Either the timing, the track, or both are bogus in London

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Thoughts?

Rudisha would break 12 out of the blocks on the London track. Then you would cry.

why are the distance times so mediocre then?

It's been warm and the sprinters been knocking back the juice

Mr. Battery wrote:

why are the distance times so mediocre then?

The races have been very slow and tactical

Mr. Battery wrote:

why are the distance times so mediocre then?

Because no one wants to run an honest pace (see: no balls). In the sprints you just go as fast as you can from the gun.

it is NOT cold in London at the moment.

Lots of juice at just the right time results in fabulous times. Never fails.

Sprintgeezer dropping retard bombs

Conditions have been perfect for sprinting for the last few days.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I know I'm not the only one who has been thinking this, but WTF is up with all the great sprint times?

MANY DONE IN COLD, LESS-THAN-IDEAL CONDITIONS.

9.63 for Bolt? Really? After flaming this year?

36.84 for the relay? Really? With an only-OK leadoff?

37.04 for the US relay? Really? With a crap handoff?

SB's and PB's and NR's being set left-and-right, at an unbelievable pace?

Those women's times? Really? That time by Felix? etc?

Thoughts?

My thoughts are you are on crack. If Blake had run 9.5 then maybe you'd have a point. If everyone else had run 9.6 too maybe you'd have a point. Was anyone elses times really unexpected in that race? Having just the winner be crazy fast is the opposite of a sign the timing or track is wrong. You have to be kidding me.

36.84 was about what most people who understand sprinting were expecting given the people on the team. The US with a rejuved Gatlin was expecting a time like this. Their handoffs were pretty solid compared to previous ones. All in all their technical bits were pretty good. You must have never seen a US race before.

Felix ran way faster in the 200 at US Nats. This was expected. I expected her to run 10.90 in the 100 at the US Nats if she lined up again, as did most after her crazy 200.

The Women's 4*100. With decent handoffs many were expecting this with the team they had.

I haven't even read the original post or any of the thread but i was waiting for someone to post this.

When i saw Justin Gatlin run 9.82 in the semi's i was curious as to how he did it. When i saw Yohan Blake jog 9.85 and bolt 9.87 i was skeptical but shrugged it off as maybe the Jamaicans were going to both run 9.6

But then i saw the finals, held late at night in 60 degree weather. The results in these conditions? I honestly think the track is like half a meter short or something

body master wrote:

I haven't even read the original post or any of the thread but i was waiting for someone to post this.

When i saw Justin Gatlin run 9.82 in the semi's i was curious as to how he did it. When i saw Yohan Blake jog 9.85 and bolt 9.87 i was skeptical but shrugged it off as maybe the Jamaicans were going to both run 9.6

But then i saw the finals, held late at night in 60 degree weather. The results in these conditions? I honestly think the track is like half a meter short or something

Yup, that's it, the track is short so everyone gets excited by world records. Same thing with the pool, it was short also.

I am guessing you are a little short up top.

Mondo is well known to provide the type of surface resistance to produce fast times. Good for racing, not so good for training.

Whatever the sprinters are doing, one thing is for certain, more are taller and slimmer than in past years and seem to be more fluid. Gatlin and Gay are the exception as both looked as if they were working much too hard and running squatty. Same thing with Lolo Jones. Check out the other sprinters and you will see that they are extremely fluid and quick footed. Felix is comparable to Bolt on the women's side.

I'm in London and it isn't that cold. Plus all the guys are juiced to the gills.

is it possible that the stagger was marked wrong? If so the advantage would be larger in the outside lanes. US women started in lane 7. Jamaican men started in lane 6.

I hope this track gets remeasured during the WR ratification process.

It's a bit convenient that the track will be ripped up shortly after the games.

Mrr82 wrote:

My thoughts are you are on crack.

My thoughts are that you are unqualified to chime in on this topic.

The track is legit. No company doing an Olympic track would mismeasure. No claims of mismeasured tracks have EVER been verified.

The timing is not wrong. Computer time is standard at this point.

The track is fast. The athletes are fast.

If the track was short, you wouldn't see so many slow distance races. Or is London only short for sprints and Stanford's track short for distance?

I appreciate you pushing the envelope but seriously, one day even the people on this board will realize you're a fraud. You're like those serial killers on cop shows that want to be caught. Your big giveaway was not mentioning the only really outrageous time, which should have been first on your list. 40.82! The rest were predictable.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I know I'm not the only one who has been thinking this, but WTF is up with all the great sprint times?

MANY DONE IN COLD, LESS-THAN-IDEAL CONDITIONS.

9.63 for Bolt? Really? After flaming this year?

36.84 for the relay? Really? With an only-OK leadoff?

37.04 for the US relay? Really? With a crap handoff?

SB's and PB's and NR's being set left-and-right, at an unbelievable pace?

Those women's times? Really? That time by Felix? etc?

I'm not discounting the possibility of peaking, but it has seemed to me that pretty much every participant in the sprints has performed remarkably well relative to their previous bests--and when everybody seems to do so well, something's up.

I know about the track technology, which might just be the answer, as it would affect every athlete. I find it a bit hard to believe at this moment, however.

Thoughts?

There's been a lot of discussion regarding the hardness of the track. It's been postulated that the track's engineered to be hard, enabling fast times for sprinters, but being tough on the legs of distance runners. This was suggested as a reason why Farah might have a hard time recovering for the 5K (in an interview a day before the race he said he felt fatigued in the 5K heat), and that Dibaba was nowhere near as sharp / wearing tape in the 5K.