Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[mmrohl]

Netters
Darrell wrote:
> 
 The good thing is that the sprinters know this, 
> and it enables them to tolerate the ignorance that comes from the peanut 
> gallery.  

Oh now isn't that a nice statement!  :)  Let them eat cake!

"scratch a liberal and you know what you find under his skin?  An 
aristocrat"  Frank Herbert - Dune.

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Dgs1170]

In a message dated 03/21/2001 3:54:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


You have left a lot of people 
disillusioned with HSI as a result of your aggressive and patronizing 
intervention in this debate.

Key word is aggressive.  Something that is clearly foreign to this collection 
of track fans.  Contrary to reports, nothing about track is passive, 
especially in the sprints.  The good thing is that the sprinters know this, 
and it enables them to tolerate the ignorance that comes from the peanut 
gallery.  At no point in this debate was there an attack made by The Prince, 
Conway, Louise, me, or any other person defending the sprinters, but look at 
the other side.  I have Justin cursing from across the Waters, I have Brian 
criticizing folks for things he does not do himself, and I have Garry making 
light of the subject.
That is unsportsmanlike conduct.  It is clear that those that have not 
sprinted have no connection to the environment, the opposite is not true.  No 
one rants about the overwhelming post pertaining to distance running because 
there is a level of respect that is given.  It would be nice to receive it.

DGS
Faith is a road seldom traveled

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[malmo]

http://www.csuchico.edu/psy/BioPsych/neurotransmission.html

Look that up in your Guyton and Ganong!!!

malmo



> The limiting factor for reaction time is not due to the speed of 
> the impulse through the nerve fibers (an electrical event, hence 
> very fast-instantaneous for purposes of this discussion), but to 
> the transmission of the impulse from one nerve cell to another, 
> or between nerves and muscles (a chemical reaction which is 
> fairly consistent and which has been accurately measured).  The 
> calculated theroetical limit which gh refers to (I vaguely 
> remember reading about it also) factors in the number of neural 
> connections which must be made between the ear and the leg 
> muscles.  Mayhaps exceptional starters have longer nerve fibers, 
> with fewer inter-nerve transmissions, or different (and faster) 
> neurotransmitters.  Perhaps they have microneural transplant 
> splices surgically implanted at the neural junctions.  
> Nanotechnology - the future of track?
> 
> Don
> 

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Mpplatt]

In a message dated 3/21/01 6:36:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> > Taking your tiny, statistically irrelevant sample of reaction times, you
>  > yourself are able to point to three occasions on which you have managed a
>  > reaction time of 0.1, out of how many races in your career? And you are
>  > supposed to be the best starter on earth. So the best starter of all is 
> has
>  > approached the limit three times in his career and that's proof that the
>  > limit is too high?
>  
Yes.
The current world record in each event only happened once, but they did 
happen and we recognize them. (using the illogic that out of a sample 
something never occurred therefor it can't, would eliminate world records)

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Mpplatt]

In a message dated 3/21/01 6:36:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> > Taking your tiny, statistically irrelevant sample of reaction times, you
>  > yourself are able to point to three occasions on which you have managed a
>  > reaction time of 0.1, out of how many races in your career? And you are
>  > supposed to be the best starter on earth. So the best starter of all is 
> has
>  > approached the limit three times in his career and that's proof that the
>  > limit is too high?
>  
Yes.
The current world record in each event only happened once, but they did 
happen and we recognize them. (using the illogic that out of a sample 
something never occurred therefor it can't, would eliminate world records)

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[LTricard]

In a message dated 3/21/2001 6:36:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:



PS Every time you or Darrell sends one of your blatantly self-interested 
posts, you lose respect and fans, although it's clear from your other 
posts 
that you don't give a fuck about that. You have left a lot of people 
disillusioned with HSI as a result of your aggressive and patronizing 
intervention in this debate.


 oh yeah...you non-sprinter, all you can do is type guys,who think you own 
the board, can't stand it when someone who KNOWS what they are talking 
about comments..you should be delighted to have an AUTHORITY join the 
discussion.or is it too threatening...i love it..and don't speak 
for me, i'm not disillusioned...

