Re: t-and-f: Who's Who of the USSR?
You get into the sticky wicket of having to deal with an athlete who was discovered at age 15 in a state like Ukraine and was relocated to a training school in Moscow, then was 23 when he or she was setting USSR records. Would the athlete have kept their Ukraine citizenship or switched to Russian citizenship to reflect their residence?. There was probably no such thing as citizenship of EITHER Ukraine or Russia back then- they were a USSR citizen period. In today's world it would probably be less likely that they'd relocate to Moscow to begin with. Maybe it would be best to just ask the athlete- we're allocating records to today's nation's which were formed after the USSR broke up- if you had your wish which nation would you like your record assigned to (you can pick just one), and include what you think is your justification. Then have a review board decide any that are questionable. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if we find two former USSR states laying claim to the same record. It's kind of like an athlete making the Hall of Fame in a sport like football or baseball after having played for several different teams. Which logo should appear on the hat or the jersey on the statue or plaque in the Hall? Maybe it's just one more hint that perhaps we should only have world records, junior records, etc., and forget the national and continental stuff. (here I go thinking radical again) Randy -Original Message- From: Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 19, 2006 5:25 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: Who's Who of the USSR? When the USSR was dissolved in late 1991, how was it decided which of the national records of the Union would become those of the former member republics? The question arose for me when I assembled a list of men's indoor pole vault national records and shared it with my stat colleague, G�rard Dumas. He promptly questioned my attributing the Russian record to Maksim Tarasov (6.00m in 1999). The record, he said should be the 6.08m cleared by Sergey Bubka in 1999 when he was still competing for Russia. I think we straightened that out pretty quickly with recognizing that Bubka wasn't competing for Russia in the years prior to 1992, but for the USSR. But that left the question of how it was determined that Bubka's marks would be attributed to Ukraine and how all the rest of the USSR records would be re-allocated. They definitely were USSR records, as the national records are listed in my copy of the 1967 International Athletics Annual. Were the records re-assigned on the basis of then-current residence? Place of the athlete's club affiliation? More simply, during the days of the Union, were there state meets for athletes and teams for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, etc.? Did athletes then represent those states in a national championship meet? In other inter-provincial meets? As you can see, I'm so ignorant of this history that I don't even know whether the component political units should be referred to as states or provinces or some other name. Certainly they are now nations, and the records previously set during the years of the Union have not been lost. I checked this in Winfried Kramer's National Athletics Records and found that the pole vault records of ten of the fifteen former Union Republics were set during the USSR years and now are attributed to the individual countries. Can someone give us a brief summary of athletics autonomy of the member-states in the Soviet Union, or direct us to a source for this information? Google struck out on this one. Thanks, Winfried, for your rich source of data!
Re: t-and-f: 2006 Edition of Florida Relays Canceled
Funny that you mention remodeing/refurbishing going on at or near the UofFla track. In Feb.'74 I was a high school senior, and I hitched a ride with a local J.C. track team (which would probably be strictly verboten by the NCAA today) to go to Gainesville to run in an all-comers meet. They already had an all-weather surface at that time (people said it was a Chevron test track if I remember right), but they were in the middle of re-doing it. They had stripped off the inside 3 lanes of the previous surface, exposing the old black rubberized asphalt surface underneath. Lanes 4 and out hadn't been touched yet- those lanes still had the green colored Chevron artificial surface. The J.C. coach entered me in the 600, and since I was the only high schooler, they stuck me out in lane 6, and we had to stay in our lanes through the first curve. After that we could break toward the inside, but in doing so I had to jump down onto the lower old surface (about a two inch drop) when I moved in toward lane 3. I was a dumb high schooler and figured I might trip when making the break, especially if I was in a crowd, so I thought the best thing was to run the first turn real hard to make sure I was well clear before breaking in and I could concentrate on the transition from one surface to another without worrying about tangling people's legs. That was probably a dumb strategy as far as the shallow rationale behind it and ignored the fact the fact that all the competitors were a year or two older than me and unlikely to go out any slower than me, but what actually happened was, after the first curve when we broke for the inside it put me out front so far that the JC'ers thought 'stupid high school kid' and let me go, and in the final straightaway only one guy caught me, so I finished 2nd. The J.C. coach whose team I hitched a ride with soon thereafter offered me a full ride (after I beat his best 400m runner on a relay anchor), but it fell through when the J.C. dropped their track program before I could graduate that spring. Anyway, that was my adventure racing on the track in Gainesville in the middle of a refurbishment. Obviously a big relays meet couldn't be contested that way. Three years later I got my lifetime P.R. on that same track (which was in nice shape at that time). I only ran there those two times. That race in February, by the way, gave me the confidence that I could go out from the gun in a race (an 800 only being a silly 200 meters longer!) and I was strong enough to gut it out. My PR dropped tremendously and I found myself dominating the HS 800 in my area of the state. [actually 880y at that time] It's a strategy that works well, but many middle distance racers- even at the elite level- are scared to death of doing it as a day in and day out race strategy. Randy -Original Message- From: Ricky Quintana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 24, 2005 3:00 PM To: t-and-f@darkwing.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: 2006 Edition of Florida Relays Canceled FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SPORTS INFORMATION Wednesday, August 24, 2005 CONTACT: CHRIS RUSHING 352-375-4683 EXT. 6121 OR MIKE VIETTI EXT. 6120 2006 EDITION OF PEPSI FLORIDA RELAYS CANCELED GAINESVILLE, Fla. - Due to ongoing and anticipated construction surrounding James G. Pressly Stadium at Percy Beard Track, the 2006 Pepsi Florida Relays have been canceled. The University of Florida is currently in the midst of a multi-phased expansion and renovation project to McKethan Stadium and the Lemerand Center, which both adjoin Percy Beard Track. The project, which began July 7, 2005, involves the expansion of McKethan Stadium, the construction of new baseball facilities and the renovation of team locker rooms in the Lemerand Center. The project is slated to be completed by the end of August in 2006. We have to do what is best for this program, Florida women's track and field coach Tom Jones said. We will have a large amount of construction going on at Lemerand and to put on an event of this magnitude, it would be difficult with the lack of space available. We know that this cancellation will leave a large void, especially with the high school programs that make the trip here every year for this event. The Pepsi Florida Relays began in 1939 and have been held every year since with the exception of years during World War II (1942-46). At the 62nd edition of the event in 2005, more than 3,000 athletes from more than 300 high schools and universities were set to compete before inclement weather forced the final day to be canceled. This wasn't an easy decision, Florida men's track and field coach Mike Holloway said. The coaching staffs and the administration felt that it was the right decision to make given the circumstances. We're looking forward to making the Florida Relays bigger and better in 2007. Typically one of the nation's largest opening meets of the outdoor track and field season, the 2006 Pepsi
RE: t-and-f: Is anyone innocent?
I'm certainly no expert by any way of slicing it, but my understanding is that there is a very long list of banned doping substances of many types, but procedurally an athlete can also declare anything that is prescribed for a medical condition, and as long as it is deemed legitimate by whoever looks at those declarations, it's okay to compete with it in your system. On the surface that would seem ripe for abuse- namely by those who would exploit the medical situation (perhaps real, or perhaps a cover) to excessively dope for performance--enhancing purposes. OR..and this is a much grayer area- Let's say somebody has a real medical condition, is prescribed stuff to take- DOES take it, and in only the prescribed dosage necessary to address the medical condition- BUT..that dosage also has side effects- namely performance enhancement. Let's say the athlete has no choice whether to take it or not- he/she has to because of the medical condition. The athlete is receiving a benefit that competitors are forbidden to share. Should the athlete be suspended from competition (not a negative connotation, just practical) until the medical condition subsides enough that the dosage can be discontinued? Should there also be a 'grace period' of additional suspension tacked on, to allow the dope to wash out of the body? Should frequent out-of-competition testing continue THROUGHOUT this time, to monitor what's going on with the athlete- and get the final 'green light' to return to competition? Right now, it would seem that most of these situations are unaddressed- they just have that procedure to 'declare it, along with a doctor's prescription, and you're clear'. And everybody knows doctor's prescriptions can be bought. Am I wrong? What am I missing here? Randy -Original Message- From: William Bahnfleth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 23, 2005 4:53 PM To: t-and-f@darkwing.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: t-and-f: Is anyone innocent? html body Best performance enhancer of all? As Samuel Johnson (according to Boswell) said, Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.font size=2 Why not accept the explanation that Armstrong was a different person mentally after surviving near-fatal cancer (or was that just a cover)--not to mention the frequently cited effect of significant weight reduction on his ability as a stage racer? Just too good to be true? How does cancer conceal EPO use, anyway--by reducing hemoglobin to normal levels?brbr /fontBill Bahnflethbrbr At 01:43 PM 8/23/2005, Dan Kaplan wrote:br blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=It's been suggested several times on the list that his cancer was thebr perfect opportunity to conceal the best performance enhancer of them allbr -- EPO -- used in cancer patients. The Discovery special about him havingbr a heart twice the size of average people is a much more appealing sell,br though.brbr Danbrbr --- Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:br He didn't do it natuarlly. He got cancer and that turned him into thebr rider he is today.br br Martin J. Dixon, B. Math. (Hons), C.A.,br Millard Financial Consulting Inc.br P.O. Box 367br 96 Nelson Streetbr Brantford, Ontariobr N3T 5N3br Direct Dial: (519) 759-3708 Ext. 231br Telephone: (519) 759-3511br Private Facsimile: (519) 759-8548br E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] br Web site: a href=http://www.millards.com; eudora=autourlwww.millards.com/a br br [Message delivered by NotifyLink]br br --Original Message--br br From: Ricky Quintana [EMAIL PROTECTED]br Sent: Tue, August 23, 2005 12:01 PMbr To: t-and-f@darkwing.uoregon.edubr Subject: t-and-f: Is anyone innocent?br br br br a href=http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-dopingamp;prov=apamp;type=lgns; eudora=autourl http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-dopingprov=aptype=lgns/a br br The image that has always stuck in my mind is Lance Armstrong beingbr caught br and annihilated in a time trial by Miguel Indurain(not sure what year,br but br it was prior to his string of wins and his bout with cancer). Similar tobr br what Armstrong did to Ulrich this year.br br I just can't believe that Armstrong could get to his status naturallybr after br watching that time trial.br br I suggest anyone decrying their innocence submit a blood sample thatbr would br be frozen until more accurate testing is available.br br I wonder how many takers there would be.br br Rickybr br _br Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it'sbr FREE! br a href=http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/; eudora=autourl http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01//abr br br brbr br a href=http://AbleDesign.com; eudora=autourlhttp://AbleDesign.com/a - Web Design Custom Programmingbr a
Re: t-and-f: USA vs. USSR Dual--2004
I wouldn't necessarily bother with putting together a virtual Soviet Union team if you're trying to forecast how a Russia-China-USA triangular would turn out. Just stick with Russia as currently constituted. It's highly unlikely that Russia and Ukraine, let alone the others, would ever agree to once again field a joint team. Now if you're talking purely 'what if the cold war was still burning and the USSR breakup had never happened' as an exercise in speculation, that's a different question. Randy -Original Message- From: Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jun 27, 2005 3:47 PM To: t-and-f@darkwing.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: USA vs. USSR Dual--2004 Another forum (PoleVaultPower.com) has returned to discussion of the China/Russian agreement on mutual assistance in preparation for the Beijing Olympic Games. This was prompted by Craig Masback's reply to a question on the matter yesterday. If you missed this the first time around, Bill Briggs' article in the Denver Post can still be read at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2811052?rss. Masback's answer can be read at-- http://www.usatf.org/news/view.aspx?DUid=USATF_2005_06_25_19_38_20 The latest suggestion forwarded to PVP is that the USATF should take advantage of the opportunity to challenge RUS/CHN to a triangular meet. I don't think that's going to happen. Russia can stay reasonably close to the U. S. in over-all medal count in an Olympic field (at Athens, 25 medals for USA, 20 for RUS, 2 for CHN), but in a USA/RUS/CHN triangular I think they would be badly out-classed. The results of such a meet would greatly increase enthusiasm and support of U. S. fans for track and field. Neither Russia nor China would want to see that happen. Two months ago, I became interested in constructing a virtual 2004 USA vs USSR dual meet, based on best 2004 outdoor performances by USA athletes and those from the 15 countries that comprised the USSR at the time of its dissolution. After I assembled the data, that project bogged down over my inability to find information on team membership, order of events and scoring for dual meets. By the time Peter Matthews provided the information on members and order (two athletes per event, scoring 5-3-2-1) and G�rard Dumas brought me copies of the August, 1958 Track and Field News with order of events for the meet that year, my interest had shifted back to women's vaulting in the current season. Now, I think it would be interesting to similarly construct a virtual 2004 United States/Russia/China triangular. Again, I don't know what are the rules or conventions about athletes per event, scoring, and order of events for triangular meets. I'd appreciate advice on that. I'll start assembling the 2004 data for the top three of each country (as I originally did for the dual) and can always whittle it down. Meanwhile, maybe you'd be interested in the way the 2004 dual meet turned out: United States vs. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Dual Meet--2004 Men (USA vs. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan) Two athletes per team for each event, scoring 5-3-2-1. 100 meters: 1. Justin GaltinUSA 9.85 2. Maurice GreenUSA 9.87 3. Anatoliy Dovgal UKR 10.17 4.Andrey Yepishin RUS 10.25 USA 8, USSR 3 110 meters Hurdles: 1. Allen JohnsonUSA 13.05 2. Terrence Tramell USA 13.09 3. Stanislav Olijar LAT 13.20 4. Sergey Demidyuk UKR 13.37 USA 8, USSR 3 (After two events: USA 16, USSR 6) Hammer Throw: 1. Ivan Tikhon BLR 84.46 2. Vadim DevyatovskyBLR 82.91 3. A. G. Kruger USA 79.26 4. James Parker USA 79.20 USA 3, USSR 8 (After three events: USA 19, USSR 14) 400 meters: 1. Jeremy Wariner USA 44.00 2. Otis Harris USA 44.16 3. Anton Galkin RUS 44.83 4. Oleg MishukovRUS 45.55 USA 8, USSR 3 (After four events: USA 27, USSR 17) Shot Put: 1. Christian Cantwell USA 22.54 2. John Godina USA 21.71 3. Andrey MikhnevichBLR 21.23 4. Yuriy BelonogUKR 21.16 USA 8, USSR 3 (After five events: USA 35, USSR 20) 10,000 meters: 1. Abdi Abdirahman USA 27:34.24 2. Bob Kennedy USA 27:37.45 3. Vasily MatviychukUKR 28:18.18 4. Sergey YemelyanovRUS 28:18.96 USA 8, USSR 3 (After six events: USA 43, USSR 23) Pole Vault: 1. Tim Mack USA 6.01 2. Toby Stevenson USA 6.00
Re: t-and-f: reaction times (was: Prefontaine)
Dan's idea has merit, but doesn't address all the issues. The main issue at the root of the argument for the current rules is that they don't want an automated 'Christmas tree' like drag racers, where 'rolling starts' are defacto rewarded. At issue is also the predictability of many starters. By I have an idea that addresses the best of what Dan is saying and also keeps away from rolling starts. It goes in this sequence: take your marks- same as today. Set- same as today. Starters looks to ascertain when everybody is still. Same process as today. When starters think everybody is still he/she presses a silent button which starts a 'blind' countdown, although the time span between the button being pushed and the gun firing is randomly selected by computer. Sometimes it might be 0.5 seconds, sometimes it might be 2.0 seconds. The sprinters don't know, and the starter doesn't know. Only the computer knows which delay has been selected randomly. Until the gun fires, anybody can be DQ'd for moving prematurely, but let the computerized blocks do it, not visual movement. When the gun fires, no delay is necessary before starting block pressure- the sprinters can go. The randomness (and keeping the no-false-start-or-you're-DQ'd-rule) ensures fairness. This also means starting over with national and world records. What do you think? Randy
Re: t-and-f: Most Consistent Top Vaulters
6 meters was significant in May at Modesto. Yes, but a May achievement in an event like the pole vault is not AS significant on August 15th as it was on June 15th, when it comes to forecasting the likelihood that it can be duplicated NOW, or at a specific future point. The passage of time devalues the relevance of performances for future result prognostication, more rapidly in some events than others. Now if you're talking year-end rankings, that's a whole different ballgame. Instead of being devalued by time, the rankers tend to put heavier weight on the significance of the competition where the mark was achieved. So Zurich or the OG gets a lot more weight than Modesto. Now a World Record in Modesto would certainly carry weight, but if that's ALL you did during the year, it's probably not gonna get you a #1-in-the-world ranking. RT
Re: t-and-f: Most Consistent Top Vaulters
I agree with Uri. The count is heavily weighted toward the Americans because the U.S. season starts so much earlier. Probably a better way to express it would be 'percent of meets achieving a top 100 performance, and do it by month for each athlete. And don't even start showing anything until June. An Example might be Athlete X June_July__August 4/5__3/5___0/1 80%_40%__00% Athlete Y June_July__August 1/2__3/5___1/1 50%_60%__100% In the original score Athletes X would score a 7 to Athlete Y's 5, but looking at the trend, it is definitely in Athlete Y s favor. RT -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 3, 2004 12:19 AM To: Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Most Consistent Top Vaulters As a prediction start for Athens this consistency chart is a non-starter (and not only because Jeff Hartwig did not make it...). Uri Quoting Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The following charts show the number of performances for each vaulter in the top 100 recorded during this outdoor season. The bracketed heights are the highest and lowest in the top 100 for that vaulter: Men's Most Consistent Performers a/o 2 August Toby StevensonUSA 9 (6.00 - 5.71) Jeff Hartwig USA 6 (5.81 - 5.70) Tim Mack USA 5 (5.90 - 5.70) Derek Miles USA 5 (5.81 - 5.70) Dmitri Markov AUS 5 (5.80 - 5.71) Lars BorgelingGER 5 (5.80 - 5.70) Tim Lobinger GER 5 (5.80 - 5.70) Brad Walker USA 4 (5.82 - 5.75) Rens Blom NED 4 (5.81 - 5.70) Romain Mesnil FRA 4 (5.80 - 5.70) Tye HarveyUSA 4 (5.80 - 5.70) Danny Ecker GER 4 (5.72 - 5.70) 100th performance = 5.70m (18'8 1/4) Women's Most Consistent Performers a/o 2 August Stacy Dragila USA 12 (4.83 - 4.50) Anna Rogowska POL 7 (4.71 - 4.60) Svetlana FeofanovaRUS 6 (4.88 - 4.60) Kellie Suttle USA 6 (4.67 - 4.50) Monika Pyrek POL 6 (4.60 - 4.45) Chelsea Johnson USA 6 (4.57 - 4.42) Yelena Isinbayeva RUS 4 (4.90 - 4.65) Carolin HingstGER 4 (4.66 - 4.40) Tracy O'Hara USA 4 (4.58 - 4.45) Anzhela Balakhonova UKR 4 (4.57 - 4.42) 100th performance = 4.40m (14'5) Data are used, with permission, from Mirko Jalava's world lists at tilastopaja.net. When you check this website, you'll find that some lists are available only by subscription; however, a wealth of information--including recent results and thousands of athlete bios with seasonal marks--can be found there for everyone. Have a good look! --RR +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC. This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: t-and-f: Kingdom's come! 13.98 in 110s!
