Sorry Malmo, but you're wrong about this one. It is in fact a problem with the reaction timing system. It is recording everyone's reaction times as being .02 faster than they really are. None of the runners with the .09x reaction times should have been DQ'd because their reaction times were actually only .11x .
Ok, this might be a dumb question but I keep reading that the sensors were recording reaction times .02 faster than they really were. How do you know this for a fact?
look for yourself. you think human reaction times all suddenly got faster in Eugene after being steady for decades? or do you think maybe the timing system is off?
Random idea, but it seems like they should be able to test the reaction timing system with the photo finish system.
Except that the photo finish system has been shown to be 0.14 off. If you add that to the unflagged fake false starts, we are seeing some amazing performances in Eugene.
You know this does raise an interesting point. I don't know what facts there would be to support this claim however I will say this - from what I have seen over many years, a reaction time of 0.1 or under is visibly a clear false start - like it's way out in front of the gun. Unless all of these sprinters have become epic starters, the reaction times numbers at least to me, seem a lot quicker than what we have seen in the past.
Christian Coleman (at least the doped version but that's irrelevant for the sake of this conversation) is/was universally regarded as the quickest out of the blocks on the planet - and it was visible right? When he won in Doha in 9.76, his reaction time was 0.128. In that hurdles final alone - Holloway 0.124, Cunningham 0.109, Martinez 0.126 - these guys all had a quicker jump out than Coleman?
Coleman in Saturdays 100m final alone - despite being 3/10ths slower, was out of the blocks in 0.104? I'm sorry that does not pass the plausibility test to me.
Without any quantifiable evidence at all it seems like this is recording the athletes out of the blocks in significantly less time than the past without modifying the legal "criteria" of the limit.
Ok, this might be a dumb question but I keep reading that the sensors were recording reaction times .02 faster than they really were. How do you know this for a fact?
look for yourself. you think human reaction times all suddenly got faster in Eugene after being steady for decades? or do you think maybe the timing system is off?
If you can believe that the timing system is somehow wrong AND believe that it is humanly possible to react quicker than 0.1. Then it should also be possible that the timing system has always been incorrect...too slow. Could the system have recently been fixed and is now more correct than ever? That is why we are now seeing so many reaction times closer to 0.1?
If humans can react faster than 0.1 why have there been so few reaction times that quick in the past championships?
Sorry Malmo, but you're wrong about this one. It is in fact a problem with the reaction timing system. It is recording everyone's reaction times as being .02 faster than they really are. None of the runners with the .09x reaction times should have been DQ'd because their reaction times were actually only .11x .
Pretty amazing that some how you know it is exactly 0.02 off. Just happens to be the amount Allen is off.
Sorry Malmo, but you're wrong about this one. It is in fact a problem with the reaction timing system. It is recording everyone's reaction times as being .02 faster than they really are. None of the runners with the .09x reaction times should have been DQ'd because their reaction times were actually only .11x .
Pretty amazing that some how you know it is exactly 0.02 off. Just happens to be the amount Allen is off.
Allen was 0.001 off being legal. 1 millisecond. Very different to 0.02, 20 milliseconds. Note the decimals.
