Tweet
Am I the only one who thinks it seems ludicrous that there are not 9 competitors in the one lap and two lap races? The site for the Olympic trials next year doesn't even have 9 lanes all the way around the track, something that vexed me a little this year. Shouldn't there always be that opportunity for the 9 guy to get up for a point for his team?
-
-
Re: USATF
Huh? -
Re: USATF
My understanding is that world records are not accepted from Lane 9, so that's why it's not used in finals. But since track radius differ so much, I'm not sure this rule is justified. Ex. Lane 9 at Penn is probably bigger radius than most configurations.Comment
-
Re: USATF
Let me get this straight. A standard international track is 8 lanes. Most Olympic tracks have 8 lanes. Most tracks in this country have 8 lanes around the oval, at most. There are very few venues that are suitable in every way for holding an Olympic Trials and you want to eliminate a majority of them from consideration just because they don't have a full nine lanes. Gimme a break.
Anyway, if making the top 8 is too much of a task for you, you're not gonna make the team. Being in the final is not what this meet is all about.Comment
-
Re: USATF
You can set a WR from lane 9 so long as the radius of that lane doesn't exceed the maximum set down by the IAAF. The IAAF has staged multiple World Cups using all 9-lanes; you don't think they'd do that if the track was illegal do you?
Other than in the World Cup (where nobody's usually running that hard anyway), the superstars always get the middle lanes either by seeding or by by promoter's choice. So in a practical sense, the way the sport is now, you could probably outlaw WRs made in any lanes but 3-4-5-6 and never lose a one.
Sac State has the unusual configuration of being 9 lanes around one curve and the straightaway. So, as they did at NCs, you can run the 100s and 200s 9-deep, but not 400s. Kind of unfortunate they did, at least for those sitting in the main stands, becuase you couldn't see lane 9. (Of course, the stands are so flat--one of the worst facilities imaginable in this regard--that you can't see 8-7-6 either!)
Fortunately, they chose not to use lane 9 at Stanford, so the ticket-buyers were spared missing that lane, becuase it's even closer to the stands than Sacto.Comment
-
Re: USATF
Garry, in response to your comment about poor sight lines of all lanes of the track, every time I have been to a big meet at Duke, ( 1990 and 2000 NCAA's) I am appalled that when the runners are coming off the turn, into the main stretch, you cannot see them for about 15 yards, due to the curvature of the end of the stands !
Why the NCAA can tolerate that at its biggest meet is beyond me.
Surely others have noticed this at Duke ?Comment
-
Re: USATF
What? You don't like seeing only 180m or the second 200m of every lap? :-)Comment
-
Re: USATF
If they are going to hold any more big meets at Duke, have them rip down that tail end of the stands.... they sure do not need it to hold football crowds.
( All this is being written by a Duke grad and former Duke T&F'er ! )Comment
-
Re: USATF
As bad as that corner situation is at Duke, it's still a much much better place to watch a meet than Sacramento, which has absolutely miserable sight lines. It's also a physically uncomfortable stadium. I can't believe USATF keeps going back to that wretched place.Comment
-
Re: USATF
On a list of USATF priorities, the sightlines of the paying customers ranks about No. 127 out of 85.Comment
-
Re: USATF
They've gone back to it exactly once.Comment
-
Re: USATF
OK, one more time.....
I live in Indianapolis. Are we now on the s*** list due to the abysmal attendance at tne last Nationals here about 5 or 6 years ago ?
We had some GREAT meets here between 1982 and 1997.
Great track, great sight lines, etc.
Indy is no Eugene and never, ever will be, but it sure is a good facility.Comment
-
Re: USATF
Indy is a GREAT facility and with the USATF National Office there, I don't know why they haven't returned to it recently. They had a lot of really good meets there in the '80's and '90's. I vote for returning. (Oh, sorry, I forgot. I don't get to vote. I wonder who does.)Comment
-
Re: USATF
How true... what's sad is that the stadium is hardly used anymore -- except an occassional hs meet or small-time college meet.
What gets me is the fact that it sits on the campus of IUPUI -- a Div I school with 20K+ students that DOES NOT have a T&F program.
>OK, one more time.....
I live in Indianapolis.
>Are we now on the s*** list due to the abysmal
>attendance at tne last Nationals here about 5 or
>6 years ago ?
We had some GREAT meets here
>between 1982 and 1997.
Great track, great sight
>lines, etc.
Indy is no Eugene and never, ever
>will be, but it sure is a good facility.Comment
-
Re: USATF
Despite the oft-brutal weather, Indy was indeed a superb site for the meet. Not only the track, but also a nice downtown just a few minutes walk away, good hotels, central to a huge portion of the country's population mass.
The attendance in '97 was indeed worthy of many asterisks. In fact, we were joking about it at the meet just last weekend, where somebody dredged up the best line from that meet, which was, "wouldn't it be easier just to make all the paying fans wear a credential?" That reference the fact that--and there's not too much hyperbole in here--i think there were probably 5 people with a credential around their neck for everybody who wasn't. It was abysmal.
Couple of things to remember about Indy:
In the early '80s there was a great move afoot to turn it into the amateur sports capital of the world (well, U.S. at least). Then the Dolts came to town and the whole outlook changed.
'97 was also the end of Ollan's reign. He was fierce about bringing the big show to town. Craig has taken a far more catholic view of the situation.Comment
Comment