San Diego track short? [split]


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby kuha » Wed May 15, 2013 3:48 pm

Good intentions are...well, good... But it remains a huge problem that none of these performances end up being worth anything.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby dunes runner » Wed May 15, 2013 4:06 pm

PeteHess wrote:didn't have a rail on that track because it had been stolen TWICE from that facility for scrap metal. I was not prepared to pay 10k for another rail to be put in when the times most likely wouldn't count anyhow.


Just one word.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk

I like the idea of lines and cones.
dunes runner
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Wed May 15, 2013 4:26 pm

kuha wrote:Good intentions are...well, good... But it remains a huge problem that none of these performances end up being worth anything.


They meant something to all those in the audience who watched some good head-to-head racing, and the wins meant something to the athletes who did. this was a half-full glass, not half-empty.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Wed May 15, 2013 4:48 pm

I watched the meet from afar and, based on my observations of the competition, the between events comraderie of the athletes and the fans, I wished I was either close enough to have been in attendance, a lot younger and faster or both.

Looked like a lot of fun. Thank you Pete for putting the meet on and your post.

Also thanks to those who provided the information regarding track measurement which is one area of the sport I am admittedly completely lost.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby kuha » Wed May 15, 2013 5:03 pm

gh wrote:
kuha wrote:Good intentions are...well, good... But it remains a huge problem that none of these performances end up being worth anything.


They meant something to all those in the audience who watched some good head-to-head racing, and the wins meant something to the athletes who did. this was a half-full glass, not half-empty.


Fine. So I presume we will hear no more complaints about oversize indoor tracks or wind aided marathons, etc.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby bushop » Wed May 15, 2013 5:07 pm

gh wrote:They meant something to all those in the audience who watched some good head-to-head racing, and the wins meant something to the athletes who did. this was a half-full glass, not half-empty.

Amen.
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Wed May 15, 2013 5:08 pm

we will always hear "negativity" about marks that don't come up to statistical standard, which is why this thread was started. That does nothing to diminish the viewing quality for those on hand.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby hc10003 » Wed May 15, 2013 5:20 pm

gh wrote:
kuha wrote:Good intentions are...well, good... But it remains a huge problem that none of these performances end up being worth anything.


They meant something to all those in the audience who watched some good head-to-head racing, and the wins meant something to the athletes who did. this was a half-full glass, not half-empty.


Totally agree with the Editor, except I'd call the glass 99% full! Thank you Mr. Hess for your efforts. Sounds like a massive undertaking, raising sponsor funds, organizationally, recruiting athletes; and likely a financial risk too.

But the end result seems exactly what we need more of in the US: a competitive post-collegiate meet, enthusiastic fans, excited athletes, good publicity, and a nice earnings opportunity for elite competitors. It's telling that Mr. Hess notes how the athletes were informed of the issue re official times but still opted to compete. Ultimately, athletes show up to see who can ran faster, throw farther, etc. and all the better if in front of a big crowd.

It appears the meet organizers also took every effort to insure a great experience for the athletes (nice hotels, prompt payments) and the fans. There is so much in Mr. Hess' post to appreciate; let's hope it will inspire those in other cities and that the meet returns to SD in 2014. Definitely worth plenty to athletes and fans alike.
hc10003
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:31 pm

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby aaronk » Wed May 15, 2013 5:41 pm

Question:

If she knew the time wouldn't count, why did Brenda Martinez, in her post-race interview (with Mary Cain on FloTrack), say "I've got TWO "A"'s now, so I get to choose. But I'm leaning toward the 1500, because I've got unfinished business there."?

She did NOT have two "A"'s....and she knew that, yet she said it anyway.

Oh, and MileSplit still has the headline, "Mary Cain, 2:01.68, AJR"!!
Uh-uh, MileSplit!

One more "Grinchy" comment:
Was Susan Kuijken REALLY more interested in the $$$$$ than having her PR listed.....or even HAVING her PR??
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Wed May 15, 2013 7:55 pm

aaronk wrote:Question:

If she knew the time wouldn't count, why did Brenda Martinez, in her post-race interview (with Mary Cain on FloTrack), say "I've got TWO "A"'s now, so I get to choose. But I'm leaning toward the 1500, because I've got unfinished business there."?

She did NOT have two "A"'s....and she knew that, yet she said it anyway.

Oh, and MileSplit still has the headline, "Mary Cain, 2:01.68, AJR"!!
Uh-uh, MileSplit!

One more "Grinchy" comment:
Was Susan Kuijken REALLY more interested in the $$$$$ than having her PR listed.....or even HAVING her PR??