In the modern era of elite athletes competing on the elite circuit much longer than they used to, and athletes moving into Masters (seniors) competition directly from the elite circuit or after only a short 'retirement', it is obvious that the age grade tables for the upper 30's to about 45 are totally worthless. They were probably built based on observed experience with athletes going into training and competion at age 42, not having done anything serious since high school competition, or never having competed in track at all to that point. It also brings into question the motives for using adjustment tables like this to begin with. Apparently the thinking is that to make an uneducated (as far as seniors competition) public appreciate just how great some of the performances are, it must be adjusted for direct comparison to elite athletes that the public might recognize (probably a wrong assumption to begin with in the U.S.). If that is a wrong assumption, then it would be just as good to reverse the tables and and for every new WR (REAL WR) say that's a fantastic performance for the 21-year-old, which would be worth a 14.31 at age 55, which would be an age 55 world record!. Or if the U.S. public doesn't even recognize most elite-level track performance values today, adjust them to a sport they are more likely to recognize- That's a fantastic world record clearance for Stacy Dragila!, which is equivalant to a 35 rebound performance in your average NBA Game- yeh , GO Stacy- you're now better than Wilt the Stilt Best just to drop the comparisons completely and let performances at all age levels stand on their own merit, along with the results of head-to-head competition. RT
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
re: Paulen being almost executed by the Germans in World War II Politicians who did something meritorious four decades prior should be commended, but should not get a free pass for the rest of their life solely because of it with regard to their current ability to lead. The primary consideration for effective leadership should be what have you done for me lately. [yes, there is a parallel American message here- sorry, couldn't resist... :) ] I personally don't think that Paulen had any particular favoritism toward Nordwig, and I doubt that he had it in for any particular nation or region. I just think that he did not exhibit the leadership qualities which were needed in the 1970's in the areas of reform and progressive movement toward making Athletics a professional sport in all the best senses of the word. He was a cog in the amateur sports bureaucracy which prevailed at the time and which were determined to mantain the sham status quo of amateurism, Olympic movement, etc., at all costs, which really served to maintain the elitist top end of sports administration for many many years. RT
t-and-f: Bannister ruining the sport
A lot has been written and said over the last few years about how horrible 'time-chasing' is because it takes away the fan excitement of head-to-head competition. I'm not convinced that we can't have both. Bannister vs Landy in the '54 Commonwealth Games produced a 3:58 when the World Record was 3:57. Ryun vs Liquori in '71 produced a 3:52 when the World Record was 3:51. What I hate most is some of the best athletes in the world going head to head at pedestrian race and then seeing who has the most blazing speed in the last 10% of the race. I HATE THAT!!! It reminds of those velodrome bicyclers that see how slow they can go without the bike falling over, so they can just watch other- like playing 'chicken' or 'russian roulette'. Yes, I would rather watch a single one of these athletes make a good shot at a rabbited world record attempt with the last 10% of the race basically solo man-against-the-clock. Wasn't that basically what Eamonn Coghlan was doing in his best WR-shots on the indoor circuit? Nobody was really in his class, and everybody knew he was shooting for sub-3:50. And the fans were standing screaming at the top of their lungs. Maybe the problem in combining both (fast times good competition) is when you have MORE than two in the race with legitimate shots- there are so many variables to keep an eye on that an athlete chooses to NOT follow the rabbit's pace and instead goes into 'total tactical mode'. Those two races I cited (Bannister/Landy Ryun/Liquori) were basically 2 people head-to-head with others thrown into the field just to fill it out (and maybe rabbit)- Commonwealth Games qualifying rounds notwithstanding- it was still really just Bannister vs Landy and everybody knew it. RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: D.C. Marathon canceled because of war, security concerns
what does it say when U.S. runners are wimpier than figure skaters? :-) probably easier to provide some level of security in an indoor arena, than for a huge crowd out in the open air
t-and-f: ???France goes berserk ???Again?
This article doesn't make much sense at all. How can a national federation ban athletes of another country from IAAF meets held in its territory, if neither the IAAF or that athlete's national federation have any such action? Or is the article wrong, and it's not really the French federation but the IAAF itself which is imposing a penalty? Which would mean its not just IAAF meets in France, but ANYWHERE during the suspension period? http://www.newsday.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-run-white-drugs,0,3232438.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dsports%2Dheadlines If the article is correct, this smells like more France versus USA politics. If this is France going unilateral in imposing penalties on its own, then the IAAF should jerk accreditation away from the French GP meets. RT
Re: t-and-f: Which Meet?
Show me third place for each event, and include some women and field events too. RT ---Original Message--- From: Michael Bartolina [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03/17/03 09:40 AM To: track net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Which Meet? What is the tougher meet, NCAA's or World Indoor's? 60m 5th NCAA 6.64 WI 6.64 200m 5th NCAA 20.82 WI 21.68 400m 5th NCAA 46.02 WI 46.61 800m 6th NCAA 1:48.50 WI 1:48.89 Mile 5th NCAA 4:07.11 WI 4:02.56 (converted) 3K 5th NCAA 7:58 WI 7:43 60HH 5th NCAA 7.72 WI 7.61 4x4001st NCAA 3:04.79 WI 3:04.09 I call it a dead heat. Barto __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online a target=_blank href=http://webhosting.yahoo.com;http://webhosting.yahoo.com/a
Re: Re: t-and-f: New Pole Vault rules
And besides- If somebody set a record a few years ago over a crossbar that was sitting on pegs that were longer than currently allowed, and all recollections are that the athlete didn't even touch the bar ANYWAY while going over- then why in the world would his record get thrown out? This rule change is way too minor to invalidate prior records. Many (if not most) of prior PV records should still be statistically valid regardless of the peg size, and it's impractical to try to identify in hindsight those few who likely would have caused the bar to fall, had the pegs been shorter. RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: IOC, EU Discuss Live Internet Coverage
The only people who'd watch it on the 'net in this country are the hard-core individual sport geeks- like us tf nuts. An tiny audience which NBC says it doesn't target anyway. It's after the housewives and soap opera freeks who drive advertising ratings. (the same people who watch ice skating). So I've never understood NBC's fear that live internet availability would erode its broadcast audience. NBC talks out of the side of its mouth that is convenient at the time. D-W-I-G-H-T never would admit it (and bite the hand that feeds him), but it's true. RT ---Original Message--- From: Lee Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02/18/03 01:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: IOC, EU Discuss Live Internet Coverage I say it doesn't have a chance. Hell, right now the Olys are about the best thing NBC has going on, sports-wise. The closest thing they have to a major sport contract is the Arena Football League. They'll put a gun to the IOC's head and say, Now just put down that mouse and back slowly away from the Internet. Lee From: RT Let's keep our fingers (and toes) crossed! IOC, EU Discuss Live Internet Coverage By Associated Press February 18, 2003, 4:59 AM EST ATHENS, Greece -- The IOC is negotiating with the European Union over the possible broadcast of live images from the 2004 Olympics on the Internet and cell phones. IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies confirmed the negotiations to The Associated Press on Mondasy but gave no details. EU officials strongly favor the involvement of new media in broadcasting sports events. But for the 2004 Games, such deals could complicate arrangements with NBC, which has the TV rights for United States. Copyright (c) 2003, The Associated Press This article originally appeared at: http://www.newsday.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-oly-athens-2004-broadcast0218feb18,0,6602936.story Visit Newsday online at http://www.newsday.com -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com
Re: RE: t-and-f: MARION SPEAKS Some interview
No one asked the question, why were you compelled to lie about your relationship with Francis. I agree that that is the key question, and the corollary to it is if you can admit that you were anything less than above- board about it, why should we believe you about anything else, including your statement that you are 'cutting ties with Francis' ? If you read between the lines of her statements yesterday, and look at what her boyfriend did the last two years, she will simply revert to using a coach as a go-between, rather than directly working with Francis herself. That's what she says all the other top sprinters do. Say, isn't that what Hansen was purportedly for? What a dumb shell-game. I find it hard to believe anything she says. RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: Title IX observations
The analogy would be a little sharper if the '60s Civil Rights hearings had Stokely Charmichael, Huey Newton and Malcolm X on the commission. Probably nothing would have been achieved. Better that those 3 were kept off, ALONG WITH Fabaus and Wallace. Sorry if some think comparing Huey Newton and feminist advocates is too harsh, as to their relative degree of impassioned advocacy and blind focus on an extremely narrow agenda- just my opinion. RT ---Original Message--- From: ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/31/03 11:31 AM To: track list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Title IX observations oh, probably for the same reason you didn't have '60s Civil Rights hearings with only Orville Faubus and George Wallace on the commission. gh (who HATES what pre-Title IX did to women far more than drugs have to track) From: Ed Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Ed Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:31:32 -0800 To: track net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Title IX observations 2) What were women sports advocates doing on the comission? The story I read today said that if one of them hadn't been late, an important part of the changes would not have passed. Advocates have no place on committees of this kind---they should be there to testify, period.
t-and-f: a testing-free sport
The problem is, if you take away all doping controls, the sport quickly evolves into a chemical and technology race, because there is a lot more unexplored territory there than just 'better training/better diet'. Those with sponsorships by the best pharmaceutical companies, as opposed to the current apparel sponsorships, will always be the winners. Chemical manipulation would eventually migrate into biomechanical and genetic manipulation. A 3-minute mile might be EASY. By 2075, every elite athlete (if you could still call them that rather than robot) would have implants to replace the muscles that the good Lord gave them with mechanical devices that are a lot more powerful, transplants of key organs like lungs and hearts with more efficient devices (or from animals) would be common. Life expectancy for these people might be reduced to five years of high-performance activity. Then the trash heap. Would it be more entertaining than what we have today? Garry might think so. I see it as a nightmare. That is definitely where pro football is headed. Yes it gets high TV ratings today. I prefer to stick with humans as they came out of the womb. We have to think about where we want the sport to evolve in future decades, not just now. If you think my future vision is outlandish, do your own forecast about what would happen if all testing penalties were dropped and athletes were told to do whatever they wanted- if first to the finish line wins and how you get there no longer matters. Would you want YOUR son or daughter training under a coach who basically tells them 'you can't get there with a body that is merely human' ? RT
t-and-f: Mo Greene gets a job
According to this morning's L.A. Times, Mo Greene has been named assistant track coach at a local Los Angeles high school. And the head coach who hired him? ...probably nobody has heard of Quincy Watts! RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: Is Dempsey Indoor track legal?