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[CPoTaf]

In a message dated 3/21/01 4:04:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


If you are going to insult people you could at least have the balls to sign
your name.

   Insult people!  Excuse me, but I was the one being attacked,


Taking your tiny, statistically irrelevant sample of reaction times, you
yourself are able to point to three occasions on which you have managed a
reaction time of 0.1, out of how many races in your career? And you are
supposed to be the best starter on earth. So the best starter of all is has
approached the limit three times in his career and that's proof that the
limit is too high? Please credit us with at least some intelligence.


   The relevance of the tiny stat was, it is possible for someone to have 
a high consistency reaction time.  While you are trying to belittle the 
accomplishment, you do it once in your life before you criticize me or any 
one else.

As for Ato's 0.054, that was an extremely blatant false start. Ato sent the
instructions to his muscles to get going before his ear had registered the
sound of the gun. That's not reacting, it's anticipating and if done
dleiberately it's cheating. And if you train to anticipate rather than react
then you train to cheat.


   Then why is Ato the 100 m bronze medalist from Gutenberg WC's if it 
was that blatant.  Something that blatant would have been caught by the human 
eye, let alone pressure sensitive blocks.  I'll tell you the reason Justin, 
and this one is free.  The reason he wasn't charged with a false start was 
because there was a problem with the starting mechanism.  Which takes us back 
to my reason for arguing in the first place.  The 2 false start rule is my 
argument not reaction time.  So while you are questioning my intelligence, 
you should check your ignorance at the door.

Justin

PS Every time you or Darrell sends one of your blatantly self-interested
posts, you lose respect and fans, although it's clear from your other posts
that you don't give a fuck about that. You have left a lot of people
disillusioned with HSI as a result of your aggressive and patronizing
intervention in this debate.

   LOL!  Every fan that knows who I am knows I have the utmost respect 
for them and the game.  However, respect is a mutual gain.   I don't have a 
lot of people disillusioned. Like you people will think what they will and 
draw whatever conclusion they will.  

THE PRINCE

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[LTricard]

In a message dated 3/21/2001 4:34:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Why try to eliminate false starts??? Its all part of
the sport:- people trying to get as fast out of the
blocks as possible...there are bound to be mistakes

yeah...why is that s hard for others (supposedly track fans) to 
understand?

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[sean other]

Justin Clouder wrote:

There are very very few
> reactions in the 0.1 to 0.12 range, if any. There
> has never been evidence of
> any athlete, even you Mr Drummond, being able to
> react faster than 0.1. 


At some point in the past someone could have written
the following:

"There are very very few
 miles run in the 4 min to 4 min 2 sec. range, if any.
There
 has never been evidence of
any athlete, even you Mr Bannister being able to
run faster than 4 mins."

Should we have said that because no one had previously
ever come close to 4 minutes that if someone then
broke 4 minutes they had to be cheating or behaving in
"unsportsmanlike conduct" and then disqualify them??
How dare anyone run faster than anyone has before or
react faster than anyone has before.

Sean


--- Justin Clouder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hi All
> 
> On this point:
> 
> > >My understanding is that this has been
> extensively researched, with a 
> > generous allowance made below the fastest reaction
> tested.< 
> > 
> >   You're correct, but this test was done on
> military men, not
> > athletes! 
> > 
> As I understand it there has never been a test done
> among any group which
> showed a reaction time to aural stimulus of less
> than a fifth of a second.
> Top class athletes are thus allowed to react twice
> as fast as anyone else
> has ever been shown to do. That, to me, is more than
> generous enough
> already.
> 
> Typical reaction times at meets with pressure
> sensitive blocks range from
> 0.15 at the business end to 0.3 for the very worst.
> There are very very few
> reactions in the 0.1 to 0.12 range, if any. There
> has never been evidence of
> any athlete, even you Mr Drummond, being able to
> react faster than 0.1. 
> 
> Justin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
**
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained
> in this message. 
> If you are not the addressee indicated in the
> message (or responsible 
> for the delivery of the message to such person), you
> may not copy
> or deliver this message to anyone.
> 
> In such case, you should destroy this message and
> kindly notify the 
> sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if
> you or your employer
> does not consent to Internet Email for messages of
> this kind. 
> 
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
> message that do not 
> relate to the official business of Abbott Mead
> Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
> Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as
> neither given nor
> endorsed by them.
> 
> Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
> Registered in England.
> Registered Number 1935786.
> Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
> Telephone 020 7616 3500.
> Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
**


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[sean other]

Why try to eliminate false starts??? Its all part of
the sport:- people trying to get as fast out of the
blocks as possible...there are bound to be mistakes. 