It's possible Martinez remains correct. Who cares what MileSpit's headline remains and I'll take a guess that Ms. Susan would rather the check than the 4:27.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Wed May 15, 2013 8:19 pm

kuha wrote:Good intentions are...well, good... But it remains a huge problem that none of these performances end up being worth anything.


Kuha, you are almost always very good, but I think that you go way too far in this case.

You can make a very good calculation about the difference in effective distance and so you can estimate how much to adjust to get the marks. If they had an 800m race and you were interested in 880 times, would you say that the mark was useless because it is not an 880 mark. The only thing it is lacking is something that goes into an official record book.

If there's a curb, the track should be measured 30cm out. 20cm is ok if there's no curb, but then there must be 20cm cones properly placed every 4 meters. This track seems to have flunked on both counts. If there once was a curb (as the meet director says there was), then presumably it was measured 30cm. If you then remove the curb, the track is short, even if you do use proper cones. So there's no way (short of re-doing the track measurement and adjusting the starting lines) that the track could have been legal. But even if there never was a curb, and the track was measured 20cm out, it would require proper cones or flags, which this track lacked at that meet.


I thought that cones and other devices could be used with the 30cm inset, and general that happens on many tracks because steeple sections, Javelin runways, etc., require that the rail be off so cones are an acceptable replacement for a kerb, not that they require also a smaller offset than tracks with kerbs.

The IAAF rules:

. The measurement shall be taken 30cm outward from the kerb or,
where no kerb exists on a bend, 20cm from the line marking the inside
of the track.


Thus, it is measured 20cm in from the line then there do not need to be cones.

Taking the differential in distance as the point of interest we have 31.415cm per curve; .94245m for the 800, @120sec/800m => add 0.1414 seconds to get the adjusted time. Similarly, the 1500s for the women need an adjustment of 0.3519 seconds.

Aside from the technicality of meeting a standard for qualification, there is essentially nothing wrong with these marks at all - adjust them by the 0.14 and 0.35 seconds; about the same as the hand-time adjustments. If the 800 or the 1500 were hand-times, would you say that they that " that none of these performances end up being worth anything."
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby measurer » Thu May 16, 2013 3:37 am

First congratulations to the RD for creating a great atmosphere of competition for both the athletes and fans.
I am still a little confused why the RD didn't get a Sanction. Besides needing a Sanction for any potential record (not a factor here), a Sanction also provides insurance. I guess the event had some other type of insurance. Most municipalities or facilities will not allow events without insurance.
In regard to curbs and cones:
If the track was measured to have a curb, no amount of cones regardless of their height can be used to replace the entire track. Cones used to replace segments of the curb for the javelin and high jump must be kept to a minimum to main the integrity of the measurement. In regards to the steeple, a correctly measured track should take into account whether cones or a curb will be used for the water jump segment. There are some tracks around the world with an outside water jump that was measured to have a curb. Those facilities actually use short curb segments instead of cones.
Unfortunately due to the length of the curb segments sometimes longer sections of the curb end up being removed for field events. The IAAF has been studying this problem and hopes to be working with track/curb builders to make smaller curb segments for the turns. It should also be noted that a curb is not required on the straight sections of a track.
measurer
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby kuha » Thu May 16, 2013 5:18 am

26mi235 wrote:
kuha wrote:Good intentions are...well, good... But it remains a huge problem that none of these performances end up being worth anything.


Kuha, you are almost always very good, but I think that you go way too far in this case.


You may well be right--but whether it's on the first point or the second, I'm not sure!

It's no skin off my nose, and people will obviously make of all this what they will. In my opinion, ALL the marks are worth exactly what they actually are: I can't truly see any "benefit" to the actual competitors by this technical deficiency. So that's a moot point: a 2:01.68 actually IS, in my mind, a 2:01.68. However, I have to presume that all these marks will get an asterisk and be shunted to a separate "illegal track" list. That may be fine, too, but it throws them all into a marginal, quasi-legit status. And, once again, we wonder why the public is often baffled by the sport's seemingly arcane rules? Here is a doozy for them.

Competition is just wonderful, but if that's all one wants, then you can have competitions running down main street, between lines of sand on the beach, or from your second favorite bar to your first favorite bar. I presume that an official "track meet" aims for a somewhat higher standard all around.

That's all. I do totally applaud the go-getting attitude of the organizers--they did a fine thing and we need more of it. We simply need more fully legal tracks, also.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby EPelle » Thu May 16, 2013 6:33 am

aaronk wrote:Question: ... Was Susan Kuijken REALLY more interested in the $$$$$ than having her PR listed.....or even HAVING her PR??

