----- Original Message -----
From: "Mcewen, Brian T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Also, the start is much less important in speed skating than the 100m.
All
> speed skating races are longer than 10 seconds. Additionally, you can't
> bust a tremendous first-five meters (a la` Ben Johnson) on ice, with
blades
> on your feet. A runner is fairly safe from falling on the track anytime
> during a 100m race ... but a skater will likely fall anytime he strays
from
> good technique.
Though ... Hiroyasu Shimizu has skated the 100m in 9.41 seconds (with a
9.46sec opener during his WR in Salt Lake City) ... making him probably the
fastest human to cover 100m under his own power from a motionless start.
Agree with you that the start in 100m track is more crucial though ...
> I love the 0.000 allowed reaction time idea. Just put an electric eye at
> the start and whoever "breaks plane" before the light, buzzer, or gun
fires
> should be out.
>
> Otherwise, let them RUN. The race should be about the RACE, not the
start.
It's the rules of the game, like the allowable wind speed, the hardness of
the track ... we have the rule that the starter calls the shots. Though I
don't particularly care either way; I can live with three false starts per
100m, and conversely I'm sure the top sprinters will learn to cope with two,
should the IAAF so decide.
I like the 0.000 reaction time idea, too, though I don't think it will
lessen false starts one whit. Top sprinters trying to anticipate the starter
(and they almost all do, to some extent) still don't average better than
0.1s - 0.2s, on average. The margin of 0.1 sec is very small already, and
contrary to a lot of hopeful rubbish about X-men posted lately, this is a
fairly generous margin. Electric signals in axons (nerve cells) travel at
about 50m/sec in , slowing down to about 1m/sec as they cross synapses; it
is physically impossible for them to travel faster, and animals with faster
nerve signal speeds, like squid, have a completely different neural layout
and biochemistry from humans. The start block sensors do not directly
measure reaction time either, they measure the force spike produced by
contracting primary movers (back, glutes, quads), and muscle contraction
takes between 0.05 to 0.100 seconds, depending on the type and size of the
muscle, and nature of the contraction. All in all, 0.100 is a generous
margin.
Anyway I think the 0.000 reaction time is being applied in practice, too;
Dennis Mitchell comes to mind as someone with a slew of dodgy 0.09 starts to
his name. It has my vote, anyway.
Cheers, Elliott