---Original Message--- From: Robert Hersh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/23/03 06:31 AM To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Is Dempsey Indoor track legal? Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BUT...the way I read it, even to submit a record set in the indoor long jump to the IAAF as a world record, you still have to attach a wind gauge reading. Don't be silly. I meant for consideration as the all-venues world record. If I were the IAAF, I'd be interested to hear whether the long jump runway was set up right in front of an entrance/exit tunnel which acts as a wind tunnel from the venue's air conditioning system. If the IAAF rule requires the wind to be less than 2.0, how can anybody certify that it was so without a wind gauge reading? There is nothing in the IAAF rulebook that says the wing gauge reading only has to be submitted from certain venues. Apparently that rule is waived for Indoor World Records, but would they dare wave it for the 'All-Venues' World Record? How would you decide whether to apply it in a stadium with the dome partially closed? Something like Texas Stadium (where the Cowboys play) in Dallas. RT
Re: t-and-f: That starting rule
By the way, that Irish Times article yesterday said that any record set by an American athlete might be in recognition jeapardy because of the USATF not going along with the IAAF false start rule. (asleep, or foot-dragging they called it) That's a humongous stretch. First, anything set in an NCAA meet should be a slam dunk, since their rule is even stiffer than that of the IAAF. But in a USATF meet, the ONLY performance that might be jeapardized for world recognition would be when somebody else gets called for a FS, then the record-setting athlete jumps on the next attempt and gets tagged with a FS, then the field gets off, and the guy sets a record. Under IAAF rules he would have been eliminated and not get to run. So no WR-recognition. But everything else should be fair game for record consideration. I hope the IAAF doesn't slide into any of that ridiculous 'contamination' garbage about not recognizing any record from the entire meet, just because the 100m race didn't DQ somebody that the IAAF thought should have been DQ'd. Or not recognizing a record in the 100 set by somebody in lane 4, just because the IAAF thinks that somebody out in lane 8 should have been DQ'd, thus de-legitimizing the entire race in IAAF eyes. Hopefully the IAAF pooh-bahs are more reasonable than that. I think the Irish Times was just hugely exagerrating once again, for no other purpose than USA-bashing. They do a lot better sticking to stories they can investigate in their own backyard. RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: That starting rule
I also wonder if the rule would stand up in court. That's not a fanciful idea. Ours is a litigationhappy country and why shouldn't an athlete penalized for something he didn't, as the new rule calls for, sue(and probably win). I thought under IAAF (and maybe USATF) rules that professional athletes had to sign on the dotted line that they would follow an appeal process through the Court of Arbitration for Sports, and abide by the result, keeping it out of the local courts system. Am I missing something? RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: That starting rule
In response to intial prodding started by TFN, IAAF has publicly stated that WRs set in a USATF rules meet are unlikely to be ratified. Even if no false starts. gh And why, pray-tell, would TFN prod for such a thing? Why penalize Dragila or Godina for something that only pertains to sprint events? Did you mean it as leverage to prod USATF to go along with the new rule, and now it has backfired? RT
Re: t-and-f: UW Indoor Meet Attendance Error
(anyone else remember the old ITA besides me and Garry Hill and Bob Hersh?) Absolutely Bring back the rabbit lights! RT
Re: t-and-f: driving times (was: NJSIAA sux...)
But gets the distance-to-drive shit kicked out of it by 6 of 10 Canadian provinces! :-) When I lived in Anchorage the running joke was that in the 1950's when Congress was ready to admit Alaska as a state, the Texans were furious that they'd no longer be the largest state. The governor of Alaska supposedly responded that if Texans kept up the whining, Alaska would divide itself into TWO states, and then Texas would rank #3 in size. :) Back to the subject at hand, which started out as being something about unbudgeted travel to the south end of New Jersey- I went to high school in Florida, where long travel was the norm, and here in California it's often the norm as well. Both long skinny states. Well not THAT skinny- probably as wide as most states. Anyway, the way my Fla HS's athletic department worked it, if the coach wanted to take you to the Florida Relays, the school would pay for gas, but not overnight lodging- if you didn't want to drive back the parents had to pay for the lodging. But for the state meet, if you qualified (which was RARE at our school) the school rewarded you with an overnight stay at a Day's Inn or something of that sort, as well as gas. Since people qualified so rarely, the state meet was an unbudgeted item, but they found a way to squeeze up some dough. (about once every five years for an individual, never lucky enough to get a 'team' there, at least until my brother became coach about 15 years later). If your team does qualify most years, and the state meet is in the same place, and you've got plenty of notice where it's gonna be, then it becomes basically a budget planning/prioritization exercise. I get the drift that some of the complaint in the New Jersey case is fairness- northern schools have to fork up bigger annual travel budgets than southern schools. Hint: look at California's solution- the meet rotates annually between two sites- Sacramento one year, and Scott Davis' backyard the next year. RT
Re: t-and-f: yes-yes-yes!!!!! (field Q)
What replaces the flights system? I thought the whole purpose of having flights is to reduce the possibility of having to wait through 38 attempts before your name gets called again. It might work if the field size is kept manageable (no more than 15 or so entries). But then you turn around and talk about expanded fields. I picture athletes sitting around getting cold, finally getting their name called after 45 minutes of waiting, and promptly ripping a hamstring. Tell me how that will be avoided. P.S.- in vertical jumps this very issue is addressed through the 'five-alive' procedure; but I've never heard of any similar approach for the horizontal approach or throws, due to the nature of the event. If you mean that the NCAA FINALS have been run in flights, then yes that is a relic of a jurassic age and should get canned. But you said qualifying... RT On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:17:04 -0800 ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the new expanded fields for the Nationals in June, the NCAA will end its decade-long descent into darkness by eliminating the flights system for the jumps and throws. Back to real qualifying Now, if we can just get USATF to see the light. gh
Re: t-and-f: Breathing Technique?
This is of great interest to me personally right now (not for my own use but for my son)- he is 16, and a cross country runner for 3 years with track interest as well. Modest top third-of-the-pack accomplishments, not a superstar or anything. He just suffered two collapsed lungs (same lung) just 3 weeks apart, and underwent a lung resection last Friday, and came home from the hospital last night. Both occurances resulted in a chest tube being inserted between the ribs, to introduce a vacuum to the chest cavity, so as to suck out the oxygen/nitrogen that shouldn't be there, the pressure differential then allowing the lung to reflate. The resection was to remove two small areas of lung tissue where the surgeon thought a 'blem' was located- a lung leak. Internal surgical staples where the tissue was resectioned will dissolve on their own. The surgeon also did some kind of 'abrasing' of the chest wall (in the back) so that scar tissue would form to the lung to help keep in inflated. My son is 5'11, but only 119 lbs- very skinny. I was also 5'11 and skinny at his age, but weighed about 135 at that time, and never had any lung problems. Cause of the lung collapses is currently unknown. Doctors say it is not too uncommon for tall thin males to suffer a 'spontaneous' collapse, or partial collapse (first time for my son was 30%, second time three weeks later was 20%). At the large medical center hospital where he was admitted (in a large urban area), they said they get 5 or 6 of these a year. They are now testing for allergies and stuff- an initial screening for asthma was negative- to see if they can figure out any cause or 'trigger'. My casual observation is that his normal breathing 'at rest'- like when watching TV- seems to be shallow- he doesn't inhale or exhale nearly as deeply as I do. My son is also now worried about getting back into training, although the doctors say there shouldn't be anything to be worry about, after a couple of weeks of post-op recovery. Do any you have any experience with athletes you've coached, or teammates, who've had collapsed lungs? Is there anything special to keep in mind in training? You can e-mail me either off-line, or on-line if you have something that you think others might benefit from hearing. RT
Re: t-and-f: trivia
Nah, can't be Lewis Burrell. hold world records implies that they are current record holders in the same event. That dictates different genders, if you assume relays aren't included. born in the same city implies same national affiliation, but small possibility of somebody moving to different country after birth. same distance rules out field events. Knowing who the record holders are, distance events are mostly/all African for men, NOT African for women. So I conclude that it has to be a sprint event. That oughta narrow the field considerably. RT On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:03:09 -0600 Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have questions (current???) but let me take a wild guess in keeping with the 100m/sprinter theme: Carl Lewis and LeRoy Burrell? jim mclatchie wrote: A change of pace from the Mitchell dilemma. What 2 athletes who were born in the same city, hold world records at the same distance?
t-and-f: Henro Rono
A friend of mine (former Javelin thrower for Finland) would like to contact Henry Rono. If anybody knows how to get in touch with Henry- e-mail, snail-mail, telephone, pony express, whatever, please e-mail me off-line. Thanks, RT
Re: t-and-f: Kim Gallagher
In order to avoid the magic topic which sends GH over the edge, I'd suggest that we limit the discussion (for the time being) to: 1) any evidence that elite athletes are kicking the bucket early (before age 50) at a higher rate than the general population. Does anybody have access to such statistics? 2) if (and only if) that appears to be the case, is there anything about their long training competition careers which is ending up triggering something in their bodies, or are the people who gravitate toward high-physical-development careers like track field and swimming more predisposed TO BEGIN WITH toward early flameout. (i.e. same arguments as volleyball recruiters looking for extremely tall women are more likely to end up with a higher percentage of marfan's syndrome than you'd find in the general population). 3) the magic topic should be the end result of such a discussion, and the result of eliminating most other possible obvious factors, instead of the ENTRY POINT for the discussion. That is UNLESS somebody has some factual specific information regarding the athlete in question that is strong evidence. Otherwise we end up with the same FloJo arguments, everybody dividing into two camps, and NEITHER camp having any facts to support their arguments. Why not start with what is KNOWN instead of what is unknown? RT On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:13:11 -0600 Lee Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron Reid's column includes Kim's denial of ever taking steroids. Unfortunately, she may have been exposed to them without her knowledge Okay, in the last couple of days we've had Plucknett die at 50, a former Malaysian star die at 47, and Gallagher at 38. I know, maybe it's just coincidence, and I have no evidence of any wrongdoing, but it's making me scratch my head and ask WTF? I hate seeing these supposedly healthy former athletes kicking off early. -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com
Re: t-and-f: Jabbour is the future: was Letter...NYC mara... coverage
GM cares about a few thousand hard core fans? I doubt it. IF they did, they'd already fund nationwide coverage. Ultimately (75 years from now? 100?) all television will be delivered via broadband, but at a heck of a lot higher bandwidth than today, given the needs of HDTV. Companies like Connexion are already demonstrating that it can be done (via satellite, and with a finite number of users). I don't expect USATF to fund ANYTHING. If a web enterprise wants to webcast a meet, the door is open. (Dr. K- have at it!) At the Olympics, cameras from many nations are allowed side by side, why not webcast and broadcast side by side? Do Political Party Conventions grant broadcast coverage rights to a single network? Of course not. It's in their interest to broaden the coverage as much as possible. (these days, of course, networks are not as interested as they used to be). There's not enough overlap to worry about 'stealing anybody's audience'. The whole coverage model is wrong right now. USATF should stop trying to follow the lead of the IOC. RT On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 05:54:49 -0800 ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 19:53:09 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Jabbour is the future: was Letter...NYC mara... coverage The answer is BOTH- put it on the net. And allow any station who wants to provide over-the-air coverage to do so as well. Relegate the exclusive contracts to the dustbin of history. Who wrote that business plan, Homer Simpson? Let's see if I've got this right: first, USTAF should spend income it probably doesn¹t have to fund a web setup for the country's few thousand hardcore fans. Then it should go to GM and try to sell a sponsorship package, while noting oh, by the way, we've already cut out the heart of your audience because we're giving away a more complete product elsewhere. Yeah, that oughta fly. Gh
t-and-f: list member makes it to the big time
Congrats to listmember Ken Stone for getting published in this morning's L.A. Times. Of course he had to resort to a lap dancing story!... http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-briefing15oct15.story
Re: t-and-f: Fisher's Not at End of Rope Yet
well bummer- apparently their system only e-mails a few lines, then refers to their web site. Oh well, I won't go further 'on-line' here, because Ken's contribution didn't have anything to do with elite track and field anyway. latimes.com registration is free, if I remember correctly. They only charge you for archive access to stuff that is over 'x' number of days old. Randy On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:01:46 -0700 (PDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: RT Re: t-and-f: list member makes it to the big time http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-briefing15oct15.story This site requires registration. Can you repost this with the attached story, preferably in plain text, if possible? Thanks. Jimson Lee Palo Alto, CA here it is---you have to read down several paragraphs to find Ken's contribution... Fisher's Not at End of Rope Yet By --Mal Florence October 15 2002 Ron Rapoport in the Chicago Sun-Times: The noose may be tightening around former Bear [and Trojan] Jeff Fisher's neck in Tennessee. 'We're not looking good,' Titan owner Bud Adams said after last week's loss to Washington. 'We should be better than we are right now. It looks to me like we're being out-coached.' The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/la-sp-briefing15oct15,0,6429087.story Visit Latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com
Re: t-and-f: Shore Coaches addenda
The most outrageous case was Artesia High School basketball- a nationally-ranked powerhouse- who was said to not only recruit regionally, but internationally- the story goes that they were trolling for exchange students who just 'happened' to be basketball stars. Apparently there was enough credence to it that a new principal brought in to 'clean house' fired the basketball coach. Artesia is a public school, by the way- these kind of allegations have frequently swirled around parochial schools. RT On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:31:18 -0700 Gerald Woodward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, A few years ago, there was a California boy who attended Carson High School (a Los Angeles football powerhouse) in the Fall (he was the quarterback) and North Torrance High School (a South Bay area baseball powerhouse) in the Spring (he was a pitcher). It seems that his parents were divorced and he conveniently used their addresses to enable him to participate on championship teams in football and baseball. The California Scholastic Federation (CIF) recently passed a law returning to the former requirement that an athlete transferring from one CIF School to another CIF School would lose a year of eligibility by having to sit out the first year of the transfer. Of course, there were some administrators who had a Special Cases clause added to this revision in order to get it passed. In recent years there have been a number of documented cases of coaches recruiting athletes from other districts to attend their schools and at times ruining the athletic programs at the other school. Woody
Re: t-and-f: Anticipating the Gun (was Assertions)
Robert Hersh wrote: Dan, Wayne -- Are you guys trying to get this dialogue to publishable length? Or are you just working on a cure for insomnia? :-) Actually, the sooner you get vertical after beginning to read the thread, the less likely that you'll fall asleep before reaching the end. However, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that this will be enough to counteract the forces of hot air in the form of a headwind. RT
Re: t-and-f: look out for flying batons!!!!
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:36:32 -0700 ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in looking at early results from ISTAF (no, no spoilers here, although w/ TV not until tomorrow, hard to believe many will try to wait) was interested to see a series of 16x50m races. Yikes! From the ISTAF web site: Since 1996 numerous children from Berlin and Brandenburg schools have been integrated through a relay competition. ...gee, it only took a succession of a number of Presidents, acts of Congress and court orders to integrate U.S. schools :-) All we needed to do was bus them all to the Penn Relays!
