early. Mitchell was good for an 8.9 that day so could have lit up the curve. The Canadians ran out of their minds but 37.69 even with a little early celebration isn't an unassailable mark for a group of legendary relay runners optimally selected for each leg. Putting Lewis second wasn't an option because he hadn't practised and wasn't used to running in that order. Mitchell and Lewis had years and years of practise and set world records together running third and fourth. It really should have picked itself. Harden's quote says it all: ''We haven't practiced that much.'' They should have gone with experience instead of involving a newcomer in two of the three changeovers.

Running a rookie who split 9.36 and passed poorly was suicide when there were better options available.

It came down to hubris.

Ok....
I'm starting to like your posts.
I still dont agree that Marsh on 2nd makes that big a deal. And the fact is that if Lewis had been on and had the lead, there was no catching him. That happened a year later at the '97 Txas Relays. I WAS THERE. Bailey was behind Lewis, and he couldnt do a thing about it, so....he started grabbing the hammy :wink: . I just have a hard time seeing a combo "unless MJ is on) that gives them a lead.

[Charley Shaffer]

The Associated Press wrote about the London 4x100:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...oubOgD99LL1A00

"The Racers TC team was initially disqualified because the 19-year-old Blake broke too quickly at the start of the second leg."

eTN #42 stated the same thing, using the same phrase. But I don't understand this at all. Can someone explain to me what rule governs when the 2nd leg runner in a 4x100 is allowed to start running?

[TrainerPhil]

The Associated Press wrote about the London 4x100:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...oubOgD99LL1A00

"The Racers TC team was initially disqualified because the 19-year-old Blake broke too quickly at the start of the second leg."

I don't understand this at all. Can someone explain to me what rule governs when the 2nd leg runner in a 4x100 is allowed to start running?

Great question. I thought as long as the exchange took place within the zone, they good lineup and start running where ever and when ever they wanted.

[toyracer]

The Associated Press wrote about the London 4x100:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...oubOgD99LL1A00

"The Racers TC team was initially disqualified because the 19-year-old Blake broke too quickly at the start of the second leg."

eTN #42 stated the same thing, using the same phrase. But I don't understand this at all. Can someone explain to me what rule governs when the 2nd leg runner in a 4x100 is allowed to start running?

I'm don't think that this is the one that could apply:

Rule 170.7
In relay races of 4x100m and 4x200m, members of a team other
than the first athlete may commence running not more than 10m
outside the take-over zone (see Rule 170.2). A distinctive mark shall
be made in each lane to denote this extended limit.

Okay, I know that that does not apply to "broke too quickly" but it is the only rule that could even remotely in some twisted way be applied. I'd welcome any correction if there is such a rule; I didn't see it in a cursory look through the IAAF rulebook.

[Gleason]

How eloquently put.
Since you're obviously light years beyond a caveman such as myself I'll leave you with the only response I'm capable of....
....OK.

I've butted heads with "texas_speed" a couple of times, but I appreciate his adding entry lists to this message board. He knows a lot about sprints and contributes a lot IMHO.