The Case for Erin Finn as CO-HSR-holder

[aaronk]

I know the rules.
I know 2013 is not 1965.
I know everyone is satisfied with the result.
But this has been niggling at me since the race ended.
Can a case be made for Erin Finn to be made CO-HSR-holder, along with Wesley Frazier, for the indoor girl's 5000?
You know what happened.
Finn was sick all week before the race, but went for a sub-16:00 5K at the NB, hitting 3K in 9:33 (15:55 pace), despite being sick.
Frazier hung back, biding her time.
At the tape, just as Finn was about to set a new HSR, breaking her own from 2012, here comes Frazier BLASTING through the tape just 0.01 in front of Finn.

Truth be told, I felt sorry for Finn.
I still do.
Without taking ANYTHING away from Frazier, it was Finn who did all the work, and she did it when she maybe should have instead been at home, resting.
16:18.01 to 16:18.02.

In June 1965, 19 year old Gerry Lindgren ran side by side with 1964 OG 10K Champion Billy Mills in a 6 mile race.
I was there. What a thrill!!
At the end, they were each given the WR, times of 27:11.6 for both.
Later, it was revealed that Mills's time was 27:11.5, but had been rounded up, as was the habit of the times.
Thus, the record books showed them both at 27:11.6!
(Of course, Ron Clarke SHATTERED that mark, enroute to his 27:39.4 10000 WR later that year, being timed at 26:47.0 enroute!)

Well, why can't the powers-that-be IGNORE the rules just this once, being that, if this were 1965, their times would be the SAME, both being rounded off to 16:18.0.

Whatever the case, Erin Finn DESERVES a big standing ovation for her very courageous run!

[Marlow]

16:18.01 to 16:18.02.

Case closed. Next?

[tandfman]

I know the rules.

I'm not so sure.

if this were 1965, their times would be the SAME, both being rounded off to 16:18.0.

No, if this were 1965, both times would have been rounded up to 16:18.1.

[Blues]

Whatever the case, Erin Finn DESERVES a big standing ovation for her very courageous run!

Not sure about the rest of your suggestions, but I definitely agree with the part I quoted.... But if she'd paced herself a little better like Frazier intentionally did, and especially If she'd reacted a little differently at the tape (photo below), she might have had a better chance of being the race winner and new record holder:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-s ... 9574_n.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/newbalancenationals

[kuha]

16:18.01 to 16:18.02.

Case closed. Next?

Yup. Perry Mason would have solved this mystery in the first 3 seconds of the show.

[Master Po]

But...it's 2013, not 1960-something, and we time things to the hundredths, and she got beat and so she doesn't have the HSR. So, this one would have been case dismissed, for any T&F detective.

Erin Finn is an excellent young runner for the USA, and I hope she achieves whatever are her goals in this sport. She certainly made a bold gamble in approaching this race the way she did, even more so because she evidently wasn't 100% going in, due to her reported illness close to the race. Her inability in this race to maintain the pace she set through 3k in the last 2k suggests in addition to her bold, gutsy performance, an error in judgment in this race. That's the way it goes sometimes. Lord knows I've made such errors in judgment on many occasions. Sometimes you don't know until you're out there in the middle of it. She did her best on that day, and she got beat, even if only by a tiny fraction. This sport loves tiny fractions, and the reality of the sport is based exactly on those tiny distinctions that turn out to mean everything.

aaronk, you are someone who puts a great value on records, and on recognizing top performances. Finn's outstanding performance has been noted, but why would you want to make a case -- even hypothetically -- to give a record to someone who didn't earn a record, even if she did give 100% and only missed the victory and record by .01? There aren't really any what-if questions here, as the person who was .01 faster and earned the record was right next to her. Seems to go against many things you consistently and passionately argue for here on a regular basis.

Not arguing. But I read your posts, and so I am just wondering.

[aaronk]

True, all.
I just feel so very sorry for Finn.
If she'd been 100% healthy, and lost by that .01 margin, I might not have said anything.
As Master Po wrote, Finn took a "bold gamble" and made an "error in judgment" that day.
Given the result, I agree.

As for what Master Po said about my focus on records.....again, true!
I AM a stickler for accuracy!

That's why I used the Lindgren-Mills race as my example.....besides having witnessed that race in person....and being a lifelong Lindgren fan!!

But their 27:11.6's were NOT both 27:11.6's....yet were placed in the record books as such!!
Mills won the race with his 27:11.5!!
Here's Roberto Quercetani's verbatim quote from his great book, "A World History of Long Distance Running: 1880-2002".

"......two Americans broke Clarke's 6 mile WR as OG champion Billy Mills beat Gerry Lindgren in a hair-raising finish, 27:11.5 to 27:11.6. Of course, Mills' time was officially rounded up to 27:11.6, so that both got credit for the record. The Bulova Photo Timer actually "saw" only six-hundredths of a second between them as they crossed the finish line."

