San Diego track short? [split]


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

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: 21126
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: 16335
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: 16335
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: 21126
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: 16335
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: 16335
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

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Fri May 17, 2013 7:36 pm

The director is making a comment; in this context he is not going to spend a bunch of time detailing what they might have done differently for her. Besides, with a 4:04.62 it may not matter any more.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Fri May 17, 2013 7:38 pm

26mi235 wrote: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.


Still is.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Fri May 17, 2013 7:39 pm

Rothosen wrote: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?


Why would it matter?
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby ExCoastRanger » Fri May 17, 2013 7:44 pm

Rothosen wrote: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..?


I think the trappings of profesionalism are only problematic if she still intends to race hs/college. There are certainly other options available to her.
ExCoastRanger
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: North of where I was.

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Fri May 17, 2013 7:49 pm

Dutra5 wrote:
26mi235 wrote: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.


Still is.


She is going to start competing in college two years from now? Another issue is that she is 17, so needs parents legal permission on things, although that does not seem to be a problem for the gymnasts.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Fri May 17, 2013 8:30 pm

26mi235 wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:
26mi235 wrote: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.


Still is.


She is going to start competing in college two years from now? Another issue is that she is 17, so needs parents legal permission on things, although that does not seem to be a problem for the gymnasts.


I was answering the Bronxville upscale point :D
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Fri May 17, 2013 8:54 pm

It took a little while to post, I had to get that mud off... :? :)
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Rothosen » Fri May 17, 2013 8:56 pm

I thought this was an easy question but I guess I confused everyone. Sorry

I should have asked do airline tickets recieved and lodgeing violate NCAA eligibility leaving her without the choice and ending full ride scholarship possibilities. ( I except her parents are rich and paying $200,000 for college would be no big deal.)

Answer - No. I looked it up. Travel, lodgeing, meals and equipment are allowed.
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 9:17 pm

And you have no solid information on what the arrangements were, so it seems like a lot to worry about.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eman, iain and 8 guests