Re: t-and-f: metric converter
I've switched computers in the last few months and can't find the original Rand-o-Meter, as Tony labeled it, BUT I found it in the uoregon archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu/msg01896/metric1.xls The usual caveats apply. Don't use it to convert anything that is going to be published as 'official' results- the stat guys will have conniptions. But feel free to use it when looking at metric marks and wondering 'how far was that in feet and inches?', when a TFN green/red/blue/purple/chartreuse/orange or whatever color book is not at hand. (i.e. when I'm at the office monitoring the Friday IAAF GP super meet results, and my T*FN book is at home) By the way, my new computer runs on Windows 2000, and when I clicked on this Excel file url it ran right in the Internet Explorer window- something that might be very handy. All I have to do is bookmark the location (at least as long as the archive is there). Your mileage may differ. Randy On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:44:19 -0500 Lee Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, don't forget that the conversions for vertical jumps and horizontal jumps/throws are slightly different, if you're using it for track conversions. Lee Netters, A few years back somebody posted a metric conversion program that ran on Excel to the list. In switching jobs etc. I have managed to lose that program and I'm wondering if anyone could email to me directly since it is not permisable to post an attachment to the list. I thought it was Randy Treadway's Rand-O-Meter, but I might be mistaken. Thanks for all the help. ps am enjoying the thread on the media particularly with all the points of view from Garry, Lee etc. = Keith Whitman Head Coach, Men's and Women's Cross Country/Track Field Muskingum College, New Concord, Ohio 43762 (740) 826-8018-Office (330) 677-4631-Home (740) 826-8300-Fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Boulami tests positive
No, the Zurich stadium record prediction contest will not be recalibrated :-), per the published official rules: ...the fine print- Contest results will be final as soon as all results are officially posted. No recalculations will result from subsequent announcement of doping failures, even though official Zurich results could be adjusted several weeks from now. However, in the interest of full disclosure and acknowledgement of having the most powerful crystal balls in town, Kurt Bray and Mike Trujillo were the two who predicted no new Zurich stadium records this year. RT On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:18:43 -0700 ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so much for the conspiracy-theorists and how the IAAF would never nail anybody big. Who's the only guy to set a track WR in this century? Who's the only guy (all events) to set two WRs this century? You got it. gh
Re: t-and-f: Why on the street? - car tromping: Once a Runner
Well I was in the group that it happened to, and did it, in 1976 in Troy, Alabama. I suspect that, given enough stories of drunk people swerving at runners, runners have picked up on the 'revenge' angle, and done it (running over a car or pickup trick) whenever they have the opportunity, as justifiable. After so many years, I don't remember who in the group I was running with came up with the idea and said hey, there's the guy- let's run right over his truck. In my memory, it was pretty much a spontaneous reaction when we saw him sitting at the stop light. So it's probable actually happened several (or many) times. Who knows- maybe Batchelor and Shorter were the first. Give them credit among distance runner lore for paving new ground, like Dick Fosbury. As a matter of fact, give it a name like the Fosbury Flop- we caught the guy at the next intersection and Batchelored him. You'll have to explain to young runners what getting Batchelored means. RT RT On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:38:22 -0400 Geoff Pietsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Parker told the story of Shorter and Bacheler in both non-fiction and fiction (Once a Runner) versions, as I recall. No spikes though, just running shoes - and red necks. That really happened, to the best of my recollection, and all the other versions have followed from it. Geoff From: ghill Reply-To: ghill To: track list Subject: Re: t-and-f: Why on the street? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:01:46 -0700 there's also a story, probably apocryphal, of Shorter and Bacheler running in spikes on a golf course and some guy pulled a car in front of them (not sure how the car was on the course, hence the apoc. nature), and supposedly they ran right over the hood and left a score of spike holes. From: nad wilson Reply-To: nad wilson Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:16:59 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Why on the street? sounds like something slinger sanchez did. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a few miles later on the outskirts of town, we came up to an intersection where the same guy was waiting for the light to change, and our entire group ran right up over the top of his pickup, the last guy stomping extra hard on his hood. _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Wanamaker?
I guess back then buying/donating your name onto an event or a trophy by a successful businessman was something akin to the current sale of 'naming rights' on stadiums or bowl games to the dot.coms, so that we end up with stuff like the Poulan Weed-Eater Bowl. RT
Re: t-and-f: Run to the Top
It's not impossible that both the coach AND the dad might be right. The dad might be right that what's best for his daughter at this point as a freshman is no more than five races in a 90-day timespan in the fall. And the coach might be right that where an individual athlete's needs and a team's needs are in conflict, the needs of the overall team take precedence. So I have no problem with the current resolution. Competition under the auspices of the National HS federation is not a be-all-to-end all. Germans, Spaniards and Kenyans get along just fine without the American HS federation to run their lives, and their athletic prowess doesn't seem to suffer any. RT On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:49:03 -0700 Matt Stohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any bets on whether this girl will be even be running by the time she graduates high school . . . . The dad should probably let his daughter enjoy the high school CC and track experience, and ease up a bit. I am glad that the CC coach stood up to the dad, the last thing our sport needs is fathers of middle schoolers directing high school cc teams based on their childs own individual needs. Matt Stohl _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: marathon vs 3k
More importantly, the training is (or should be) very different once you get to the highest levels. That may not have been as true 25 years ago, but it's certainly true now. What may have been true 25 years ago for the men may still be true today for the women. Remember that it's only very recently that the 10K and Marathon have been added to the international programme (compared to the men), so the ability of women to compete at the highest levels from 3K to Marathon may be no harder for women than it was for men in, say, Paavo Nurmi's day. RT
RE: t-and-f: women's AOY
You are correct. The Brits, the Canadians and the Continentals would diss her and taint her with 'doping by association' :-) My personal view: Radcliffe should be on the 'short list' for AOY, if the season were to end today. So would Devers. But in my book, NEITHER is clear-cook heads-and-shoulders above the other folk. Today is August 1st. The real season is just starting. It's way too early for AOY talk. RT On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:53:48 -0400 Paul V. Tucknott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Methinks Radcliffe's endeavours would be viewed in a different light if she were American . . . Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ghill Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:46 AM To: track list Subject: Re: t-and-f: women's AOY From: Post, Marty Reply-To: Post, Marty Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:03:53 -0400 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: t-and-f: women's AOY Although she has a blemish on her record losing the Monaco 3000m to Szabo, consider Radcliffe's outstanding versatility this year. Cross-country: gold medal at world champs. Road: 2nd fastest (at the time) road 10-K; 2nd fastest marathon in history. Track: 8:22 and 14:31. More gold at Europeans and a win over Ndereba at Chicago Marathon and she's just about a lock for Athlete of the Year. Doesn't matter what Devers does. She's just a 'one-trick pony' now, abandoning any flat 100m running since she probably knows she can't beat Jones/Pintusevich. I have to take (strong) issue w/ both Radcliffe's purported versatilty and Devers' being a one-trick pony. Everything Radcliffe does is a variation on a theme of having good distance running ability. There's little more versatitiliy in what she does than if Devers could also run the 90H, 95H, 105H and 110H, or if she had the 27-and 30-inch options sted of just 33-inch. This is the same kind of bias which denies field eventers a decent shot at AOY in most polls becuase they're too locked into a single event. Radcliffe's accomplishments this year are so far behind Devers' it's laughable. gh
Re: t-and-f: women's AOY
I'm not so sure that Devers could mimic Andre. He was a long-legged type. She's a short-legged power sprinter. In fact, she's the type I'd pick to set records at Indoor 50 and 60 meter distances. Thus her 100m sprint victory at Barcelona. That usually doesn't translate well to 400H. Jackie Joyner-Kersee was more the right body type. Devers has never even shown exceptional prowess at 200m, so how the heck is she gonna run a 400H ? By the way, the 'hurdles are lower' argument is a red herring. The hurdles in the women's 100H are so ridiculously low, that people like Devers can basically blast a 100m dash with just a slight leg movement to avoid tripping. So, by citing that the 400H hurdles are even SHORTER doesn't really mean very much. RT On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:58:31 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: now, you know that she could if she wanted too. Andre Phillips was another great example of hurdling versatily. In a message dated 8/1/2002 2:55:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The marathon is 14 times 3000 meters. If Devers is such a great hurdler, why doesn't she do the 400 hurdles? That's only 4 times as far as she's used to and the hurdles are much lower.
Re: t-and-f: women's AOY
When you run between 12.40 and 12.60 week after week, for YEARS, and you're neck and neck with your competition, then your competition DISAPPEARS on you and starts running 12.8-12.9ish, are you left as AOY by default? In my mind AOY involves not just head-to-head accomplishments, but usually also exploring 'new terrority', and Devers isn't yet exploring territory we (or she) hasn't visited before. I know in a non-WC, non-OG year, we probably won't see a spate of 52-second 400H races, or Jones attacking the 200 standard, so I guess AOY this year might not carry as much regal bearing with it as some other years... That either Devers or Radcliffe's accomplishments seem all that glorious might be simply because things are relatively quiet, as GH mentioned for the men's side as well. It's a blasé year. Hard to get stoked about AOY, thus far. RT On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 10:25:25 -0700 ghill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 12:59:58 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: women's AOY If Radcliffe runs close to sub-30:00 in München and breaks 2:20 again in Chicago she's gotta be AOY, unless Devers breaks the WR. Hmm... Radcliffe has trouble getting much credence from me for a fast 10K in Munich (even if she wins it) simply becuase it won't have any Africans; won't do anything to stamp her as world No. 1 (even if she ranks as that) in my eyes. Devers is beating up on the world's best week after week and not losing. Radcliffe is once in a while beating some of the world's mediocrities and sometimes losing. (in my own personal universe, going undefeated against major competition outweighs a WR any day of the week) gh (see, even TFN guys can argue internally!)
Re: t-and-f: how did this go unremarked?!
Walt, according to http://www.cknow.com/ckinfo/emoticons.htm , the computer symbol for 'tongue-in-cheek' (sorry they don't have one for tounge-in-cheek, is :-? But use it judiciously, because that symbol is also said to represent Pipe smoker, Blue Oyster Cult fetishist, or Licking lips. ...ALL of which may be appropriate for afficionados of reverse conversion tables for dirt track achievements! RT Mike, Next time I'll add the computer symbol for tounge-in-cheek(does one exist?). Walt Murphy
t-and-f: Nice GP results
IAAF Grand Prix Nikaia Nice, 09-Jul-2001 RESULTS MEN 100 METRES - MEN Wind: -1.2 1 Montgomery Tim USA 10.18 2 Zakari Abdul AzizGHA 10.20 3 Bredwood LlewelynJAM 10.31 4 Asahara Nobuharu JPN 10.39 5 Loum Oumar SEN 10.41 6 Campbell Darren GBR 10.46 7 Patros David FRA 10.49 8 Lewis Brian USA 10.56 Jarrett Patrick JAMDNF GP 200 METRES - MEN Wind: +0.7 Pts 1 Clay Ramon USA 20.27 8.0 2 Crawford Shawn USA 20.27 7.0 3 Obikwelu Francis NGR 20.41 6.0 4 Buckland StéphaneMRI 20.51 5.0 5 da Silva André Domingos BRA 20.59 4.0 6 Heard Floyd USA 20.66 3.0 7 Williams Christopher JAM 20.67 2.0 8 Brunson Marcus USA 20.75 1.0 GP 1000 METRES - MEN Pts 1 Yiampoy William KEN2:16.53 8.0 2 Ngeny Noah KEN2:16.93 7.0 3 Maazouzi Driss FRA2:17.10 6.0 4 Lassiter Seneca USA2:17.26 5.0 5 Nduwimana Jean-Patrick BDI2:17.34 4.0 6 Kimwetich KennedyKEN2:17.35 3.0 7 Aissat Nicolas FRA2:17.39 2.0 8 Hatungimana Arthémon BDI2:17.58 1.0 9 Lelei David KEN2:17.74 10 Sepeng Hezekiél RSA2:17.79 11 Wachira Nicholas KEN2:18.13 12 Marwa FrancisKEN2:18.74 Kiptoo David KENDNF GP 1500 METRES - MEN Pts 1 Saïdi-Sief Ali ALG3:31.16 8.0 2 Díaz Andrés Manuel ESP3:33.76 7.0 3 Kipkurui BenjaminKEN3:34.00 6.0 4 Shabunin Vyacheslav RUS3:34.67 5.0 5 Hood Graham CAN3:34.98 4.0 6 Mayock John GBR3:35.73 3.0 7 Graffin Andrew GBR3:35.97 2.0 8 Abraham Aléxis FRA3:36.05 1.0 9 Koech Benson KEN3:36.28 10 Mwangi Paul KEN3:36.99 11 Koers Marko NED3:37.11 12 Baba Youssef MAR3:37.31 12 Bosch Nadir FRA3:39.26 Khaldi Mohamed ALGDNF Tanui WilliamKENDNF GP 3000 METRES - MEN Pts 1 Bitok Paul KEN7:34.74 8.0 2 Amyn MohammedMAR7:35.35 7.0 3 Mucheru Leonard KEN7:35.35 6.0 4 Limo BenjaminKEN7:36.22 5.0 5 Goumri AbderrahimMAR7:36.70 4.0 6 Sghyr Ismaïl FRA7:38.37 3.0 7 Gharib Jahouad MAR7:39.22 2.0 8 Kennedy Bob USA7:41.67 1.0 9 El Wardi Mohamed SaïdMAR7:41.97 10 de Souza Hudson Santos BRA7:42.55 11 Rios JoséESP7:43.36 12 Molina Enrique ESP7:44.56 Keino Martin KENDNF Mutai Sammy KENDNF Lagat BernardKENDNS GP 3000 M STEEPLECHASE - MEN Pts 1 Boit Kipketer WilsonKEN8:05.78 8.0 2 Barmasai Bernard KEN8:06.12 7.0 3 Misoi Kipkirui KEN8:08.90 6.0 4 Ezzine Ali MAR8:10.23 5.0 5 Khattabi Elarbi MAR8:13.27 4.0 6 Denis Frédéric FRA8:22.03 3.0 7 Langat John KEN8:22.07 2.0 8 Cherono Stephen KEN8:24.58 1.0 9 Cherono Abraham KEN8:32.56 10 Chorny Tom USA8:47.04 11 Morán Ramiro ESP8:56.48 Kapkory Josephat KENDNF Kibiwott Stanley KENDNF GP 110 METRES HURDLES - MEN
re: t-and-f: IAAF web site
Malmo's comments regarding the navigability of the IAAF web site are on target. For instance, four or five years ago, whenever you wanted to visit the IAAF Book Store, it was easy to find- just look for IAAF Book Store. [why would I want to do that? Good prices, a 'sweet' exchange rate on your credit card, and delivery response time that made me wonder whether Primo owned considerable stock in FedEx. Nothing has changed in that department- I still like ordering direct from them.] But is the 'Book Store' still easy to find? No more. No navigation path logic short of hell could lead you to it today. Nothing says 'Book Store'. Nothing says 'books'. 'Multimedia' is a bunch of video clips and photos. If you check out every link on every page exhaustively, you'll finally find it. But not by going down what appears to be the most likely limbs on their navigation tree. To make it easy for anybody else who is interested, the 'Book Store' has been reduced to a downloadable Adobe Acrobat order form: http://www.iaaf.org/InsideIAAF/OrderForm.PDF The rest of the site is similar. It's not laid out in a structure conducive to users needs. Primary high-level pages ought to be stuff like: Welcome Results Rules Organization News Releases Book Store Instead they've got nebulous topics as their high level pages: News Results Multimedia Inside IAAF Exchange Zone The Sport Community Maybe it makes sense in Swahilian. RT
Re: t-and-f: IAAF web site
Lest anybody think I don't have anything good to say about the IAAF web site (my favorable comments about service and pricing at the Book Store notwithstanding), let me say that delivery of results at the IAAF web site has improved since I first clicked in five or six years ago. Back then, results from major GP meets were sent in agate from the venue back to the IAAF webmaster, and uploaded after the meet was finished, when results were in final form. About as speedy as TFN mode (TFN's philosphy being quality over speed). Eventually the IAAF 'listened to the masses', took a clue from other sports, and began providing direct uploads from the venue as each EVENT concluded. So as the first event of a meet finishes, we don't have to wait hours to hear about it, after the whole meet is done. Today, the only thing that beats the IAAF web site for speed are (in order): 1. Be there in person 2. See it live on television 3. In progress throw-by-throw, jump-by-jump, round-by round (running events) reporting like IBM tried to do at the Atlanta Olympics (and has occassionally been tried elsewhere). Ultimately, this is what the fans want. Essentially live delivery as the officials record the marks, and computers to update for you the standings, no matter where in the world you're linking in from. Just like the ESPN web site does for baseball games and football games. 4. Meet web site. For U.S. meets, sites like the Lynx people (but not as good for field events, at least yet) 5. IAAF web site (sometimes just as fast or faster than the meet web site). Other outlets, like wire services and broadcast network web sites, are extremely spotty and usually very slow to convey information. The best for the at-home-viewer would be the combination of #2 and #3, see it live on one screen (your TV) and have the marks pop up in graphics format on your high-bandwidth computer, while allowing you to toggle between modes (series of marks, standings, heat comparison, etc) at will. Set a standard- a mark should be available to anybody anywhere in the world within five seconds of an official out on the field entering it into a console or handheld device. Why should that be unreasonable in this day and age? I might actually have MORE information at my fingertips than a person sitting there in the grandstand! Unfortunately, when a meet has been live on TV in recent years (at least in the U.S.) the network Gods tend to force a blackout of any high bandwidth net delivery or any information at all, so the combination of #2 and #3 is but a dream. Maybe someday when the majority of consumers get a similar vision, the Gods at the networks will finally succumb to popular will. ...yeah, right Okay, okay, economics. American delivery is based on economic models that are traditionally tied to advertisers, and the ad bucks just aren't there. Well forget the advertising model. Try the subscription model. I would be willing to pay $20 bucks a meet for such a high bandwidth live data delivery service. Maybe even a little more. It sure beats $2,000 airline hotel to fly to Europe and back to see it in person (although if you're Mr. Moneybags that would be great!) A big part of t-and-f fandom enjoyment is following an event in progress. something you just don't get in post-meet agate- but it's something easily done for field events (raw throw/jump by throw/jump data; and for running events it's done by live text commentary/narrative (or voice) accompanied by split times- something which has been tried a few times over the last couple of years with mixed success. RT
Re: t-and-f: Athletissima on the web?
