Vindication: 2 experts just remeasured the Abu Dhabi Marathon course and found it to be a little less than 200 meters short!

Great. Hooray for LRC Investigations.

Now when is the NFL going to admit Bolt's 4.22 was faked?

............+++>. wrote:

Great. Hooray for LRC Investigations.

Now when is the NFL going to admit Bolt's 4.22 was faked?

Wow. I hadn't realized I've turned into an angry old man, waking up each and every day intent on wiping out the fake accomplishments of the young.

A big shout out to hardloper. The second he or she saw the 35k split in the thread he or she wrote, "That can't be right. Wouldn't that make that split a sub-14?"

Bingo.

Well, let's wait for the actual IAAF report from Abu Dhabi race director, not just some ad hoc experts who appear pre-disposed to believe the LRC narrative on the matter. Why didn't they audit "Google Earth" for instance? Winter measured the disputed section of the Abu Dhabi course on Google Earth and on December 12 agreed with my assertion that the course was short, I would scrutiny Big Tech just as much as an Abu Dhabi fish market, personally.

The IAAF (updated 5 Oct 2018) officially lists four (4) UAE courses as being IAAF-compliant.

Abu Dhabi Half-Marathon.

Dubai Marathon.

Ras Al Khaimah Half-Marathon.

Sharjah Half-Marathon.

There is no Abu Dhabi Marathon course listed at that time.

I think it matters what you call the "course" as to whether it was short or not.

As the German experts determined, it seemed the "course" was indeed properly measured according to specs.

But then the runners turned around early at a different cone stage, and didn't run the measured course.

So you have to place the blame at a different fault.

In Marathon.investigation speak, they (the runners) cut the course.

IAAF Rule 240.3:

3. The course shall be measured along the shortest possible route that an athlete could follow within the section of the road permitted for use in the race.

HOWEVER, the Fish Market access road was NOT permitted for use in the Race!

How do they explain that??

The Records Rule (260.21d) says that the Course Measurer (or suitably qualified official thus designated), shall IN ADVANCE check the course is laid out IN CONFORMITY with the course measured! AND said official SHALL ride in the lead vehicle to VALIDATE that the SAME COURSE is run by the athletes!!

So what failed here?

Easy there Columbo, breathe!!. Your first point has nothing to do with anything. He said he thought someone moved the cone to allow access to the fish market as in it cut across the course. The shortest line has nothing to do with it lol, the cone was just moved closer down the same road for the turnaround. Please don't argue with me on this because if you don't get it, it will be impossible to explain clearly enough without pulling out maps and photoshopping them and I don't feel like putting that effort. You are not correct here.

Your second point has credibility though. Maybe the cone got moved after the advance check had already been carried out by the measurer.

Layers of bureaucracy, no one to blame?:

The Records Rule (260.21d) says that the Course Measurer (or suitably qualified official thus designated), shall IN ADVANCE check the course is laid out IN CONFORMITY with the course measured! AND said official SHALL ride in the lead vehicle to VALIDATE that the SAME COURSE is run by the athletes!!

So what failed here?

(d) Any course measurer who originally measured the course or other suitably qualified official designated by the measurer (after consulting the relevant body) with a copy of the documentation detailing the officially measured course shall in advance of the race check that the course is laid out in conformity with the course measured and documented by the official course measurer. He shall then ride in the lead vehicle during the competition or otherwise validate that the same course is run by the athletes.

It doesn't say "to validate", it says "or otherwise validate". In any event, clearly this didn't happen.

Indeed, the "same course" was NOT run by the athletes.

But that rule (260) is only for World Records. None were set, so the rule doesn't necessarily apply.

But the real story here is that the Abu Dhabi "boots on the ground" didn't internally (and quickly) determine the problem and report it themselves, and it was rather left to some lame-o running website which got a heap of free publicity for their so-called expose.

This would serve the UAE right.

This is how someone proves that a course was shorten. I can buy that a turn around cone was misplaced. Well done!

Nice investigative work. The course was most likely short but the actual distance short is still in question because we do not accept measurements from a measuring wheel even if calibrated (only for measuring distances from landmarks for recording the locations of start, finish and split points.). The main reason is that it's very difficult to maintain the shortest possible path when walking + the wheel will tend to wobble . Granted they calibrated the wheel against a known distance but that was only a few hundred meters which is much easy to keep the wheel stable.

Go out and use the wheel after going through a puddle of water, you will see the wheel's track all over the place.

