Tweet
I've long had it in my mind that all was not right about that mark, and in finding a couple of T&FN articles I had long forgotten, I'm reminded just how fishy things are.
T&FN, August 1975
<<Houston McTear may be out of luck. At an AAU T&F Committee meeting held in Eugene [at the Nationals], McTear's 9.0 came up for approval by the group, a necessary prerequisite for acceptance by the IAAF as a World Record.
The members were all set to give the mark their OK.... when it was pointed out that the international rules state that when hand timing and electric [sic] timing are both at use in a meet, the electric will prevail even though it is not the "official" timing, as was the case in Winter Park [the Florida HS meet where McTear made his time].
So, although three watches caught McTear in 9.0, the electric time of 9.30 is the only one the IAAF will look at, and 9.3s are a dime a dozen. The T&FN Committee voted to withhold approval of the mark until it could be determined whether the electric tiing was indeed, in use and/or was being used properly when McTear ran his 9.0.>>
T&FN, January 1976
<< It isn't easy...... ratification was stalled by the AAU when it was discovered that a fully-automic timing device (Accutrack) had been in operation at the meet. New IAAF rules state that if such a device is in operation, the times recorded tehre are the ones which will stand for record consideration, whether the meet declares the device "official timing" or not. The Accutrack read a non-record 9.30 on McTear's race.
However, meet backers claimed the machine had been malfunctioning throughout the meet and pushed ahead. AAU Records Chairman Al Post stepped in, got permission from track chairman Stan Wright and bypassed records officials to forward the application directly to the IAAF, which ratified it.
"I took the action through the track & field board because I'm for teh athlete," said Post. "I processed this record on behalf of the athlete more than anybody else."
Unfortunately, Post died several weeks later and will not be able to comment on a new portion of the controversy. T&FN has heard through the grapevine that a counter-protest could be lodged by those who say there was outside pressure and that the Accutrack could not have been wrong. Stay tuned.>>
Unfortunately, I don't think there was ever anything ever again to tune into.
There were tales at the time that pressure had been brought to bear on Post by influential collegiate people interested in recruiting McTear and assuring the record recognition was a bargaining chip.
As to thoughts that the device "had been malfunctioning through the meet," I'm willing to bet that's because the hand timing was so sucky the people couldn't believe how far off it was from the Accutrack.
But before we rush to the judgment that the 9.30 should have been used, I should also mention that we were told at the time that nobody outside the meet had actually seen a photo of the 9.30 (and in those early days nobody was particularly tuned in to actually verifying photofinish pictures). And since the meet was still in a 10th-second-timing mindset, the "9.30" may well have been a 9.3x (i.e., anything from 9.30 to 9.39)
Obviously we'll never know for sure, but I thought a little historical perspective might be in order here.
Bottom line is that any hand-timed sprint needs to be taken with (many) grains of salt.
T&FN, August 1975
<<Houston McTear may be out of luck. At an AAU T&F Committee meeting held in Eugene [at the Nationals], McTear's 9.0 came up for approval by the group, a necessary prerequisite for acceptance by the IAAF as a World Record.
The members were all set to give the mark their OK.... when it was pointed out that the international rules state that when hand timing and electric [sic] timing are both at use in a meet, the electric will prevail even though it is not the "official" timing, as was the case in Winter Park [the Florida HS meet where McTear made his time].
So, although three watches caught McTear in 9.0, the electric time of 9.30 is the only one the IAAF will look at, and 9.3s are a dime a dozen. The T&FN Committee voted to withhold approval of the mark until it could be determined whether the electric tiing was indeed, in use and/or was being used properly when McTear ran his 9.0.>>
T&FN, January 1976
<< It isn't easy...... ratification was stalled by the AAU when it was discovered that a fully-automic timing device (Accutrack) had been in operation at the meet. New IAAF rules state that if such a device is in operation, the times recorded tehre are the ones which will stand for record consideration, whether the meet declares the device "official timing" or not. The Accutrack read a non-record 9.30 on McTear's race.
However, meet backers claimed the machine had been malfunctioning throughout the meet and pushed ahead. AAU Records Chairman Al Post stepped in, got permission from track chairman Stan Wright and bypassed records officials to forward the application directly to the IAAF, which ratified it.
"I took the action through the track & field board because I'm for teh athlete," said Post. "I processed this record on behalf of the athlete more than anybody else."
Unfortunately, Post died several weeks later and will not be able to comment on a new portion of the controversy. T&FN has heard through the grapevine that a counter-protest could be lodged by those who say there was outside pressure and that the Accutrack could not have been wrong. Stay tuned.>>
Unfortunately, I don't think there was ever anything ever again to tune into.
There were tales at the time that pressure had been brought to bear on Post by influential collegiate people interested in recruiting McTear and assuring the record recognition was a bargaining chip.
As to thoughts that the device "had been malfunctioning through the meet," I'm willing to bet that's because the hand timing was so sucky the people couldn't believe how far off it was from the Accutrack.
But before we rush to the judgment that the 9.30 should have been used, I should also mention that we were told at the time that nobody outside the meet had actually seen a photo of the 9.30 (and in those early days nobody was particularly tuned in to actually verifying photofinish pictures). And since the meet was still in a 10th-second-timing mindset, the "9.30" may well have been a 9.3x (i.e., anything from 9.30 to 9.39)
Obviously we'll never know for sure, but I thought a little historical perspective might be in order here.
Bottom line is that any hand-timed sprint needs to be taken with (many) grains of salt.
Comment