First, it requires Microsoft Media Player 7.1 plug-in. Apparently earlier versions don't work. Second, yes, the site is overloaded. I get a screen that pops up after a while on the TV screen that says something like 'not enough connections- try again later'. I guess they don't have the server capacity, or understimated demand. wait a minute- bingo! I'm in! maybe I'm one of the lucky few... now if I just understood French... RT On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:48:11 -0400, you wrote: Hi all, Is anyone able to connect to the site? I can't get through. Too much traffic maybe? Hopefully?? http://www.athletissima.ch/ - | Bob Ramsak | TRACK PROFILE News Service | *Images, Features and Coverage of Track Field, Road Racing and Olympic Sport |Cleveland, Ohio USA |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.trackprofile.com | | Sign up for your FREE subscription to the TRACK PROFILE READER | at http://www.trackprofile.com/newsletter.html ---
t-and-f: 1500 results from Lausanne
A race 1 294 SAÏDI-SIEF, Ali ALG MR 3:29.51 2 291 ROTICH, Laban KEN 3:33.27 3 270 NGENY, Noah KEN 3:33.63 4 249 MAAZOUZI, Driss FRA 3:33.71 5 306 SULLIVAN, Kevin CAN 3:33.91 6 422 LELEI, David KEN 3:34.12 7 109 BABA, Youssef MAR 3:34.21 8 351 MUCHERU, Leonard KEN 3:34.63 9 114 BERRYHILL, Brian USA 3:35.56 10 215 KIPKURUI, Benjamin KEN 3:35.83 11 152 DOWNIN, Andy USA 3:36.70 12 216 KOECH, Benson KEN 3:37.10 13 217 KOERS, Marko NED 3:37.45 14 178 GRAFFIN, Andrew GBR 3:37.77 15 282 PHILIPP, Peter SUI 3:43.16 354 KIPTOO, David KEN dnf 190 HOOD, Graham CAN dnf 338 YIAMPOY, William KEN dnf 146 DE SOUZA, Hudson Santos BRA dnf splits: 400 m 354 Kiptoo, David KEN 54.26 800 m 354 Kiptoo, David KEN 1:50.25 1200 m 294 Saïdi-Sief, Ali ALG 2:47.20
Re: t-and-f: Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:06:58 -0400
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/olympics/track/2001-06-28-kirkland.htm Darrell, Inquiring minds wanna know. Give us the whole story. malmo ...the incident has left her an emotional wreck. ...could miss August's World Championships because of the emotional impact... signature feed-the-press-phrases of ambulance-chaser lawyers. You could just about fit the above phrases to almost any minor incident, if you want to set the tone for a lawsuit. Exactly what I hate about the current-day American lawsuit-happy sue-'em first, ask-questions-later environment. Smith could be guilty as all sin for all I know. But people who are emotional train wrecks waiting to happen don't belong in the World Championships. Yes, my hatred for ambulance chaser lawyers is only exceeded by new-age psychologists/psychiatrists/whatever you wanta call'em, who are eager to make a name for themselves on the witness stand with their everybody-is-a-victim leftist crap. Sounds like the DA is taking the smart road in this case. Just my two cents. I'm prepared for the flames. Fire away. RT
Re: t-and-f: analogies...
You guys are totally missing the root cause of the problem. The World Championships need straight entry standards PERIOD, and perhaps auto entries for depending champions. Get rid of the national representation stuff. Make it a TRUE world championship. If that means 12 Kenyans in the Steeple final, so be it. Of course the IAAF will never vote this in, because the people doing the voting are wags for the national federations, who have everything to lose. It will never happen until the elite athletes organize, bolt from the IAAF and start their own tour, with their own world championship meet. This might mean their being barred from the Olympics for awhile, but if the athlete-owned tour is a success, eventually the IOC would be forced to acknowledge reality and let them in. That's what happened eventually with professional tennis. Think the professional tennis tour lets national federations decide who can enter Wimbledon. No way! National hockey federations have no voice in the NHL. National basketball federations have no voice in the NBA. National baseball federations have no voice in Major League Baseball. Why does professional track field have to be different? We'll always be the neanderthals of professional sport until elite athletes make the big break. Think Chicken Run with the green pastures waiting for the free-rangers once they get brave enough to go over the hill. Otherwise, they're just gonna end up in Mrs. Tweedy's Pies. Randy the Revolutionary
Re: t-and-f: a huge loss to the sport
What needs to happen is for nationals to be such an attractive meet, that everyone participates. I believe that the relatively small amount of prize money this year was a good first step. I also wonder about the idea of having the meet during July, as has been suggested before, during the break in the European season. Would the athletes want that? It would make selecting teams for Worlds more difficult.. I think I suggested this a couple of years ago- Perhaps some of the best ticket sales USATF has ever had for a non-Olympic year national champs would be to have it during that July break, but have it in a place like Zurich. Europeans would love a rare chance to see a U.S. National Championship, with the oodles of sprint stars. Ticket sales might even be enough to offset USATF footing the travel cost for those who are not already in Europe, provide a rare trip to Europe for those who haven't been before, and with possible additional competitive opportunity extensions via GPII meet entries and U.S. vs Czech Republic kind of stuff for those same folks. What do you think? Would it be a good idea to move the National Championship offshore once every four years, on off years- especially, say, that year where there is no World Championship? List subscribers in Europe - would YOU buy a ticket to go see a U.S. National Championship in your neighborhood ? Hootie 5 could move there too. RT
t-and-f: Webb waddles in Duck-land
from the USATF web site : * Whew!: In qualifying rounds, Alan Webb extracted himself from a tight pack and recovered from a slight trip-up to win the first heat of the men's 1,500m in 4:45.77. A final 200m of just over 25 seconds propelled him to the win. 2000 Olympic Trials champion Gabe Jennings won the second heat in 3:40.80 and NCAA champion Bryan Berryhill won the second heat in 3:40.47. My take: Not only were Jennings and Berryhill both very fortunate to end up winners of the same heat, even though their times were slightly different, but Webb sure was lucky to get in the duck walk heat, seeing as how he would have had to run over a minute faster to keep up with Jennings or Berryhill. :-) Hopefully he'll do better in the final, and not get lapped! RT
t-and-f: list makeup (was Webb could be the one)
We've always had our sprinters, but we need an American distance runner out there if we want to get Joe Public's attention. Just look at the make up of this list. There is probably more written about distance running than any other event. This is something I've wondered about. I've been on this list since mid-'95. It was in existence for maybe a year or so before I joined up. It's my understanding that in that first year or so it was almost entirely made up of college-age American NCAA distance running athletes. The server host, for that matter, is the University of Oregon, which had been known for many years as a top-notch producer of distance stars, but not exactly known as a sprint powerhouse or field event powerhouse. Over the years, the list has broadened a bit beyond its roots- there is a lot more discussion now of other events and competitions well beyond the NCAA realm, rule implications, and so on...and the list member base has spread well beyond U.S. shores, although the discussions are still 90% centered on American subjects... ...and several current national-level elite or former elite have joined the list over the yearsbut they seem to be mostly middle distance or distance runners...there have been a scattered few others such as D-W-I-G-H-T who was with us for a while (and Vegas bookies say will be back), who was a world record holder in the high jump... what I'm wondering- where are the sprint stars? I can't think of ANY who've ever joined the list, even as lurkers (although we might not know). We've been blessed with some people on the sprinting periphery such as a sprinkling of coaches, (enough to track down fairly quickly who said what, what's going on...) ...but instead of hearing sprinters talk about sprinting, we are always reduced to distance runners talking about sprinting, coaches talking about sprinting, fans talking about sprinting...everybody except sprinters themselves... How come? 1. Sprinters don't know how to use computers? (I don't buy that) 2. Sprinters too busy training to find time to surf? (train more than distance runners???) 3. Cultural resistance to sprinters being viewed as 'net geeks'? 4. They're afraid they wouldn't be welcome on this list? 5. Sprinters can't afford a computer? (probably no more of a problem for young active sprinters than for young active any other event) 6. Sprinters let their feet do their talkin' ? (hah! there's enough trash talking among sprinters to fuel Alexander the Great's army for months!) 7. No word-of-mouth mention of the list among sprinters ? (hey, you oughta check out this e-mail distribution list I saw last night) So what gives? Why don't any elite or national-class sprinters join this list from time to time? Same for field events, especially throws. Their absence is glaring. I have a clue, perhaps... ...when I was in college in the mid-70's and I observed teammates around the dorm or the student union, it was a lot more likely that I would observe a middle distance or distance runner sitting around reading Track Field News than to see a sprinter or field eventer reading TFN. That just wasn't how they spent their time. Not that there's ever been a shortage of TFN coverage to any particular elite-level event...don't know why that observation was so, but maybe there's a connection to the demography of this list subscriber base... If walkers can get their two, er...make that three... cents in, then anybody can! RT
Re: t-and-f: preps in the WC
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:03:46 EDT, GH wrote: much has been made of preps who have made the Oly team, but somebody posed the question to me yesterday of, what preps have run in the WC? (run=compete) Related question is- what's the likelihood of that happening? Well, number one- the WC wasn't created until relatively recently in track history terms, as compared to the OG. For that matter, WC wasn't created until elitedom had moved well beyond the grasp of American high schooling. And it was about the same time that American HS started to slide a bit anyway. Now granted, the observation by the time the WC came along, elitedom had moved well beyond the grasp of American HS'ing is a lot more true for the male side than for the female side. But it's also more true now for women than it was for them back in the 70's, or even for the early 80's when the WC was first created (harder, that is, for a HS'er to make an international squad), but that's because women got a lot later start on the developmental curve than men. What's the developmental curve? It's kind of like a learning curve- in the case of track field it's progress in identifying, developing, performing elite athletes, relative to human potential for their gender (subjective, to be sure). Indicators for where we are on the curve include such things as the frequency with which world records are broken, or even more accurate, the frequency with which the #5 performer of all time is bettered- if it's bettered ten times a year, the sport/event is in its infancy, if it's bettered only once every five years, it's pretty mature. HSers are more likely to have a chance to make an international squad when the sport for their gender (or a specific event) is still in early development/infancy. I place women's track field in the 1970's about where men were on the developmental curve in the 1910's, but by the 1990's women were about where men were on the developmental curve in the 1950's. That's rapid progress- they're gaining on us guys! So HS girls today have about as much chance of making an international squad- either WC or OG, as HS guys did in about 1957. (I know, stat freaks, no international squads chosen in '57 so guys had zero chance that year- I'm just placing 'em on a comparitive curve) ...just my two centavos...your mileage may differ... ...and don't forget...excessive consumption of statistics has been determined by the Surgeon General to be a cause of cancer... RT
t-and-f: Eugene 100 results present relay challenge
Finals MEN'S 100 METER DASH PONTIAC (w:3.1): 1. Tim Montgomery, ZMA TC 9.95; 2. Bernard Williams, Nike 9.98; 3. Curtis Johnson, HSI 10.01; 4. Dennis Mitchell, Unattached 10.07; 5. Shawn Crawford, Mizuno 10.09; 6. Jon Drummond, Nike 10.13; 7. Joshua Johnson, Unattached 10.24; 8. Jonathan Carter, Team Fila 10.29. May the relay arguments begin! So here we go again. Johnson ran his way onto the Olympic team last year, was part of a VERY HOT HSI relay team in Europe, but got totally dissed in Sydney, as far as being used for relay duty. No respect. Same thing again this time? MG got his 'auto entry', so he'll certainly anchor, barring injury. But will Johnson get passed over again in favor of somebody like Mitchell? What does it take? A .06 margin over Mitchell isn't chump change. On the other hand, Johnson's name didn't get sullied as being part of the post-race Sydney antics, so maybe there was some justice after all... RT
re: t-and-f: Golds over long time span in WC's
First thing to note- until the IAAF switched the WC's to every two years by inserting Stuttgart in '93, there was no opportunity to win anything on an exact 10-year-time span because the possible spans were 4-8-12 and so on, just like the OG's. Be that as it may, there might be another 10-year gold time span possibility this year, that being Russia's Irina Privalova- if you count relay golds- but I need some help to figure it out: Her possible record: 1999 Seville -Diddly squat- 1997 Athens -Nada- 1995 Goteborg 100m 3rd 10.96 200m 2nd 22.12 4x100 DQ (Privalova?) 4x400 2nd 3:23.98 (Privalova?) 1993 Stuttgart 100m 4th 10.96 200m 3rd 22.13 4x100 1st 41.49 (Privalova?) 4x400 2nd 3:18.38 (Privalova?) 1991 Tokyo 100m 4th 11.16 200m 4th 22.28 4x100 2nd 42.20 (Privalova?) 4x400 1st 3:18.43 (Privalova?) Since she made her comeback-of-the-year last year by winning the 400H at Sydney, she's a possible winner at Edmonton as well... [who knows, she might even tackle the 800 !!! ] The question is whether she was on that 4x400 at Tokyo- The new ATSF annual says her 400 PR remains a 51.63 from '93- so it's not inconceivable that the Soviet squad could have assigned her long relay duty in Tokyo. (the stat freaks are probably scurrying through their databases about now) By the way, after clocking a 53.02 over hurdles last year, does anybody doubt that Privalova should be able to go sub-50 sans hurdles any time she feels like it? Does any other world class IH'er have a 400IH PR less than 1.4 seconds behind their 400 PR ? RT (ignoring the Surgeon General's warning on statistics consumption) On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:36:08 , Kurt Bray wrote: who but Antonio Pettigrew, world champion ten years ago, wins the USATF 400. It's not inconveivable that he could win the Worlds 400 ten years after first doing so. What's the record for most years in between a World Championship, especially in a sprint event? Longest -- Bubka '83 - '97 (and all of them in between) Longest nonconsecutive -- Drechsler in the LJ '83 - '93 Longest among sprints -- Lewis in the 100m '83 - '91 ( '87 too) Longest nonconsec. sprints -- Perec in 400m '91 - '95 and M. Johnson in the 200m also '91 - '95. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Golds over long time span in WC's