Sean
--- "Wayne T. Armbrust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever that is) wrote:
> 
> >   I read, but very rarely do I feel the need
> to post.  All you
> > armchair
> > athletes have the audacity to sit here and say
> that false starting is
> > unsportmanlike conduct?!?  LOL Give me a break. 
> I've also read that
> > it is
> > unfair to anticipate the gun.  Well, let's look at
> it from a sprinters
> > point
> > of view.  I expect the gun, therefore I react the
> moment I hear it.
> > This
> > enables me to react faster than any other man in
> the sport.  Is it
> > cheating,
> > NO!  Is it fair, YES.  Is it unsportsmanlike,
> DEFINATELY NOT!
> 
> I agree with you 100% here.  Practicing to react to
> the gun is not
> cheating, and is a very appropriate thing to do.
> 
> >
> >What Maurice said in his interview is
> correct.  He timed the
> > starters
> > rhythm.  Unfortunatley, it is impossible to be
> completely accurate
> > because no
> > starter fires exactly the same way in the same
> rhythm.  I have spoken
> > to many
> > starters before meets and they have concluded that
> they change the gun
> > if
> > there is a false start in the race.  This I
> believe shoots down every
> > arguement that false starts helps the athletes
> time the starter.
> 
> But Maurice, according to his interview, is not
> doing the same as you.
> He is not trying to react as soon as possible, he is
> trying to
> anticipate when the starter will fire.  Rule 162.2
> states:  "All races
> shall be started by the report of the Starter's gun
> or approved starting
> apparatus fired upwards after he has ascertained
> that competitors are
> steady and in the correct starting position."  Note
> that the rule does
> not say that races are to start when the competitors
> think the starter
> is about to fire!
> 
> >
> >   Now, I am sorry that many of you feel you
> don't get enough track
> > TV
> > time due to false starts, but I do not think this
> rule is being
> > implemented
> > for the right reasons.  It is for the sole purpose
> dictatorship and
> > greed.
> > To say a track sprinter can not react faster than
> .100 is completely
> > unresearched.
> 
> My understanding is that this has been extensively
> researched, with a
> generous allowance made below the fastest reaction
> tested.
> 
> > To say that the touch sensitive blocks are
> completely accurate
> > is unintellegent, and to say the the judgement of
> the human eye is
> > fair, is
> > unfair.
> 
> Total reliance on either the pressure sensitive
> blocks or the human eye
> is unwise, but the combination of the two should
> catch almost all false
> starts.
> 
> > "TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO REALLY FOUL THINGS UP
> REQUIRES A COMPUTER."
> > Don't just read, read into it!
> >
> > THE PRINCE!
> >
> 
> What is your suggestion, Prince, on how to eliminate
> false starts?
> 
> --
> Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Computomarxô
> 3604 Grant Ct.
> Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA
> (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX)
> http://www.Computomarx.com
> "Know the difference between right and wrong...
> Always give your best effort...
> Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..."
> - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[David Dallman]