I don't mean to pick on you, but this is quite dense. This article should shed light on why the money's more important to athletes like Kuijken rather than a 4.27,13y PB that, legal or not, would never ever count for WC qualification. Something you may (not) know about Kuijken is that she loves to run, travel, cook, smile & wave*! She got 4/5 ticked off her list by travelling (for free) to San Diego.

* Twitter
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 6:35 am

kuha wrote:In my opinion, ALL the marks are worth exactly what they actually are: I can't truly see any "benefit" to the actual competitors by this technical deficiency. So that's a moot point: a 2:01.68 actually IS, in my mind, a 2:01.68. However, I have to presume that all these marks will get an asterisk and be shunted to a separate "illegal track" list. That may be fine, too, but it throws them all into a marginal, quasi-legit status. And, once again, we wonder why the public is often baffled by the sport's seemingly arcane rules? Here is a doozy for them.

My thoughts exactly.
I get that "we have rules for a reason", but I see a real attempt by the organizers to meet the SPIRIT of the law - they did have cones all around the track, just not the right ones). When this sport finally recognizes me as the Grand Pooh-Bah, I will pardon this meet's 'error' and designate the marks legit!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Thu May 16, 2013 6:41 am

Marks provide information content. The marks in San Diego provide virtually the same information as those on the standard IAAF tracks because you can make the small and very accurate correction. Running the race on the street does not provide that informational content because there are so many unknowns introduced. Again, it is like having a hand-timed mark - it is not the same quality but the difference is small and the bias (and the bias is almost identical in scale) is easily corrected.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby kuha » Thu May 16, 2013 6:50 am

26mi235 wrote:Marks provide information content. The marks in San Diego provide virtually the same information as those on the standard IAAF tracks because you can make the small and very accurate correction. Running the race on the street does not provide that informational content because there are so many unknowns introduced. Again, it is like having a hand-timed mark - it is not the same quality but the difference is small and the bias (and the bias is almost identical in scale) is easily corrected.


We're not talking about the same things. I've already stated that I don't think the slightest mental "correction" is needed: the marks are objectively meaningful. But they cannot be officially treated as such: that's the problem. My street running quip was in response to the idea that only competition matters. If that's true, you don't need a track or timers of any kind.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Thu May 16, 2013 6:52 am

26mi235 wrote:... The marks in San Diego provide virtually the same information as those on the standard IAAF tracks because you can make the small and very accurate correction.....


except that you can't. If one could quantify it, we'd be the first to apply a conversion factor and list them (as we have done with countless other marks throgh the years). As soon as you remove an impediment to running too far inside (which is what the little bumps in San Diego facilitated), you have no idea how far inside the 20cm measure the athletes can/might move.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby lonewolf » Thu May 16, 2013 7:01 am

All this agonizing over the possibility a runner may have benefited from a 10cm measuring difference in the theoretical distance run ignores the probablility that every runner ran more than the prescribed distance in passing, lane changes, or just actually running 30 or 40 cm out from the magic invisible curb/cones.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Thu May 16, 2013 7:22 am

There is still the penalty for running on the line - it is technically a DQ. Since the foot has non-trivial width compared to the assumed 20 cm inset and the minimal variation in placement also takes several cms, at the most we are talking about an appropriate inset of 10 rather than 30cms and the absolute maximum is 30cms. In the first case, the time factors are doubled (to 0.28 and 0.70) and the second they are tripled (to 0.42 and 1.05).

These are still pretty small effects and are easily quantified to be rather small.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Thu May 16, 2013 8:03 am

Would there be the same bleating if a 100m race was the smallest increment of over the allowable wind limit?

The track was not legal and therefore the marks can be nullified as legal even though we can get pretty close to what the marks were worth.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Thu May 16, 2013 10:47 am

26mi235 wrote:There is still the penalty for running on the line - it is technically a DQ. Since the foot has non-trivial width compared to the assumed 20 cm inset and the minimal variation in placement also takes several cms, at the most we are talking about an appropriate inset of 10 rather than 30cms and the absolute maximum is 30cms. In the first case, the time factors are doubled (to 0.28 and 0.70) and the second they are tripled (to 0.42 and 1.05).

These are still pretty small effects and are easily quantified to be rather small.


OK, you've finally kicked the sand out of my eyes. As noted earlier, T&FN always eager to be able to assign a conversion if a reasonable figure can be derived. And in this case, there is nothing wrong with assuming worst-possible-scenario and saying the athletes could run 30cm short on the curves (without stepping on the line).