Okay, sports fans, corrections/clarifications on Privalova: First of all, she's out for the year with a knee injury. Even had she remained healthy, she didn't get any golds in Tokyo, so the ten-year thing wouldn't have been possible anyway. In Tokyo, she did get Silver on the 4x100, but didn't run on the 4x400 that won. Two years later, in '93 she did indeed get her 400 PR, but it was 49.89, not 51.63 (the latter being her best 400 clocking for the year 2000). So the differential between her PRs with and without hurdles is similar to other IH'ers after all. At the '93 Stuttgart WC, she did indeed run on both relays, getting gold for the short relay, and silver for the long relay. That was 8 years ago. To date that '93 short relay remains her only WC gold. By the way, Alan Webb was recruited from the age-group swimming ranks, assumption being that he brought a lot of aerobic training background with him. Privalova came over to track field at age 14 from the world of speed skating. Are speed skating clubs a hot bed of potential sprint talent? Or do speed skating coaches view American youth track clubs as a hot bed of potential speed skating talent? :-) RT On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:30:24 -0700, you wrote: First thing to note- until the IAAF switched the WC's to every two years by inserting Stuttgart in '93, there was no opportunity to win anything on an exact 10-year-time span because the possible spans were 4-8-12 and so on, just like the OG's. Be that as it may, there might be another 10-year gold time span possibility this year, that being Russia's Irina Privalova- if you count relay golds- but I need some help to figure it out: Her possible record: 1999 Seville -Diddly squat- 1997 Athens -Nada- 1995 Goteborg 100m 3rd 10.96 200m 2nd 22.12 4x100 DQ (Privalova?) 4x400 2nd 3:23.98 (Privalova?) 1993 Stuttgart 100m 4th 10.96 200m 3rd 22.13 4x100 1st 41.49 (Privalova?) 4x400 2nd 3:18.38 (Privalova?) 1991 Tokyo 100m 4th 11.16 200m 4th 22.28 4x100 2nd 42.20 (Privalova?) 4x400 1st 3:18.43 (Privalova?) Since she made her comeback-of-the-year last year by winning the 400H at Sydney, she's a possible winner at Edmonton as well... [who knows, she might even tackle the 800 !!! ] The question is whether she was on that 4x400 at Tokyo- The new ATSF annual says her 400 PR remains a 51.63 from '93- so it's not inconceivable that the Soviet squad could have assigned her long relay duty in Tokyo. (the stat freaks are probably scurrying through their databases about now) By the way, after clocking a 53.02 over hurdles last year, does anybody doubt that Privalova should be able to go sub-50 sans hurdles any time she feels like it? Does any other world class IH'er have a 400IH PR less than 1.4 seconds behind their 400 PR ? RT (ignoring the Surgeon General's warning on statistics consumption) On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:36:08 , Kurt Bray wrote: who but Antonio Pettigrew, world champion ten years ago, wins the USATF 400. It's not inconveivable that he could win the Worlds 400 ten years after first doing so. What's the record for most years in between a World Championship, especially in a sprint event? Longest -- Bubka '83 - '97 (and all of them in between) Longest nonconsecutive -- Drechsler in the LJ '83 - '93 Longest among sprints -- Lewis in the 100m '83 - '91 ( '87 too) Longest nonconsec. sprints -- Perec in 400m '91 - '95 and M. Johnson in the 200m also '91 - '95. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Byron Dyce
That means the Vegas odds for both GH and D-W-I-G-H-T to return have now narrowed considerably :-) I said 90 days max for the both of them. We've got about 75 days left. It just takes the right bait to smoke 'em out. With GH it's statistics. Now gotta think up something outrageous about vertical jumps, NBC, or both. (hee,hee) RT On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:49:32 -0400, you wrote: THAT WAS TEN DAYS!!! I told ya so! While I was well aware of Byron's citizenship situation, I should note that you won't find him on the TFN list of U.S. sub-4:00 milers (nor Bashir Ibrahim or any others who aren't eligible to represent the U.S. internationally at the time). TFN policy has always been that an athlete can only represent one nationat a time (the statisticial implications otherwise are too hairy to contemplate). And since Byron's international affiliation at the time of his sub-4:00 miling was Jamaican, we don't include him. gh
Re: t-and-f: the Kingston mile WR
I'm sure Byron will personally respond, since it would appear that he is now a list lurker, but he competed for Jamaica, as can be seen on this list of all-time medal winners in the CAC Champs... http://www.gbrathletics.com/mcacc.htm I think he is still the Jamaican record holder at 880y (1:45.9), Mile (3:57.34), and probably still holds the IAAF Central American regional record for the latter. I think he was a U.S. resident though, running for New York Univ., then in the Gainesville area... Florida Track Club?)... Looks like Byron is still in the Gainesville area, teaching math- here's a picture- http://inst.santafe.cc.fl.us/~bdyce/ and coaching high school cross country at Gainesville High School: http://www.sbac.edu/~ghs/sports/sportsletter.html In recent years, Byron coached 800m ace Ocky Clark. RT On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:48:05 -0400, you wrote: Speaking of Byron Dyce, didn't he break 4:00 in the Dream Mile in Philly in 1971? That would make him the first black American under, two years ahead of Reggie McAffee? What say ye, track statisticians? Prove your mettle. malmo
Re: t-and-f: Byron Dyce first African-American under 4:00 ?
We haven't yet determined whether Byron broke 4:00 in the Franklin Field 'Dream Mile' in '71. I DID find an early entry field announcement for that race that included all THREE of our contenders- Byron Dyce, Brevard JC's Reggie McAfee and freshman-at-the-time Dennis Fikes, but not sure yet whether all three actually ran the race or not, let alone their times. Byron's 3:57.34 was in Stockholm 1 Jul '74. Don't know whether that was before or after McAfee broke 4:00. Also note that Byron still has the Central American records for the INDOOR mile at 4:00.8 (rats, just missed!) at Toronto 15 Feb 74 and the indoor 1500 at 3:40.7 at New York 8 Feb 74. By the way, did you know that Byron was involved in Rod Dixon losing a world record? : From a Dixon bio: In 1973, the day before Rod's epic 8m 29s national record steeplechase debut at Oslo, Dixon ran another very important race. He combined with Tony Polhill, John Walker and Dick Quax to run a 4x1500m relay. In the race they beat the World record by a staggering 8.6s only to have the record tossed out because John Walker had been paced for three laps of the second leg by Byron Dyce of Jamaica who ran without a baton. I'm sure Byron will have a slightly different angle on the story grin ... Did he jump in at the beginning of the second leg, when Walker took off, or did he take a 'handoff' from somebody else, and the baton got lost somewhere along the way? RT On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:46:56 -0400, you wrote: Oh, I get it now. Dyce really is the first black American to break four minutes. And he did it not very far from where Christopher Columbus landed in 1492. malmo
Re: t-and-f: Byron Dyce first African-American under 4:00 ?
...forwarding for Bob Hersh... On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:04:36 -0400, Bob Hersh wrote: I may have neglected to copy the list on that last e-mail. If I didn't, please feel free to post it. On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:03:38 -0400, Bob wrote: Message text written by Randy Treadway Byron Dyce, Brevard JC's Reggie McAfee and freshman-at-the-time Dennis Fikes, but not sure yet whether all three actually ran the race or not, let alone their times. Dyce was 3rd in 3:59.6 (there's the answer to a trivia question--who was third in that race?) and McAfee was fourth in 4:00.0, a time that was described by Track Field News as the fastest ever by a black American, surpassing Harry McCalla's 4:00.8 set in Ryun's 1967 record race. (TFN's reporters for that race, by the way, were a couple of guys named Dunaway and Hersh.) Bob H
t-and-f: Re: [t-and-f_statistics] IAAF: Richardson reinstated
Wow, what a flawed decision!!! Not that I have anything against Mark Richardson at all. It's the statement that the IAAF put out. In effect, at least the way I read it, it says that if you choose to question or appeal the IAAF in any aspect of a case, and you lose, not only are you gonna get the standard penalty imposed, but they are gonna be extra vindictive, just because you questioned their authority. Isn't that what the IAAF is saying here? Council reached this decision after careful consideration of the special circumstances surrounding this case. First of all, Richardson has never challenged the IAAFs strict liability rule... So if you mount a challenge, you've already failed test #1 for later special consideration. Richardson chose not to contest or appeal, and he's doing good stuff withs kids and the like, so he merits special consideration. GET THE POLITICS OUT OF THE DOPING CONTROL BUSINESS! Grant special consideration based on the facts of the case, NOTHING more. If an athlete has a right to appeal, they should NEVER be punished for exercising that right. I'm not upset about Richardson getting dispensation, I'm upset about what it says about how other athletes are getting treated. RT
t-and-f: Sprinter fined for going too fast
http://espn.go.com/oly/news/2001/0611/1212667.html RT
Re: t-and-f: off topic
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:04:05 -0400, you wrote: I train my runners to run with spikes during 200 m repeats or 300 m. . My friend a coach dose not agree he feels they should use them only during 30m , 60.m speed work. Need other opions on this matter. Please , you may respond off list. Thanks. Depends on what event(s) you're training for. However, there is one other consideration- I suspect that your question is dealing with the merits of spikes versus flats in these kinds of workouts. I can only speak from personal experience, but in all the years I trained as an 800m runner, the years I stayed HEALTHIEST were the years that I did all repeats between 200m and 600m BAREFOOT on a 400m grass track. When I moved to another state, new coach, and trained in flats on a reslite track, the nagging injuries returned. RT
Re: t-and-f: Webb's size
Maybe its the advent of the return of the Steve Scott, John Walker, Alberto Juantorena barrel-chested model of middle-distance runner, as opposed to the diminutive waif model epitomized by Filbert Bayi and Sebastian Coe. RT On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 20:43:55 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: Finally saw the Prefontaine meet. I was surprised to see how big Webb looks in comparison to the other men in the race. Its been reported that Webb bench-presses 200 lbs. I guess I was surprised because I've seen him run locally against the local high schoolers - and he seems smaller than the other high schoolers. = Dave Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Nostradomalmo predicts
Who'll be back first, GH or D-W-I-G-H-T ? the book in Vegas says both will be back within 90 days. RT On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:38:43 -0400, Malmo wrote: He'll be back within 10 days. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: s'bin fun my final analysis of the NCAA posted shortly at www.trackanfieldnews.com and as i exit Eugene, i once again depart from the list. gh (now a lurker
Re: t-and-f: results : 2001 adidas Oregon Track Classic
2001 adidas Oregon Track Classic Gresham Oregon 06/03/01 Final MEN'S 3,000 METER STEEPLECHASE HORIZON 1. El Arbi Khattabi, Morocco 8:12.95; 2. Stephen Cherono, Kenya 8:22.98; 3. Anthony Famiglietti, USA 8:23.20; 4. Tim Broe, USA 8:26.56; 5. Tom Chorny, USA 8:27.40; 6. Joel Bourgeois, Canada 8:28.90; 7. Robert Gary, USA 8:34.87; 8. Salvador Mirandi, Mexico 8:35.21; 9. Tony Cosey, USA 8:38.95; 10. Cormac Smith, Ireland 8:42.43; 11. Darin Shearer, USA 8:46.13; 12. Rick Mestler, USA 8:48.39; - Raymond Yator, Kenya DQ. ^^^ Okay, so let's see- how many ways are there to get DQ'd in a steeplechase... (Malmo? chime in...) The LIST's Top-Ten Reasons List 10. Ran around a hurdle 9. Went under a hurdle 8. Trail leg around a hurdle 7. Kung-Fu'd the hurdle into a pile of splinters 6. Jump to side of water pit instead of through or over 5. Intentionally pulled plug on water pit on Lap #1 4. Break competitor's rib with your elbow (only enforced by IAAF when the fracture is compound) 3. Fail the doping test (not known until weeks later) 2. Fail the gender test (nobody WANTS to know) And Today's #1 answer... 1. Exceeding the IAAF GP-II special experimental rule maximum of two attempts to get over a hurdle RT
Re: t-and-f: USATF and Nationals and Money
I just read an article this past week about how somebody bought the PBA- that's right the entire professional bowling organization- as a for-profit-venture. Article was in L.A. Times. In fact, here's the article: http://www.latimes.com/living/20010529/t45020.html The PBA's new HQ is in Seattle. And they seem to making a pretty good inroad to turning the sport around, by pushing it to young people- teenagers - instead of the beer gut crowd. Laser lights in bowling centers, dimmed lights, smoke machines, neon multi-colored bowling balls, huge video screens playing music videos. Even the Hollywood celebs are now renting upscale bowling centers for their wrap parties instead of the usual nightclub route. The renewed interest by teenagers in turn seems to feed interest in the professional tour, and the PBA is promoting the younger pros who have 'the look' (whatever that means). I admit I haven't been bowling in many years, so this was news to me. Although my teenage son went to one of these ultra-cool bowling birthday parties a few weeks ago, and came home afterwards so keen on it that he asked if he could join a league. (He ran cross country track this year as a HS freshman, and DOES want to continue with running. In fact, he's at a run-a-thon this morning, raising money to go to cross country camp in August) What do changes in the world of bowling have to do with track field? Well, is it conceivable that somebody could one day BUY the elite end of USATF, and turn it into a for-profit-venture? I suppose that would mean the cutoff of USOC funding (because of language in the U.S. Amateur Sports Act), but hey, is it conceivable that the elite end of the sport could ever be brave enough to go WITHOUT USOC funding, and all the entanglements that come with it? Maybe instead of being owned by a venture capitalist, the 'elite tour' could be owned the athletes themselves- sort of like professional tennis. They could in turn hire a new-age cyber-guy CEO. How would the 'grass roots' end of track field benefit from such an arrangement? If the elite end of the sport could go straight to for-profit, maybe the USOC funding could go straight to the grass roots. RT
Re: t-and-f: Webb at Pre
On Wed, 30 May 2001 13:16:22 EDT, you wrote: In a message dated 5/30/01 09:57:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would also disagree with Editor Hill on how the 1500m will go in June. Webb IS better than the Jennings/Berryhill/Stember/Lassiter types who will be demoralized by him in Eugene, and I'll bet a few Terminators at the 19th St. Cafe on that one. Since my lunch on Monday consisted of Terminators (and a couple of pounds of greasy fries) at the 19th, I'm obviously up for this kind of wagering! Editor Hill How's this for forecasting: If the USATF 1500 proceeds along the typical tactical lines- i.e. sit and kick... ...they will be playing right into Webb's strength... ...the best way to knock off Webb would be to take it out hard and drain the kick out of the kid's legs... ...agree or disagree?... RT
Re: t-and-f: IAAF meet resistance to television friendly changes
The Electronic Telegraph Thursday 31 May 2001 Tom Knight ... They have the support of Peter Matthews, the editor of The International Track and Field Annual, the bible of the sport. In the 2001 edition,... ^ Uh-oh- I can see it now, get out the banjos for a rousing rendition of 'dueling bibles' Doesn't GH have a copyright on that 'tag' ? :-) RT
t-and-f: The Courts are at it again....