  Quoting particular examples of apparently very short reaction times
proves absolutely nothing. As has been pointed out, there can be many
distractions after the "set" command which could lead to a start in
anticipation of the gun. Thus you would actually expect some very low
readings due to this. This has got nothing necessarily to do with trying
to anticipate the start, which could just be another possible explanation
for the apparently "short reaction time". 
  I would imagine that in a scientific study you would also get times
going down well below real reaction times, due to the test subjects also
being distracted and giving a too-early response some of the time. Real
reaction times seem to have a lower limit of somewhere just above 0.100
seconds (the actual value doesn't matter for my argument), that is the
distribution of real reaction times falls essentially to zero at this
point. Apparent reaction times where the start was triggered by some
external influence (nervousness, noise from the crowd, another athlete
twitching, etc.) would have a flattish distribution since they are
uncorrelated with the gun time. The problem is then to select a minimum
reaction time which will be considered fair. This is how the current limit
was chosen, being quite a bit lower than where the true reaction times
start, just to be on the safe side.
  The complicating thing is that if there is also an element of trying to
anticipate the start, where I agree with those who say this is
against the rules, these times will also follow a distribution which falls
towards zero as the time decreases, but reaches zero at a lower reaction
time than real reaction times (otherwise why bother to anticipate?). It is
much harder to separate one falling distribution from another slightly
shifted falling one, than to separate one falling distribution from one
flat one. But since anticipating is in my opinion clearly against the
rules, there is no need to separate the two cases, and the current limit
used is acceptable.
  It could even be argued that it is too generous to the athlete, because
it does leave a window for anticipation to be successful.

David Dallman



On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>I must say you need to do more research.  I have reacted .100, .101, 
> and .102 in my career.  I also have reacted with consistany .112.  Infact, 
> Ato Boldon posted a .054 in Gotenburg, Sweden in the finals of the mens 100m 
> in 1995.  Others in Gotenburg have also posted reaction times under .1, thus 
> my arguement.  They blamed the starting system. 
>While you think you can stick you statistical chest out, it is obvious 
> that your information is incorrect.  Now, go back and try again with someone 
> who don't know any better.  ;-)
> 
> THE PRINCE
> 

David Dallman
CERN - SIS

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[CPoTaf]

Gary wrote:  
It's not a controlled scientific study

   I can't argue with any stat, but as you said this wasn't a controlled 
scientific study.  I am not arguing reaction time, as I have said, I have no 
problem with the .100.  I am arguing that the new false start rule will be an 
unfair rule.

THE PRINCE

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[GHTFNedit]

In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:31:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

<<  I think I am accurate in saying that the reaction time is unresearched   
because the last time it's been researched, as you have stated, was up   
through 1980's. It's 2001. The world record has been broken atleast 7 times   
since 1980, and many athletes have had reaction times off of the charts. >>

It's not a controlled scientific study, but check out the piece by Lennart Julin in 
the March '97 issue of T&FN regarding reaction times (in relation to Christie's fubar 
in Atlanta). He makes a convincing (to me) case that based on figures generated by FS 
blocks that nobody is better than 0.12 or 0.13.

He cites specifically Borzov in '72 (figures available only to 100ths) where he did 
0.12, 0.12, 0.12 and 0.13 in his four 100m races. In '95, Christie did 0.130, 0.142, 
0.129 and 0.110 at the Worlds. Despite all the changes in WRs, there is no evidence 
that reaction times (and i mean real reaction times, not guessing) have improved.

gh

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Randy Treadway]

>Perhaps they have microneural transplant splices surgically implanted at
>the neural junctions.  Nanotechnology - the future of track?
>
>Don

It might be easier to just exercise mind control over the
starter, so that he fires the gun exactly WHEN YOU WANT HIM TO.

---Madame Clio, now available as personal mind control
trainer, mon, "call m'now!" ...


RT

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[CPoTaf]

 Thomas wrote:
 < While I can agree with much of what you say -- and I am today a very 
active starter at major events -- this statement is indeed "shooting from the 
hip" and just not true!

Where do you arrive at this conclusion? From what body of evidence?

Last year(?) when this was a thread, I posted a letter about all the research 
done on this topic between 1960 - 1979 for the IAAF by Junghans timing, 
independent biomechanical researchers and Omega timing. It's there, it's 
interesting, it's well-grounded -- albeit athletes of today perhaps should be 
entered into the data for reevaluation. But it had been THOROUGHLY researched 
up through 1980!

That is how IAAF came up with the standard used as the rule in the false 
start detection equipment employed now! Did you think that they just were 
sipping some brandy one night and just made up a rule because it sounded 
good? Even the most pretentious and presumptuous of sports officialdom would 
not be so arbitrary in imposing such an important rule!