Now my math sucks (and my geometry is worse), but ignoring extra decimals at the moment that's like 1.9m per lap, which is like 0.005 and if you apply that to a 2:00 time for the 800, it would add about 0.6 to the time.

We've got no problem with deriving a proper multiplier that would add a proportional segment to all the times.

Never want to see an athlete lose a time to matters beyond their control.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 11:02 am

gh wrote:We've got no problem with deriving a proper multiplier that would add a proportional segment to all the times. Never want to see an athlete lose a time to matters beyond their control.

Eww, the worms in that can are gross.
Would you carry them IN the lists, or merely list them as 'equivalency' times? I'm having difficulty (though I don't get a vote in its inclusion) 'accepting' them as one used to look at an 880 time and just subtract .6 or .7.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Thu May 16, 2013 11:20 am

not gross at all... we've had 100 marks on our lists that had a conversion of 0.01 (because the track at teh JUCO nationals one year was like a centimeter or two short) and we've had marathon marks (Salazar's short-course WR at NYC) that were treated similarly. Absolutely no reason we can't do this in the middle as well. And it's exactly like converting 880 times to 800s.

If there's something we can do that's statistically valid to keep an athlete from having a mark booted to the curb, we'll do it.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Thu May 16, 2013 12:13 pm

Note that the 800 runs the first curve in lanes, so all but Lane 1 are kosher, I think, and that leaves only 3 turns, not 4; if I am correct then 3/4ths the above listed value would seem appropriate. [Of course, the very conservative approach is to assume that the runner of interest was in Lane 1, and since you will not know the lanes later... thus the 4-turn factor is the right value.]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby batonless relay » Thu May 16, 2013 12:24 pm

gh wrote:not gross at all... we've had 100 marks on our lists that had a conversion of 0.01 (because the track at teh JUCO nationals one year was like a centimeter or two short) and we've had marathon marks (Salazar's short-course WR at NYC) that were treated similarly. Absolutely no reason we can't do this in the middle as well. And it's exactly like converting 880 times to 800s.

If there's something we can do that's statistically valid to keep an athlete from having a mark booted to the curb, we'll do it.

gh, isn't that a bit inconsistent with the Kiryu losing a record position? If the Japanese can prove that the anemometer was accurate or that it is accurate compared to the new device within .1 m/s of wind (not sure how, just if) would you still hold the position of throwing the record equaling mark out? How does a mis-measurement conversion differ?
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Thu May 16, 2013 12:24 pm

you are right, of course. so Sowinski and Wright (I think those are the lane 1 runners) get a 4-turn penalty, the others only 3. And all the 1500 runners get 7s.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Thu May 16, 2013 12:26 pm

batonless relay wrote:
gh wrote:not gross at all... we've had 100 marks on our lists that had a conversion of 0.01 (because the track at teh JUCO nationals one year was like a centimeter or two short) and we've had marathon marks (Salazar's short-course WR at NYC) that were treated similarly. Absolutely no reason we can't do this in the middle as well. And it's exactly like converting 880 times to 800s.

If there's something we can do that's statistically valid to keep an athlete from having a mark booted to the curb, we'll do it.

gh, isn't that a bit inconsistent with the Kiryu losing a record position? If the Japanese can prove that the anemometer was accurate or that it is accurate compared to the new device within .1 m/s of wind (not sure how, just if) would you still hold the position of throwing the record equaling mark out? How does a mis-measurement conversion differ?


not inconsistent at all; we'll be carrying the Kiryu mark on our lists (yearly and all-time) with no problem.

There's a difference between "statistically valid" and eligible for record consideration. Besides, they're not our records, and we go with whatever the IAAF says is the WR/WJR.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby batonless relay » Thu May 16, 2013 12:28 pm

gh wrote:
batonless relay wrote:
gh wrote:not gross at all... we've had 100 marks on our lists that had a conversion of 0.01 (because the track at teh JUCO nationals one year was like a centimeter or two short) and we've had marathon marks (Salazar's short-course WR at NYC) that were treated similarly. Absolutely no reason we can't do this in the middle as well. And it's exactly like converting 880 times to 800s.

If there's something we can do that's statistically valid to keep an athlete from having a mark booted to the curb, we'll do it.

gh, isn't that a bit inconsistent with the Kiryu losing a record position? If the Japanese can prove that the anemometer was accurate or that it is accurate compared to the new device within .1 m/s of wind (not sure how, just if) would you still hold the position of throwing the record equaling mark out? How does a mis-measurement conversion differ?


not inconsistent at all; we'll be carrying the Kiryu mark on our lists (yearly and all-time) with no problem.

