I'm waiting for the nasty repercussions this incident may have for years to come. While Condon was refusing to leave the traffic (one of the Brit journos in the row tabbed him "a real nutter"), the PA announced, "under the new IAAF rules, Condon will run under protest."
There is, of course, no rush rule, and I have no idea whose idea it was to so say. But I'm waiting for the next big IAAF meet and somebody going beserk when they aren't allowed to do this "knowing" that it's the way the rules read. gh > From: "Post, Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Post, Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:43:15 -0500 > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED] uoregon. edu' (E-mail)"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: t-and-f: Disgraceful conduct at IAAF indoor 200m > Resent-From: "e. garry hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Resent-To: ghill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:52:29 +0100 > > The following commentary is from Nick Davies, IAAF Communications Director, > regarding the men's 200m final at last weekend's IAAF Indoor World > Championships: > > "What happened was the following: > > British athlete Allyn Condon, who was in lane 2, false started. Then--when > the race got underway for the second time--he false started again, with a > reaction time of 0.015 sec, which meant that he false started in a way that > was visible to most people in the stadium. So whether you use the 'old' > false start rule or the new one, Condon should have been out. > > And yet he ran, "under protest", finishing fifth, with a DQ by his name. > Why? Because Condon refused to leave the track. He was shown the print-out > from the false-start machine, told that his protest was pointless because > the evidence was so clear, but still refused to leave the track. A British > runner, on live TV, in a stadium packed with British fans ... refusing to > leave the track. > > Fortunately, another British runner won the race, and the Condon incident > was quickly forgotten by the public and the TV viewers. Yet it raised an > important issue of what, in practical terms, should be done to avoid this > happening again. After all, Condon's two false starts meant the loss of, at > least $4,000 (the last-place prize money). What if the false start had been > made by the clear favorite at an Outdoor World Championships, and the money > at stake was $60,000? > > Apart from physically removing the reluctant athlete (not great for PR), > some other ideas have been to remove the blocks, to place cones or a hurdle > in the lane, to have a large official stand in the middle of the lane or to > load the starter's pistol with one live round ...." >