Do a search on it in a university library and you'll find it.>


Thomas,
   If you are saying that the 1980's is the last time this has been 
researched, don't you think it's time for an update?  I am not questioning 
how they came up with the reaction time, I am however arguing that it will be 
unfair to change the false start rule.  
   I think I am accurate in saying that the reaction time is unresearched 
because the last time it's been researched, as you have stated, was up 
through 1980's. It's 2001.  The world record has been broken atleast 7  times 
since 1980, and many athletes have had reaction times off of the charts.  
Futhermore, this is my point.  If they are going to change the false start 
rules they need to do more research, and not react to TV's desires or fans 
frustration.
    I really don't have a problem with the reaction time being .100.  I do
 believe it's possible to react faster, but that is not the arguement; 
therefore, it is not necessary for me to go to the library and research, I'll 
just take your word for it.  
   Just to let you know, I believe "brandy" may have been the choice of 
drink when they came up with a lot of rules in the IAAF.  LOL

THE PRINCE

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Donald Mcfarlin]

The limiting factor for reaction time is not due to the speed of the impulse through 
the nerve fibers (an electrical event, hence very fast-instantaneous for purposes of 
this discussion), but to the transmission of the impulse from one nerve cell to 
another, or between nerves and muscles (a chemical reaction which is fairly consistent 
and which has been accurately measured).  The calculated theroetical limit which gh 
refers to (I vaguely remember reading about it also) factors in the number of neural 
connections which must be made between the ear and the leg muscles.  Mayhaps 
exceptional starters have longer nerve fibers, with fewer inter-nerve transmissions, 
or different (and faster) neurotransmitters.  Perhaps they have microneural transplant 
splices surgically implanted at the neural junctions.  Nanotechnology - the future of 
track?

Don

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001  2:17:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Kurt Bray" 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> << The best that can be said is that no one has ever been observed to react as fast 
>as the limit.   But the current rule is flawed because it makes no
> allowance for the athlete who is way beyond "normal" - one who CAN react
> that fast.  Like the black swan, it's impossible to say that such an athlete
> cannot come along.>>
> 
> If the number were based solely on empirical observation I'd agree with you, but i 
>think (again, I can't cite chapter and verse) I've seen a study based on more hard 
>science than that, relative to speed of impulse through nerve fibers, etc., and there 
>is a finite limit which probably can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> gh

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[mmrohl]

Netters

Brian Wrote:
> After reading this I get the feeling that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   and [EMAIL PROTECTED]   might
> really be the same clown ... err, I mean person.

No, that is really Jon's adress I have it from another source.

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[CPoTaf]

   I must say you need to do more research.  I have reacted .100, .101, 
and .102 in my career.  I also have reacted with consistany .112.  Infact, 
Ato Boldon posted a .054 in Gotenburg, Sweden in the finals of the mens 100m 
in 1995.  Others in Gotenburg have also posted reaction times under .1, thus 
my arguement.  They blamed the starting system. 
   While you think you can stick you statistical chest out, it is obvious 
that your information is incorrect.  Now, go back and try again with someone 
who don't know any better.  ;-)

THE PRINCE

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Ed Prytherch]

Justin says:

>As I understand it there has never been a test done among any group which
>showed a reaction time to aural stimulus of less than a fifth of a second.
>Top class athletes are thus allowed to react twice as fast as anyone else
>has ever been shown to do. That, to me, is more than generous enough
>already.

Take a look at Colin Jackson's reaction times. They are almost always faster
than .2. In a meet about a year ago he was FS'd with a .09 then won with a
.12 or similar. The guy has very fast reactions. Reacting to the gun is a
skill. It should improve with practice.

How many of these "tests" that you write of, simulate the mental awareness
of a sprinter set in the blocks at the start of a championship 100? You
would have a hard time simulating those conditions in a lab.

I don't believe that there has ever been a good scientific study on the
reaction times of sprinters. If there is one, it should be published and
subjected to peer review. To those of you who say there are such studies,
give us the references.

Ed Prytherch.

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Shawn Devereaux]

CPoTaF = "Clown Prince of Track & Field"...Jon Drummond?
s.devereaux
 
 
 
"Mcewen, Brian T" wrote:
 After
reading this I get the feeling that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and [EMAIL PROTECTED] might really be
the same clown ... err, I mean person.