There's a difference between "statistically valid" and eligible for record consideration. Besides, they're not our records, and we go with whatever the IAAF says is the WR/WJR.

Got it! I thought that's what you were saying (diff. between TFN and IAAF), just wanted to be sure.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby BCBaroo » Thu May 16, 2013 12:39 pm

I want a Pete Hess in my neighborhood.
BCBaroo
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Thu May 16, 2013 12:50 pm

BCBaroo wrote:I want a Pete Hess in my neighborhood.


Maybe the best observation in the thread.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Thu May 16, 2013 3:35 pm

26, you might want to check the math, but I make it that the multiplier is 1.004 (1.005 for the two lane-1ers).

And then the result should be rounded up to 10ths. Given the amount of voodoo required from top to bottom, claiming 100th-second accuracy would be just too much to claim.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 5:34 pm

gh wrote:not gross at all... we've had 100 marks on our lists that had a conversion of 0.01 (because the track at teh JUCO nationals one year was like a centimeter or two short) and we've had marathon marks (Salazar's short-course WR at NYC) that were treated similarly. Absolutely no reason we can't do this in the middle as well. And it's exactly like converting 880 times to 800s.
If there's something we can do that's statistically valid to keep an athlete from having a mark booted to the curb, we'll do it.

I cannot refute your intent. I withdraw my worm-can comment!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Thu May 16, 2013 8:12 pm

I will do the math. The mathematically appropriate way to go is to do the calculations and then round up (or down, in distances).

800 1500
3 7 turns
3.14 3.14 pi
0.3 0.3 m maximum short/turn
2.83 6.60 m amount short
% add to time
0.355% 0.442%
1.00355 1.00442 Factor
Add time at (pace)
0.371 1.012 sec 1:45/3:50 (men)
0.424 1.100 sec 2:00/4:10 (women)

Let me know if this is adequate for making the conversions percent time (best?) and seconds at good, not WR pace for men and women.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby measurer » Fri May 17, 2013 1:04 am

I wouldn't include Alberto's NYC Marathon time in this discussion. There are some out there (including myself) that believe the course was accurate for the rules of that time.
measurer
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby aaronk » Fri May 17, 2013 1:20 am

measurer wrote:I wouldn't include Alberto's NYC Marathon time in this discussion. There are some out there (including myself) that believe the course was accurate for the rules of that time.


I believe Salazar ran an actual time of 2:08:13, but because he ran inside the blue line much of the way, or whatever, his time was changed to 2:08:40, which is now considered his "official" time.

I just received the book "Kings of the Road" (about Salazar, Rodgers, and Shorter in the 70's and 80's), but haven't read it yet, though I'm sure they have the details of that race in the book. Just got the book yesterday.
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gibson » Fri May 17, 2013 9:40 am

BCBaroo wrote:I want a Pete Hess in my neighborhood.


track and field news is working wonders here in promoting understanding.

in regard to times being worth nothing? if everyone here thinks the times are real, then in this reality frame, they are worth something.
gibson
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:57 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Rothosen » Fri May 17, 2013 6:22 pm

This is probably a dumb question but...

Pete Hess said, "paid the athletes flights and put them up in one of the nicest hotels in SD for multiple nights."

Does this make Mary Cain a professional? If not then what level of compensation to attend a track meet is the barrier?

Or did he mean all athletes except one?
Rothosen
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 8:41 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Fri May 17, 2013 6:31 pm

Why do people assume that this is a big deal and she is now a pro. I think at least one of her parents is a doc and Bronxville is NOT the Bronx but pretty upscale, at least that is what I remember.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Rothosen » Fri May 17, 2013 7:31 pm

My question was not if her parents could afford it.

My question was if the quote is correct would she be "thorped" (As in Jim) More specifically it was at what level does the compensation become problamatic. ie- You can give them free drinks, perhaps airline tickets, what about a car? I had assumed her parents had paid until I read Mr. Bass' quote. If correct cone size could be missed it is not inconcievable that other rules, as in what constitutes proffesionalism, could be also. After all weren't most, if not all, the competitors professionals?

Trying not to nit pic but what constitutes professionalism has changed over the last four decades and I have no idea where it stands today.

Anyone know?
Rothosen
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 8:41 pm
Location: Upstate NY

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], bushop, Google [Bot], Jackaloupe, pickle47 and 10 guests