[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't make rules based on the premise that there's an X-Man out there
somewhere. Or MIGHT be someday. You make rules that fit what's known, and
from everything I've seen, the 0,100 (as does 6:1 epi ratio) gives great
benefit of the doubt already.
If any athlete(s) truly believe they can react faster than the 0,100 I
suggest they set up a scientificallyvalid demonstration for the IAAF and
ask for a waiver.
gh
ps--if there is anybody close to an x-man in this category, I nominate
Colin Jackson.
Yes, you can, and quite frankly you must. If you are going to set limits on
people, not a person, but people, you have to account for that freak. The
issue here, is that person a freak, or are their others like him?
You cannot set the parameters to the detriment of a competitor. And there is
no way you can provide scientific evidence to get waiver. You have
effectively eliminated the competitor from using his gift. He now has to
wait some infinitesimal amount of time to make sure he does not exceed the
expectations of the short sighted, and non believers. That is irresponsible.
The belief that we have reached the limits of man is the height of
arrogance. It was stated best, the results we have today are based upon the
set of factors that preceded the study. The reaction studies have been dated
back to 1980, damn near 2 generations ago. And a lifetime away in terms of
training, and talent development in the sport.
NFS is not to the benefit of anyone involved with track. There is a better
solution. False starting is not leaving the sport, just as pacing,
rabbiting, and passing attempts is not. People want to win, and optimize
their chances. You can disagree with the tactics chosen, but as long as it
is within the rules, so be it. But that is not to say that the rules should
be written n stone.
DGS
Faith is a road seldom traveled