-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001
1:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike
conduct" LOL
 
 I read,
but very rarely do I feel the need to post.  All you armchair
athletes have the audacity
to sit here and say that false starting is
unsportmanlike conduct?!? 
LOL Give me a break.  I've also read that it is
unfair to anticipate the
gun.  Well, let's look at it from a sprinters point
of view.  I expect
the gun, therefore I react the moment I hear it.  This
enables me to react faster
than any other man in the sport.  Is it cheating,
NO!  Is it fair, YES. 
Is it unsportsmanlike, DEFINATELY NOT!
  
What Maurice said in his interview is correct.  He timed the starters
rhythm.  Unfortunatley,
it is impossible to be completely accurate because no
starter fires exactly the
same way in the same rhythm.  I have spoken to many
starters before meets and
they have concluded that they change the gun if
there is a false start in
the race.  This I believe shoots down every
arguement that false starts
helps the athletes time the starter.
 
Now, I am sorry that many of you feel you don't get enough track TV
time due to false starts,
but I do not think this rule is being implemented
for the right reasons. 
It is for the sole purpose dictatorship and greed.
To say a track sprinter
can not react faster than .100 is completely
unresearched.  To say
that the touch sensitive blocks are completely accurate
is unintellegent, and to
say the the judgement of the human eye is fair, is
unfair.  "TO ERR IS
HUMAN, TO REALLY FOUL THINGS UP REQUIRES A COMPUTER."
Don't just read, read into
it!
THE PRINCE!
 


--
"I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't give a damn."
 

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Mcewen, Brian T]

After 
reading this I get the feeling that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] might really be the same clown 
... err, I mean person.

  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:58 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: t-and-f: 
  "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL I read, but 
  very rarely do I feel the need to post.  All you armchair athletes 
  have the audacity to sit here and say that false starting is 
  unsportmanlike conduct?!?  LOL Give me a break.  I've also read 
  that it is unfair to anticipate the gun.  Well, let's look at it from 
  a sprinters point of view.  I expect the gun, therefore I react the 
  moment I hear it.  This enables me to react faster than any other man 
  in the sport.  Is it cheating, NO!  Is it fair, YES.  Is it 
  unsportsmanlike, DEFINATELY NOT! 
     What Maurice said in his 
  interview is correct.  He timed the starters rhythm. 
   Unfortunatley, it is impossible to be completely accurate because no 
  starter fires exactly the same way in the same rhythm.  I have spoken 
  to many starters before meets and they have concluded that they change the 
  gun if there is a false start in the race.  This I believe shoots 
  down every arguement that false starts helps the athletes time the 
  starter.   Now, I am sorry that many of 
  you feel you don't get enough track TV time due to false starts, but I do 
  not think this rule is being implemented for the right reasons.  It 
  is for the sole purpose dictatorship and greed.   To say a track 
  sprinter can not react faster than .100 is completely unresearched. 
   To say that the touch sensitive blocks are completely accurate is 
  unintellegent, and to say the the judgement of the human eye is fair, is 
  unfair.  "TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO REALLY FOUL THINGS UP REQUIRES A 
  COMPUTER."   Don't just read, read into it! THE PRINCE! 
     

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[GHTFNedit]

In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001  2:17:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Kurt Bray" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

<< The best that can be said is that no one has ever been observed to react as fast as 
the limit.   But the current rule is flawed because it makes no 
allowance for the athlete who is way beyond "normal" - one who CAN react 
that fast.  Like the black swan, it's impossible to say that such an athlete 
cannot come along.>>