The possibility that Casey Martin might win his case against the PGA tour set off all kinds of alarm bells in other professional sports, in that a precedent might be set which would allow disabled/physically challenged people to force fundamental changes in the very nature of a sport, possibily opening a huge floodgate of litigation which could erode and eventually destroy professional sports as we know them today. That 'doomsday' scenario, however, depended not only on a court decision in favor of Martin, but just how far the Court would go in their written opinion, as far as addressing the question of when, if ever, do the needs of the disabled supercede the fundamentals of an event or business. This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Martin. Their written opinion, however, cided with Martin on some fairly narrow grounds- namely that the relief that he sought did NOT constitute any fundamental change in the nature of professional golf. Simply put, they said the additional requirement to 'walk the course', which is only applied at the very highest level of the pro tour, is a superficial requirement which is not really fundamental to the athletic contest, and its elimination or modification in certain cases would do no damage to the PGA tour. They also included a couple of examples which indicate that they would NOT have sided with Martin if the rule modification that he wanted had been a more substantive, fundamental change which would alter the nature of the athletic contest. Thus, this pretty clear signal means, for other sports such as track field athletics, that there is little to worry about (I'm no legal expert, though- I'll leave that to Mr. Hersh and Mr. Masback). The pertinent part of the written opinion is Part 2 (Part 1 dealt with the legalese question of whether Martin met the class requirement under the ADA law), which I'll attach for those who are interested. The petitioner referred to in the written opinion is the PGA Tour- the tour was petitioning the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling. RT --- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PGA TOUR, INC. v. MARTIN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-24. Argued January 17, 2001-Decided May 29, 2001 ... Part 2: to use a golf cart, despite petitioner s walking requirement, is not a modification that would fundamentally alter the nature of petitioner s tours or the third stage of the Q-School. In theory, a modification of the tournaments might constitute a fundamental alteration in these ways: (1) It might alter such an essential aspect of golf, e.g., the diameter of the hole, that it would be unacceptable even if it affected all competitors equally; or (2) a less significant change that has only a peripheral impact on the game itself might nevertheless give a disabled player, in addition to access to the competition as required by Title III, an advantage over others and therefore fundamentally alter the character of the competition. The Court is not persuaded that a waiver of the walking rule for Martin would work a fundamental alteration in either sense. The use of carts is not inconsistent with the fundamental character of golf, the essence of which has always been shot-making. The walking rule contained in petitioner s hard cards is neither an essential attribute of the game itself nor an indispensable feature of tournament golf. The Court rejects petitioners attempt to distinguish golf as it is generally played from the game at the highest level, where, petitioner claims, the waiver of an outcome-affecting rule such as the walking rule would violate the governing principle that competitors must be subject to identical substantive rules, thereby fundamentally altering the nature of tournament events. That arguments force is mitigated by the fact that it is impossible to guarantee that all golfers will play under exactly the same conditions or that an individuals ability will be the sole determinant of the outcome. Further, the factual basis of petitioners argument- that the walking rule is outcome affecting because fatigue may adversely affect performance- is undermined by the District Court s finding that the fatigue from walking during a tournament cannot be deemed significant. Even if petitioners factual predicate is accepted, its legal position is fatally flawed because its refusal to consider Martin s personal circumstances in deciding whether to accommodate his disability runs counter to the ADAs requirement that an individualized inquiry be conducted. Cf. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U. S. 471, 483. There is no doubt that allowing Martin to use a cart would not fundamentally alter the nature of petitioners tournaments, given the District Court s uncontested finding that Martin endures greater fatigue with a cart than his able-bodied competitors do by walking. The waiver of a
Re: t-and-f: Tony Waldrop PHD
On Tue, 29 May 2001 21:50:04 -0400, you wrote: http://www.life.uiuc.edu/biophysics/CBCBWebPages/CBCB%20Faculty/Waldrop. html Hey, if I had a chance to skip the Olympics to study hypertensive rats by analyzing brain slices, I'd jump at the chance too! [he was probably naming Rat #1 Avery and Rat #2 Adrian for Mr's Brundage and Paulen, IAAF pooh-bahs in that era.] RT
t-and-f: Waldrop redefines rat race
According to this, http://www.life.uiuc.edu/biophysics/CBCB%20WebPages/CBCB%20Faculty/WaldropPublications.html Tony Waldrop has been published four times- most having to do with the rat research, but one of them has a title which might take his neuron research and extent it back toward his earlier life before he was reincarnated as a rat doctor--- Waldrop, T.G., F.L. Eldridge, G.A. Iwamoto, J.H. Mitchell. 1996. Central neural control of locomotion, respiration and circulation during exercise. Pages 333-380 in L. Rowell J. Shepherd, eds. Handbook of Physiology, Section 12. American Physiological Society. Maybe that's why he left sports- he felt that his indoor world record was like a rat running in a wheel for spectators who were studying him intensely- he decided he'd rather be the one studying the rats, instead of playing the part of the rat himself :-) RT
Re: t-and-f: French puzzled by Perec absence
If she doesn't formally submit a declaration of retirement, but she also does not make herself available for out-of-competition doping testing, she is subject to suspension, right? RT
Re: t-and-f: EAA congratulates the Dutch
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] The legendary Fanny Blankers-Koen (100m 200m 80mH 4x100m1948), Ria Stalmann (Discus 1984) and Elly von Langen (800m 1992) together won 6 Olympic Gold Medals for the Netherlands and Fanny Blankers-Koen was named Athlete of the Century. It would seem that all of the greatest Dutch athletes are women. Who would be considered the greatest MALE Dutch athlete? And WHY haven't Dutch men excelled as much as the women? ...just wondering... RT
Re: t-and-f: Webb no prima donna
And their whole focus has changed what with his suddenly being the top seed (at least for now) for the USATF meet. In a CNN interview this morning, he said this coming weekend he'll be running his HS State meet, then the following week a national HS meet in Carolina, then back to Eugene for the USATF meet. On CCN they also held up this morning's New York Times, which has a color photo of Webb on page 1 (page 1 of the whole paper)- although it appears to be on the bottom half of the page, where you couldn't see it when the paper is folded in a stack. RT
Re: t-and-f: my Pre Classic comments
On Sun, 27 May 2001 17:40:05 -0700, Ed Parrot wrote: Hmm, so Webb runs approximately the equivalent of Morceli at a year younger (his split was low 3:38). Maybe he'll only be as good as Morceli was. . . For Christ's sake, he ran 3:53, leading the U.S. list. He did it with as much hype and pressure as anyone has short of the Olympics. And yours is the first post I have seen in a while to suggest one way or the other that U.S. distance running is back or that Webb is the next great anything. Why bring it up? What we had here was a tremendous moment for any fan of the sport in America. It was a pure, unabashed, breakthrough performance and I feel sorry for anyone who feels the need to qualify it. Webb might never run that fast again but so what? Usually I agree with Kebba, but to mitigate the joy of Webb's accomplishment today (not in the past not in the future but NOW) that with a disclaimer is a tragedy. Well Kebba isn't the only one- Mats Åkerlind wrote this a little earlier today: Now I've been listening to all the talk about Alan Webb for the whole season. After having seen him Live (yes, we get Pre Classic Live here in Europe, courtesy of Eurosport) - I agree. Alan Webb is impressive! 3:53 and fighting spirit. OK, it's a long way to go before he reaches the world's best. But he starts from a good level, to say the least. BTW - despite all the fuzz around Webb - it'd been nice to see the TV race from a more objective viewpoint... Did anybody notice that El Guerrouj won in 3:49.92? Mats Åkerlind Gävle, Sweden I don't think it's unreasonable to celebrate Webb's race as an outstanding achievement, and at the same time view it through a sane international lens. The two views don't have to be contradictory. That's it's great and at the same time not really earth-shattering isn't a contradiction. Congrats to Webb. I confess I thought he might get a 3:57.5 or 3:58, but not much better than that. This will likely shape his own thinking, so he might be able to produce times in the 3:56 to 3:59 range almost every time out now, even unpushed. Now if the Michigan HS pooh-bahs had saner rules, we might have seen Ritzenhein in the 5K race drafting behind Meb and Abdi. Perhaps the ability to get a decent shot at U.S. national HS records has more to do with what state your high school is located in, rather than an individual's readiness to compete at that level. Thus a record like Webb's 3:53 might not really represent a totally national record if it cannot be realistically approached in HS-only competition, since many states don't allow anything BUT HS-only, from a practical standpoint. That's a shame. Unfortunately, it then becomes almost like a HS hammer throw record- something like the top 50 performances all come from Rhode Island. There's no WAY I'd say the HS hammer throw record means very much. Okay, the mile is not THAT silo'd. But you get the idea. If the record is so good that it needs elite-level drafting, then it can no longer be achieved by an athlete from a state that doesn't allow out-of-state travel or out-of-region travel. If you're from Michigan, there's highly unlikely that you're ever gonna get a decent chance to run a 3:53 while you're in high school. Cast the pooh-bahs in states like Michigan as a bunch of dirty commies, since they are obviously incapable of understanding concepts of freedom. Come to think of it, give them all jobs with the NCAA, since they are birds of a feather. RT
Re: t-and-f: Webb broke TWO high school records
On Sun, 27 May 2001 17:52:01 -0700, you wrote: Ryun's 3:39.0 was run at the 1964 Olympic Trials as a 17 year old junior. Using a conversion of 16.4 sec to the mile, it was equal to about a 3:56.4 mile, no doubt an age group record, and a truly impressive performance. However, the difference between Webb's 3:38.26 to his 3:53.43 is 15.17 seconds demonstrating an incredible finish for an 18 year old. We haven't seen the last of this kid. The season is still young. Jim Kaminsky If Webb was only running 1500, he would have began his kick earlier. So it makes more sense to SUBTRACT the standard 16.4 or so from his 3:53.43, leaving him with something like a 3:37 flat as an equivalent 1500. That doesn't count a record, of course, but is more indicative of what he's capable of than an en-route 1500 clocking. RT
Re: t-and-f: my Pre Classic comments
Track is a team sport and putting your self-interest ahead of the team goal is thoughtless. No, it's actually an individual sport that some people have overlaid with team scoring mechanisms, in the theory that it could then compete better with true team sports. With the exception of some pacing and drafting in distance races, and perhaps pack racing in cross country, every single contest is essentially individual (except the relays, of course). You can't make up for a lack of preparation by passing the ball to a teammate. RT
Re: t-and-f: 22nd Annual Hartnell College Thrower's Meet
22nd Annual Hartnell College Thrower's Meet Salinas, California Tuesday, May 22, 2001 From Keith Conning SHOT PUT Women's Invitational Shot Put 4:00pm 1) Seilala Sua-Reebok/Bruin T.C. 17.86m (58'7 1/4) 2) Christina Tolson-UCLA17.24m (56'6 3/4) 3) Kristen Heaston-Sac T.C. 16.34m (53'7 1/2) 4) Chaniqua Ross-UCLA 15.86m (52'1/2) 5) Stephanie Brown-Cal Poly15.32m (50'3 1/4) 6) Amy Thiel-Unatt 13.87m (45'6 1/4) I see that Nada Kawar continues to be missing this year from the Reebok/Bruin traveling squad- She was a 57-58' range competitor and competed in her second Olympics last year representing Jordan... ...she had always talked about going to Med School once her competition days were over- is that what she's doing now, after going to Sydney last fall? Is she retired from shot putting? RT
Re: t-and-f: Christian Science Monitor: factual error?
