If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
>>Can't see the IAAF ratifying it, especially in the present political
>climate.
I strongly disagree with the decision but I support it. But then I
>also support the not guilty verdict on OJ. The system speaks....
Steve, I understand your OJ reference (I agree even though I think he did it) but not the first. I strongly disagree too but definately don't support it, I think it's plain silly.
It's worse than silly, it is RIDICULOUS. USATF shows their wonderful wisdom once again. But by "support it", I mean, it's done, so that's it... just like OJ. That's why we have Records Committees and that's why we have juries. Equally ridiculous results in these 2 cases.
>It's worse than silly, it is RIDICULOUS. USATF shows their wonderful wisdom
>once again. But by "support it", I mean, it's done, so that's it... just
>like OJ. That's why we have Records Committees and that's why we have juries.
>Equally ridiculous results in these 2 cases.
I actually typed in "ridiculous" but on looking at my post couldn't decide whether I'd spelt it correctly or not, so replaced it with "silly"! (brain is in a fuzz because I've been doing a budget all day...apart from when I check in here!)
How's your work computer Steve?!
Corder Nelson in TFN, June '63: "[Shinnick] started with a foul jump of 26-10 1/2". But even that did not impress the official in charge of the wind guage (sic), for he took no reading on Shinnick's record jump. . . . No wind velocity had been taken. People blamed the official, but he had been told to record only for Ralph Boston. If the truth were known, it is almost certain the wind was above the allowable 4.47 mph. Races before and after his jump . . . had aiding wind of 5.112 and 5.76 mph. The flags were standing straight out about 20 seconds after his jump, indicating a wind of about 6 mph. And both of Ralph Boston's great comeback jumps (27- 1/4" and 27-2 3/4") were aided by winds of 6.12 and 8.55 mph."
>Corder Nelson in TFN, June '63: "[Shinnick] started with a foul jump of 26-10
>1/2". But even that did not impress the official in charge of the wind guage
>(sic), for he took no reading on Shinnick's record jump. . . . No wind
>velocity had been taken. People blamed the official, but he had been told to
>record only for Ralph Boston. If the truth were known, it is almost certain
>the wind was above the allowable 4.47 mph. Races before and after his jump . .
>. had aiding wind of 5.112 and 5.76 mph. The flags were standing straight out
>about 20 seconds after his jump, indicating a wind of about 6 mph. And both of
>Ralph Boston's great comeback jumps (27- 1/4" and 27-2 3/4") were aided by
>winds of 6.12 and 8.55 mph."
Unless this was all shown to be completely untrue in the presentation to the USATF committee, it shows again the idiocy of USATF... just a feel-good decision after 40 years, that tarnishes the legitimacy of all records. Sad.
He doesn't 'have the record' yet. Maybe the USATF recognized it retrospectively as a US record (the article doesn't explicitly say whether they did), but it's the IAAF that recognizes world records. I very much doubt they will buy this 'eye witness testimony' crap.
Anyway, if the guy believed he had a case, why the hell did he wait for 40 years to present it ??? To me there is no explanation other than that he was waiting until everyone has forgotten the facts.
Right. I feel for the guy and he did get screwed. But really, there's no "case" here to be made that couldn't have been made more convincingly 40 years ago. This dodo won't fly.
I can't believe that Shinnick really wants to be awarded the record this way knowing there was no wind gage. He knows the rules. Anyway there is no way the IAAF is going to buy into this nonsense.
"With malice toward none, with charity for all"... I still cannot fathom how this has been approved as an "official" US record. Does anyone know just what was presented to the Records Committe, and then in turn their rationale for approval ? And/or are we getting ahead of ourselves here, or has it actually been fully approved ?!
Comment