If the number were based solely on empirical observation I'd agree with you, but i 
think (again, I can't cite chapter and verse) I've seen a study based on more hard 
science than that, relative to speed of impulse through nerve fibers, etc., and there 
is a finite limit which probably can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

gh

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Wayne T. Armbrust]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Wayne wrote:
> >What is your suggestion, Prince, on how to eliminate false starts?<
>
> Ý You can't! ÝShould every distance runner be expelled from the
> race if
> they touch or push a runner? ÝCome on, get serious, it's part of the
> game.
> ÝThe 2 false start rule aids that purpose. ÝVery rarely do you have a
> person
> false start twice. ÝIf you want a more fair race, charge the first
> false
> start to the field and if anyone else jumps, then they are eliminated.
>
> >My understanding is that this has been extensively researched, with a
>
> generous allowance made below the fastest reaction tested.<
>
> ÝÝYou're correct, but this test was done on military men, not
> athletes!
>
> >Total reliance on either the pressure sensitive blocks or the human
> eye
> is unwise, but the combination of the two should catch almost all
> false
> starts.<
>
> ÝÝI agree that the combination should catch almost all false
> starts, but
> if an athlete flinches and it sets of the blocks, the two line judges
> didn't
> see it, is that athlete guilty of a false start? ÝMy answer: ÝIf you
> are in
> Cuba and the Cuban athlete has a chance to medal IT IS! ÝThink about
> it!
>
> THE PRINCE!

If you had been following all my posts on this subject, you would see
that I agree with you that the no false start idea is a bad one.  I say,
keep the rules as they are.  They have served the sport well for many
years.

--
Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computomarxô
3604 Grant Ct.
Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA
(573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX)
http://www.Computomarx.com
"Know the difference between right and wrong...
Always give your best effort...
Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..."
- Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Kurt Bray]

Justin says:

>As I understand it there has never been a test done among any group which
>showed a reaction time to aural stimulus of less than a fifth of a second.
>Top class athletes are thus allowed to react twice as fast as anyone else
>has ever been shown to do. That, to me, is more than generous enough
>already.


I don't know anything about the tests that were used to generate the current 
limit, but speaking as a scientist who gathers and analyzes data for a 
living, I have to say that I side with the sprinters on this one.

I've never been comfortable with the statement "No one can react as fast as 
xxx", if for no other reason than it's a logical fallacy to try to prove a 
negative. But that is just what this rule attempts to do.

It's like saying that swans are never black.  You've looked at 25,000 swans, 
and they were all white.  Fine.  But you haven't "proven" anything, because 
the very next swan to fly around the bend may well be totally black.

The best that can be said is that no one has ever been observed to react as 
fast as the limit.   But the current rule is flawed because it makes no 
allowance for the athlete who is way beyond "normal" - one who CAN react 
that fast.  Like the black swan, it's impossible to say that such an athlete 
cannot come along.

Kurt Bray

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

RE: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Justin Clouder]

Hi All

On this point:

> >My understanding is that this has been extensively researched, with a 
> generous allowance made below the fastest reaction tested.< 
> 
>   You're correct, but this test was done on military men, not
> athletes! 
> 
As I understand it there has never been a test done among any group which
showed a reaction time to aural stimulus of less than a fifth of a second.
Top class athletes are thus allowed to react twice as fast as anyone else
has ever been shown to do. That, to me, is more than generous enough
already.

Typical reaction times at meets with pressure sensitive blocks range from
0.15 at the business end to 0.3 for the very worst. There are very very few
reactions in the 0.1 to 0.12 range, if any. There has never been evidence of
any athlete, even you Mr Drummond, being able to react faster than 0.1. 

Justin





**
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible 
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not 
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.

Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[CPoTaf]

Wayne wrote:
>What is your suggestion, Prince, on how to eliminate false starts?<

  You can't!  Should every distance runner be expelled from the race if 
they touch or push a runner?  Come on, get serious, it's part of the game. 
 The 2 false start rule aids that purpose.  Very rarely do you have a person 
false start twice.  If you want a more fair race, charge the first false 
start to the field and if anyone else jumps, then they are eliminated.

>My understanding is that this has been extensively researched, with a
generous allowance made below the fastest reaction tested.<

  You're correct, but this test was done on military men, not athletes!

>Total reliance on either the pressure sensitive blocks or the human eye
is unwise, but the combination of the two should catch almost all false
starts.<

  I agree that the combination should catch almost all false starts, but 
if an athlete flinches and it sets of the blocks, the two line judges didn't 
see it, is that athlete guilty of a false start?  My answer:  If you are in 
Cuba and the Cuban athlete has a chance to medal IT IS!  Think about it!