RQ said "both got credit for the record".

THAT was my point!!
Wesley Frazier would still be declared the winner, but BOTH of their names (as was the case in 1965) would be entered in the record books!!

But being the stickler for accurate record-keeping that I am....I guess I'll just have to accept what is.

Besides, that record will be HISTORY after the 2014 NB's!!!

[odelltrclan]

Appreciate your enthusiasm but lets get back to reality. She lost. Someone else beat her and rightfully holds the record. Sick or not, if you show up to the starting line and compete you must abide by the results.

Wanting someone to have the record because you like them just doesn't work. Or are you suggesting they get rid of all awards, medals, etc. and go to participation ribbons so they can all feel good about themselves?

[kuha]

Wanting someone to have the record because you like them just doesn't work.

Let's re-write the history of the Olympics on this principle. That could easily produce a 4000-post thread.

[aaronk]

Wanting someone to have the record because you like them just doesn't work.

Let's re-write the history of the Olympics on this principle. That could easily produce a 4000-post thread.

GREAT idea!!

Let's begin with the 1968 men's 1500 final!

At sea level, Ryun would've cleaned Keino's clock.....and probably gotten the WR!!

Wake up, Aaron!
Okay, mommy, I was having a nightmare!

[Marlow]

At sea level, Ryun would've cleaned Keino's clock

I'm as big of a JR fan as the next red-blooded Murkan, but on that day, from Death Valley to the Himalayas, from the Sahara Desert to Antarctica, Keino had Ryun's number. Dass a fack, Jack!

[dj]

I know the rules.

I'm not so sure.

if this were 1965, their times would be the SAME, both being rounded off to 16:18.0.

No, if this were 1965, both times would have been rounded up to 16:18.1.

No, if this were 1965, both times would have been rounded up to 16:18.2. IAAF and AAU rules of the time required that all times for distances longer than one mile were to be recorded to the longer one-fifth of a second.

That explains why Lindgren's 27:11.5 was recorded as 27:11.6, not because the officials followed "habit" but because they followed the rules.

[Conor Dary]

At sea level, Ryun would've cleaned Keino's clock

I'm as big of a JR fan as the next red-blooded Murkan, but on that day, from Death Valley to the Himalayas, from the Sahara Desert to Antarctica, Keino had Ryun's number. Dass a fack, Jack!

We have argued this forever. But at 7400 feet, Keino, having been born at altitude, had a huge advantage on Ryun. And that is a fact. Add in a rabbit, Jipcho, and Ryun didn't have a chance.

Having the Olympics at Mexico City was one of the worse decisions the IOC ever made. But what else is new.

[Dutra5]

Appreciate your enthusiasm but lets get back to reality. She lost.

/thread

[tandfman]

No, if this were 1965, both times would have been rounded up to 16:18.1.

No, if this were 1965, both times would have been rounded up to 16:18.2. IAAF and AAU rules of the time required that all times for distances longer than one mile were to be recorded to the longer one-fifth of a second.

Oops! Forgot about that. You're right, of course.

[gh]

which brings us to another governing-body fuggup. When auto timing came in, it only applied to the sprints, as it should have.

The distance races, then as now, should have stayed at 10ths. Use 100ths (or 1000ths, whatever) to break ties in a given race, but to think that course/timing measurement is good enough to distinguish a 10K record to 0.01 from venue to venue shows an embarrassing lack of comprehension of margins of error.

Of course, they did the same thing with the stupid decision to go to odd centimeters in the long throws a few years later. For an organization that has a lot of brilliant minds, an incredible number of stupid rulings are allowed to pass through.

[odelltrclan]

but to think that course/timing measurement is good enough to distinguish a 10K record to 0.01 from venue to venue shows an embarrassing lack of comprehension of margins of error.

Did you have to go there? Now we are going to get Aaronk even more motivated for a personal crusade for Finn even though the difference happened in the same race! Maybe that is one reason they went there (to the hundredths) so performances in the same race would be more clearly distinguished. Has it ever happened in longer races in history where it even mattered that it was in hundredths (or not)?

[aaronk]

but to think that course/timing measurement is good enough to distinguish a 10K record to 0.01 from venue to venue shows an embarrassing lack of comprehension of margins of error.

Did you have to go there? Now we are going to get Aaronk even more motivated for a personal crusade for Finn even though the difference happened in the same race! Maybe that is one reason they went there (to the hundredths) so performances in the same race would be more clearly distinguished. Has it ever happened in longer races in history where it even mattered that it was in hundredths (or not)?

Nope....won't bite!

But, remembering the Salazar-Beardsley Boston race of 1982.....2:08:52 to 2:08:54.....

after 128 minutes and 54 seconds of running.....
past the co-eds of Wellsley (sp?)....
over the Newton hills....
to the finish line.....

you'd think that a TWO SECOND gap would be called a....

TIE!!!