You guys are much ado about nothing. The dude never mentioned 1955. He said 'in the next 12 months [after Bannister] there were 300'... i.e. the floodgates were opened... Think out of the box for a change- might it be possible that months is a typo- and he meant years ? Anybody know if there were 300 sub-4 performances by '64? I doubt there were 300 performers- but maybe performances. By the way, on a current all-time mile list linked through Mirko's page, it shows the 300th best performance right now at 3:52 and change. By the way, since we're talking about 4-minute miles, has anybody seen this 1988 British movie? http://shopping.yahoo.com/shop?d=vid=1800178033cf=product It's a historical drama (as opposed to a documentary) about Bannister and other top milers of that era in the race to be the first under 4 minutes. I'm wondering if the movie is any good. RT
Re: t-and-f: Results - Pac-10 1st Day
Pac-10 Track and Field Championship Day One Results Men's 4x100 Meter Relay Heat 1 1 USC 39.96 P Q 2 Arizona 40.47 Q 3 Washington St 40.54 q 4 Washington 40.92 q 5 Oregon 41.87 Heat 2 1 Arizona St 40.17 Q 2 UCLA40.23 Q 3 California 40.58 q 4 Stanford41.18 q ...let me see if I've got this right... ...36 people are made to race, just to prove that duck season is open? RT
Re: t-and-f: Howard and Clark
Asthmatics get dispensations from dope rules to compensate for their shortcomings? Wow! All my life I've struggled with the natural handicap of being slow. I should have applied for a dispensation to permit me to take anabolic steroids, HGH, and EPO. I'm sure I could have done much better, maybe even competed on the same level as a non-slow person. But fool that I was, I bought into Arne's message of McCarthyism and did without the dope. I coulda been a contender! Hey guys, this is exactly the same argument that is going in golf. Should a handicapped person, who can only walk 'in pain' (or someone who is totally missing legs), be allowed to ride a golf cart from hole to hole? In professional tournament golf it's not allowed, because they say the walk from hole to hole is energy-draining over 18 or 36 holes, and that's part of the physical contest. [I know, golf doesn't remotely compare to athletics in the physical requirements department] The PGA tour argues that letting a handicapped person ride a cart is no more than trying to 'even the playing field', but it destroys the very nature of the contest, opening doors which might know no end. The handicapped person suing the tour argues it as a 'right to make a living', right to work issue, because they claim that their occupation of choice does NOT really require walking between holes- the occupation is really only having to make your shots. I started out sympathizing with the crippled guy, because I thought the PGA's position was weak, but after thinking through the implications I now support the PGA tour on this one. For the very reason that it relates right back to the asthma/doping issue. Do you relax your standards to lower the field to allow handicapped people to compete, and in doing so make it easier for cheaters to use that same loophole to their advantage? If the PGA tour gave in, would they then have to allow ANY golfer, even Tiger, the right to ride a cart whenever they feel like, or when they say they have a sore knee and they have a note from their mother? I think not. If asthma sufferers don't think they can compete safely without illegal medication- that is, the risks are too high- then this is not an occupation that they should pursue. Competing successfully in professional athletics is not a God-given right, even in this so-called age of rights for every human, giraffe and porcupine on earth. Maybe the IAAF, the PGA, and other sports federations should band together and pool their resources to fight the incursion of handicapped rights suits (including 'waivers' to doping rules), since there's a common root at both sides of the argument in all cases. RT
Re: t-and-f: Oxy Invitational
Nobody seems to have mentioned some fine marks from Eagle Rock, Ca on May 12th. Tyree Washington ran a personal best of 44.28 giving him four of the top five times in the world. Jess Strutzel ran a US leading 1:46.61 John Godina had a double win of 20.83 in the shot and 65.86. Seilala Sua had a double of 17.38 and 61.94 Funny, I thought I just read in TFN a quote from Sua saying she was giving up the shot. Maybe she was seeing if Garry would print anything she said :-) By the way, I saw that Strutzel ran a 4:01 mile at Mt. SAC instead of racing what has been his specialty- 800m. Anybody know if he is contemplating a 'move up' to the 3-and-a-half lapper at nationals in Eugene? RT
Re: t-and-f: The list's Sully beats Lagat
Looking at page 23 of the current TFN, Lagat probably tried to do that Michael Jordan impersonation for a full three-and-three-quarter laps, and that did him in. :-) Actually, this must have been a tactical race with a big kick at the end- isn't Kevin's PR something like 3:33, and Lagat at least that or better? At Mt.SAC they both ran 3:55 miles. RT On Sat, 12 May 2001 05:26:58 EDT, you wrote: In Osaka today: Men's 1500m 1. Kevin Sullivan (Canada) 3 minutes 38.42 seconds 2. Bernard Lagat (Kenya) 3:39.17
Re: t-and-f: Greene defends 100 title at Japan GP
This story, and the one a few days ago on the Brazil meet, came from the Associated Press. Both of them used the same style, describing 1st place in most races as 'so-and-so got the gold', and similarly ascribing other top 3 places to medal colors. The one from Brazil was bylined; the one from Osaka doesn't appear to have a reporter's name attached to it. But I'll bet it was the same person. Have I missed something- is the IAAF actually giving out medals now at the top GP meets? Or is this writer sitting back at a remote location writing a story from agate alone- and doesn't know anything about athletics except what they see in the Olympics every four years? Or perhaps there's a new dictionary out there that makes finishing first in any kind of contest synonymous with 'getting the gold', or 'getting the bronze' just means they placed third? I guess when Mike Piazza finishes third in all-star game balloting, he'll gave 'grabbed the bronze'. :-) Don't get me wrong- I'm glad to get any news out of Osaka at all! But AP could do a lot better to contract with stringers who know more about the sport- it's not surprising I suppose, that they were too inept to even send out agate results on the Stanford 10K American Record; after all, the agate didn't mention anything about gold or silver, so it must have been a 'wimp' meet! (and yet they passed on the news yesterday out of Texas, of a new girls high school record in the triple jump - go figure!) By the way, AP carried a pre-Osaka story on Dragila and Greene- bylined 'K.P. HONG' (perhaps a local in Osaka), that wasn't bad. RT
t-and-f: Re: [t-and-f_statistics] IAAF: World Athletics Day
Anybody know where the pool of names of kids for the draw come from? Is it possible for a kid to send in an application for consideration? Any prerequisite criteria for consideration (besides age) ? RT
Re: t-and-f: Individuals vs. groups
Randall: the 800 meters is NOT a long distance race although it is a distance race. I've been following this thread for some time with pretty much detached bemusement. My only comments are rather peripheral to the core debate of the thread: The terms distance runner, distance race or just distance seem to have emotional meanings to practicioners of Steeple, 5K, 10K, and Marathon, that are quite apart from a dictionary definition. For instance, such athletes would surely claim that it is not possible for an 800m specialist (let alone a 100mH hurdler) to experience what has ubiquitiously been referred to as a runners high. That realm of conciousness is reserved for those who...well, you get the idea. Those who are distance runners. This argument is circular. You can't qualify to be a distance runner unless you're a distance runner, and those who aren't don't understand. And those who already are get to decide who is. Because there is a considerable amount of pride attached to the club of distance running, there is a tendency to protect the exclusivity of such a club very fiercely. Perhaps this fierce loyalty is rooted in the U.S. with distance advocates being somewhat social outcasts to the general public social norm of couch-potato heaven. Or that they are about as far away from the football player model as you can get. Thus the arguments are reactionary. But when it comes to club membership arguments are applied to exclusivity WITHIN OUR OWN sport, such arguments seem to collapse into some extreme positions. Thus, the arguments that 800m racers cannot possibly be distance runners. Not much science, a whole lot of emotional-based argument. The long distance club seems to be a radical offshoot of the distance club. The FBI is probably tapping their phones about now. :-) RT
t-and-f: Distance Runner as a circular argument
re: the comments about the definition of 'distance runner' being a self-serving circular argument: I heard a fairly good tongue-in-cheek comeback from a deep-thinking shot putter, considering the distinction between an 800m race and longer races as to which of them qualifies as a distance race- You want a circular argument? How's this one- 'Which came first, the chicken or the distance runner?' ...I guess you have to be a shot putter to fully appreciate the logic... :-) RT
t-and-f: New thread regarding the Entine book
While I may have feelings one way or another about the likelihood that the theories espoused in this book are correct, what is MUCH MORE intriguing is the title of the book- TABOO. If I were just looking over titles in a bookstore, this title would tell me that the subject of the book is NOT whether or not there is any relevance to genetic predetermination theory, but rather what causes the social phenomenons which result in extreme pressure on any individual who would even consider suggesting research into a topic such as this. Does 'blacklisting' by academia relegate any researchers in this area to 'political correctness hell' ? Does it mean that they can never get 'published' by academic journals again on ANY topic? For example, the bashing that Dr. Bannister got by the so-called 'liberal academia' through the media a few years ago after his making a 'casual observation' kind of statement about long/short twitch fibers relating to East or West African origins, and saying that it merits more study. At least we now know that the subject is anything BUT taboo on this list- resulting in some of the longest threads in list history. Don't know if that's good or bad, but at least it means list subscribers are willing to talk about it out in the open. A few years ago on the list, when a similar idea was tossed into the hat for discussion, a bunch of coaches quickly jumped in and bashed the originator, saying if there was even an iota of truth in the theory, which they didn't believe for a second, they couldn't POSSIBLY share such a reality with any of the athletes they coach, for fear of them losing all motivation. They argued that exposure of such facts, even if true, serves no PRACTICAL purpose but to damage the 'everybody has a chance' appeal of track field as a sport. Therefore, any investment in research into the topic is not warranted, and should actually be discouraged. Research funding could be better spent elsewhere, they said. Does that kind of coach still exist? Don't coaches have any other kind of motivational techniques they can draw on, even if genetic roots theories DO turn out to be true? Or is it just an example of ostrich behaviour (sticking head in a hole in the ground to avoid seeing things that are scary, which by the way, exposes the posterior to open attack!) Is there practical VALUE to our sport of getting the answers to the genetics questions? If so, what? Will the truth set us free? ..hm... To me, this kind of examination of the 'Taboo' phenomenon, with it's political correctness and social bashing symptoms, is an even MORE interesting topic than the genetics topic behind it. What's the best way to get people to open their minds and THINK in spite of political incorrectness, in order to get truth out in the open? WhereEVER the truth turns out to be... Jon's approach sometimes seems to be in-the-face confrontation...or maybe I'm confusing his discussion technique with the responses he often stimulates... ... is that the best way to get the dialogue on a 'taboo' topic out in the open? I'm not sure I know the answer. It seems to have succeeded in stimulating a lot of discussion on this list, but how well does that approach work elsewhere? RT
Re: t-and-f: New thread regarding the Entine book
Don't coaches have any other kind of motivational techniques they can draw on, even if genetic roots theories DO turn out to be true? One might consider the approach taken by the character played by Woody Harrelson in the movie White Men Can't Jump- even though 'genetically challenged' and unable to dunk, he was able to use that reality as a reverse-psychology weapon in defeating his opponents- namely their disbelief and his capitalizing on their inability to seriously consider him as a potential threat- his dress and manner (his act) served to convince his opponents that he couldn't possibly be a genetic outlier, if they even recognized that such a thing could exist. His taunting of them also serving to trigger emotional responses which reduced the effectiveness of their superior natural skill set. Sort of the David versus Goliath syndrome. Very humorous to moviegoers, but perhaps also some relevance to coaches who have to coach 'genetically challenged' athletes ?... ...this approach might only work when the opponent isn't particularly intelligent and easily 'baited' ..Muhammad Ali was very good at this (see the George Foreman fight, when Ali was probably genetically inferior to Foreman but had a brilliant psychological game plan- the rope-a-dope) !... Also: can telling an athlete he's genetically inferior (or inferior in any other way) to somebody else make that athlete 'hungrier' to prove something to himself and others? Hungrier than his/her more gifted opponent? So much hungrier as to out-train the more confident opponent? This approach was also seen in the movie 'Rocky'- running up the Philly library steps, pounding sides of beef in a freezerbecause he'd always been told he was 'lower class'... Taken to an extreme, does the Army drill sergeant technique of yelling 'you're a scumbag, you're dirt!, etc', which seems to work in a lot of military training environments, also work to any extent in coaching scenarios? Some football coaches seem to like the technique... the theory seems to be that drawing out anger or hatred or resentment toward an intentional single focal point like a drill sergeant or a coach, serves to get the focus and single-mindedness that is otherwise difficult to motivate...at the end of boot camp, the challenge for the trainer is to then succeed in re-directing the focus from the D.I. or Coach to the 'enemy/ opponent'. I always thought the technique worked better (more positive results) on people with a low I.Q., people who can't see through what the D.I. is trying to do... ...I remember another movie with Jan-Michael Vincent as an extremely intelligent kid, who was totally unaffected by a Marine Corps D.I.'s textbook approach to boot camp training because he understood the whole psychology better than the D.I. himself!... ...but perhaps I stray too far from the Taboo topic at hand... RT
t-and-f: Tommie Smith's Gold Medal
Yes indeed, it's here: http://www.tommiesmith.com/home.html then click on View Auction Items I don't think he'll get the half a million for the gold medal, unless of course, he throws in the infamous black glove with the medal ! :-) ...don't see the glove being offered at all, but a lot of other interesting stuff... RT
Re: t-and-f: Elite expectations
The only point I wished to make was that 3:52 at age 18 seems to be a reasonable progression for somebody with eventual world record aspirations- (on TODAY's WR scale, not a 30-year old WR) we shouldn't discourage somebody like that with scare tactics that 'they're burning themselves out' and that kind of talk- we should encourage them. 4:03 is super for some, for others it ought to be a disappointing time. It's a mind-set thing. I've never heard of anybody telling the Kenyan teenagers that they're progressing 'too fast'. Elite training results in elite performances. RT
Re: t-and-f: featured athletes at Mt SAC, KU Relays
This message shows how out of touch you are. Weldon Johnson won the 10 over Keith Kelly. Kelly won the NCAA XC Champs. Would you say Keith is an elite runner? I would say exactly that, no offense to Kelly. And it's not to say that Keith has no potential to improve into elite status. Keith is national class, or collegiate All-American or whatever you want to call it, but not yet world class or elite class. If I'm out of touch to American collegiate fans, then at least I'm in touch with the standards of most of the rest of the track field world. I'll take the latter. The USATF announcement spouted a bunch of names that were DECIDEDLY NOT WORLD-CLASS, especially in the 400, 800 and field events. Yet left out mention of Olympic Finalists in the Distance races. In fact it left out mention of the distance races ALTOGETHER. I checked results yesterday, and I think I remember Abdi Abdirahman in the 5k. He is American, and he was an Olympian. Is the elite moniker only reserved for potential Olympic medalists? Exactly. Or ranked in the top ten in the world. That kind of stuff. The kind of power that we've seen in the past in the Mt. SAC sprints, and in the men's shot put. And the shot was missing people like Adam Nelson this year, but results yesterday were certainly elite-level. That leaves out A LOT of people. Sorry. If everybody was elite it would lose all relevance. There was no excuse (that I could see) for the blatant bias in that event promotion. Your excuse does hold water either. I didn't write the promotion, but I understood it with no problem. Mt. SAC has a reputation for a different presentation package than Penn, Florida Relays, Texas Relays and so forth. Santa Monica TC battling Brazil to try for a 4x800 world record for instance (is that the right race a few years ago?), when Brazil had Barbosa and Cruz and SMTC was anchored by Johnny Gray. If I recall right, at the time Cruz, Gray and Barbosa were ranked in the top four in the world (along with Coe). Santa Monica TC (in the past) or HSI (currently) blazing world class individual sprint and sprint relay times. World class men's (and often women's) throws. Visiting throwers like Ubartas cranking out world leaders. NCAA qualifier times and distances won't get you any newsprint in this crowd. They're a dime a dozen. Oh yes, at one time the Mt. SAC hammer throw cage had a sign hanging on it that claimed that national records for something like 10, repeat that TEN different countries had been set there. Note that there is no room left on the sign for American collegiate records, though those have certainly been set there too. That's elite. RT
Re: t-and-f: Elite expectations
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:40:56 EDT, you wrote: While I do not agree with Kebba's elite requirements, I do think he makes a very good point regarding expectations. It is the old debate that goes around and around in here about distance running in the US, but it remains true. The overall expectations of the US distance running are low, and in part that hinders the development. An example is Webb. There is a lot of discussion about his successes, and times, but there are also discussions regarding if he is running too much, too fast, too soon. It becomes evident when we start to discuss sprinters or foreign distance runners. Junior sprinters are expected to be world class by the time the finish college, if not sooner, and there is rare talk of over training when we discuss foreign juniors. As a matter of fact, it was with interest that I looked at the Mt. SAC Invitational Mile results yesterday. Some of the pre-meet build-up had been around HSer Ryan Hall getting dragged along for a sub-4. Well that didn't happen. But it was interesting that the winning time was within a tenth of a second of the real American HS record of 3:55.3. Did anybody else notice that? When Ryun ran his stuff, the race competition was much the same as the Mt. SAC race yesterday, but the difference was Ryun was up there fighting with the leaders, and the time was near the WR. Comparison today would be a high schooler running sub-3:50, threatening the American Record. Okay, so Steve Scott ran today's AR after much post-collegiate development, something unheard of very much in the 60's. So split the difference and say 3:52 should be a realistic target for today's best American high schoolers. Unrealistic? Burnout territory? Well how's this observation: shouldn't 3:52 be a good target for somebody who hopes to match the American record by the end of his college years, and the World record before he retires? If you can't get into 3:52 territory by age 18, you're probably never gonna set a world mile record. High expectations? Of course. What have we heard lately in America about succumbing to the soft bigotry of low expectations? Different subject matter; same on-target comment- it applies to American distance runners just as well as to the education of minorities. Okay, fire away. RT
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
Another question - when do the various national championships of the European countries occur? And when do the Kenyan nationals occur? The third or fourth week of July, when the European circuit pretty much "shuts down" to allow athletes to return to their home countries for their NC's. And that's where it makes most sense to have the USATF meet. The complaint has always come from collegiate coaches that it stretches the season way too long for their athletes after the NCAA's- it would be an entire month of "down time" waiting for USATF NC's. But for elite athletes, the IAAF tour starts at the end of May and goes full steam up to mid-July, then takes that break. So they usually miss a key meet or two in June right now to have to come to USATF NC's if they want to be assured of a berth on whatever international team happens to be formed that year. The answer for the collegiate athletes: if you're not good enough to go to Europe (or can't accept any prize money), here's the opportunity for USATF to set up a USATF Tier II Grand Prix circuit from mid-June up to NC's at end of July. The CAN AM series (for middle-distance and distance track races) is a superb example. Don't EXPECT too many top elite athletes (they'll be in Europe), so do anything dumb like depend on sale of a lot of gate tickets or anything. Fund it out of development funding or corporate sponsorships. Who knows, if successful, one or two of these Tier II meets might qualify for IAAF GPII staus, or at least IAAF-permit status. But don't make that the end-all objective. Also keep in mind that a USATF NC at end of July makes venues such as New Orleans EVEN WORSE as far as heat and humidity, so the slate of candidate host cities might migrate a little northward. So much the better (for everybody except sprinters). Sorry Darrell. Seattle or Minneapolis or Buffalo would be great in July. RT
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:18:46 EDT, you wrote: While most schools love the press that having an athlete of theirs make the Olympic team or such gets them, don't think for a second that school Ad's or presidents give two shits what USATF wants or does. Agreed. So why should USATF bend itself into a pretzel to fit around an NCAA schedule? The USATF doesn't depend on collegians even one tenth as much as its federation predecessors did 30 years ago. USATF should set its own calendar based on its OWN needs, then provide opportunities to help bridge any gaps between the NCAA calendar and the USATF calendar, as development opportunities for the top tier collegians. RT