THE PRINCE!

Re: t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[Wayne T. Armbrust]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (whoever that is) wrote:

>   I read, but very rarely do I feel the need to post.  All you
> armchair
> athletes have the audacity to sit here and say that false starting is
> unsportmanlike conduct?!?  LOL Give me a break.  I've also read that
> it is
> unfair to anticipate the gun.  Well, let's look at it from a sprinters
> point
> of view.  I expect the gun, therefore I react the moment I hear it.
> This
> enables me to react faster than any other man in the sport.  Is it
> cheating,
> NO!  Is it fair, YES.  Is it unsportsmanlike, DEFINATELY NOT!

I agree with you 100% here.  Practicing to react to the gun is not
cheating, and is a very appropriate thing to do.

>
>What Maurice said in his interview is correct.  He timed the
> starters
> rhythm.  Unfortunatley, it is impossible to be completely accurate
> because no
> starter fires exactly the same way in the same rhythm.  I have spoken
> to many
> starters before meets and they have concluded that they change the gun
> if
> there is a false start in the race.  This I believe shoots down every
> arguement that false starts helps the athletes time the starter.

But Maurice, according to his interview, is not doing the same as you.
He is not trying to react as soon as possible, he is trying to
anticipate when the starter will fire.  Rule 162.2 states:  "All races
shall be started by the report of the Starter's gun or approved starting
apparatus fired upwards after he has ascertained that competitors are
steady and in the correct starting position."  Note that the rule does
not say that races are to start when the competitors think the starter
is about to fire!

>
>   Now, I am sorry that many of you feel you don't get enough track
> TV
> time due to false starts, but I do not think this rule is being
> implemented
> for the right reasons.  It is for the sole purpose dictatorship and
> greed.
> To say a track sprinter can not react faster than .100 is completely
> unresearched.

My understanding is that this has been extensively researched, with a
generous allowance made below the fastest reaction tested.

> To say that the touch sensitive blocks are completely accurate
> is unintellegent, and to say the the judgement of the human eye is
> fair, is
> unfair.

Total reliance on either the pressure sensitive blocks or the human eye
is unwise, but the combination of the two should catch almost all false
starts.

> "TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO REALLY FOUL THINGS UP REQUIRES A COMPUTER."
> Don't just read, read into it!
>
> THE PRINCE!
>

What is your suggestion, Prince, on how to eliminate false starts?

--
Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computomarxô
3604 Grant Ct.
Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA
(573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX)
http://www.Computomarx.com
"Know the difference between right and wrong...
Always give your best effort...
Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..."
- Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)

t-and-f: "Unsportmanlike conduct" LOL

[CPoTaf]

   I read, but very rarely do I feel the need to post.  All you armchair 
athletes have the audacity to sit here and say that false starting is 
unsportmanlike conduct?!?  LOL Give me a break.  I've also read that it is 
unfair to anticipate the gun.  Well, let's look at it from a sprinters point 
of view.  I expect the gun, therefore I react the moment I hear it.  This 
enables me to react faster than any other man in the sport.  Is it cheating, 
NO!  Is it fair, YES.  Is it unsportsmanlike, DEFINATELY NOT! 
    What Maurice said in his interview is correct.  He timed the starters 
rhythm.  Unfortunatley, it is impossible to be completely accurate because no 
starter fires exactly the same way in the same rhythm.  I have spoken to many 
starters before meets and they have concluded that they change the gun if 
there is a false start in the race.  This I believe shoots down every 
arguement that false starts helps the athletes time the starter.
   Now, I am sorry that many of you feel you don't get enough track TV 
time due to false starts, but I do not think this rule is being implemented 
for the right reasons.  It is for the sole purpose dictatorship and greed.  
To say a track sprinter can not react faster than .100 is completely 
unresearched.  To say that the touch sensitive blocks are completely accurate 
is unintellegent, and to say the the judgement of the human eye is fair, is 
unfair.  "TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO REALLY FOUL THINGS UP REQUIRES A COMPUTER."  
Don't just read, read into it!

THE PRINCE!