I don't say this very often, but great job rojo (and Hardloper)! A perfect example of why this site is still relevant. I didn't see anybody on Reddit posting live results of suspect splits/etc.

rojo wrote:

Helmut Winter read my column and vowed to go to Abu Dhabi and measure the dispute 30-35 k segment if we hadn't heard back from race organizers. He did so last Friday with Sean Hartnett.

Measurement of a segment doesn't mean the whole course was short.

Beyond that, you can not accurately measure a course from the internet, nor by using a wheel to measure.

IAAF Rule 240.3:

3. The course shall be measured along the shortest possible route that an athlete could follow within the section of the road permitted for use in the race.

HOWEVER, the Fish Market access road was NOT permitted for use in the Race!

How do they explain that??

So let's break this down step by step.

1) The Fish Market section was putatively permitted for use in the race during the pre-race measurement stage.

2) But during (or slightly before) the race, this section had its permission removed (likely by the cone crew).

3) So, in theory, the post-race measurement should catch that discrepancy.

And indeed, according to the LRC piece, that's exactly what the diligent race director Basso is doing (even though perhaps no post-race measurement is technically needed, as no WR was set), with a full report to IAAF in the making. (Simply because there was some unwarranted delay - possibly due to winter holidays - in generating the official measurement report, e.g. some disgruntleds vocally harped for more immediate action.)

However, the media (almost exclusively LRC, indeed few others care about running) has already declared itself to be the beacon in darkness even before the normal process runs its course (no pun intended), sending a couple of unofficial experts to survey the situation (no pun intended), and then splice that into a quasi-hitpiece ("take matters into their own hands") that "vindicates" the received media opinion, terming it a "definitive proof", yada yada yadda. Why not just wait until the IAAF process concludes vis-a-vis Abu Dhabi before announcing this so-called "vindication"? (I would call it "confirmation", it's not like anyone accused LRC media of being wrong to-date, but then, as already noted, nobody really cares about running)

A course is a course, of course, of course? wrote:

I think it matters what you call the "course" as to whether it was short or not.

...

In Marathon.investigation speak, they (the runners) cut the course.

Clearly they cut the measured 42.195km course. But they did so by direction of the organizers/cones.

Marathon course-cutting occurs when runners complete less than an entire course of a marathon before going over the finish line.

User.name wrote:

Why not just wait until the IAAF process concludes vis-a-vis Abu Dhabi before announcing this so-called "vindication"?

Why not wait?

We did wait. We waited 2+ months.

Why would I want to wait any longer? In my mind, this should have been handled within 1 week, easily before the Christmas Holidays. If the course measurer bothered to even watch the tv broadcast, I'm sure they could have figured out the turn just before 34k was off.

The guys were over their for RAK Half so they want and measure the course. Once we had more info, we published it.

What does waiting any longer accomplish? Can you imagine the NFL waiting 2 months to issue a statement about a controversial call in an NFL Game?

I'm very proud of this piece as it I've always said you truly understand running, you should have a great feel for what is and isn't achievable.

Great job!

Can you imagine the NFL waiting 2 months to issue a statement about a controversial call in an NFL Game?

Controversial call would be more analogous to a lane violation or something, IAAF typically addresses those fairly soon upon the event's completion.

This is more like Deflate-Gate, where NFL was silent on various issues for extended periods, due to extensive background investigation. They had to hire experts in universal gas laws, etc. Here, your source himself said he was waiting on official re-measurement, then would act promptly. (well, he said "act quickly", but quickly != soon in English grammar)

Timeline:

Thurs Jan 31: Basso says the official remeasurement report will be there in a couple of days

Mon Feb 4: lo and behold, it arrives in a couple of working days

Fri Feb 8: After comparing the official remeasurement report to videotapes, Basso keeps interested media outlets apprised that a full extensive story with thorough analysis is coming soon, awaiting making an official communication to IAAF

Wed Feb 13 (3rd working day later): LRC jumps the gun, publishing their own unofficial reconstruction ("proof by info-graphic" - personally I'm surprised the selfie of calculations wasn't done on a cocktail napkin as most maths boffins would preferably use)

I don't see how LRC is any better than those who came up with their own personal Deflate-Gate theory, before the official investigation reached its conclusion. Just because you may have been "right" doesn't mean it's the proper procedure for maximal effectiveness.

I thought the world as we know it was coming to an end because of this, but now I can sleep peacefully at night, well, slightly better, as the whole course still needs to be remeasured to AIMS standards to get a definitive measurement so I can sleep like a baby at night.

But thanks anyway LR, Rojo, Helmut Winter, Sean Hartnett, Hardloper, etc.