Canttellmenothinng wrote:
As long as the ncaa reconginzes an oversized track as an acceptable means of acquiring an automatic mark, it should be treated that way.
That's a fair point, but keep in mind that a lot of people (including me) aren't reading about races just to find out who met an NCAA qualifying standard.
I agree that the term illegal seems to imply some sort of dis-credit to those performances...whats more puzzling is they only mention the term "illegal" when referring to the mile race. Why wouldn't you make the same snide remark for the 3k??? This would imply that running the mile on an oversized track benefits more than the 3k which I think most of us agree is backwards!
I don't know whether an oversized track enhances performance more or less for a 3k than for a mile, but I agree that the same qualitative judgment should be applied to both. Perhaps more interesting is that the headline regarding Solinsky's performance doesn't mention the "illegal" track, but the headline regarding the collegiate perfomances does. At least the collegiate performances were on a track that (as I understand it) is "legal" for purposes of NCAA qualifying standards. I don't know of any official standards that Solinski's performance would meet.
I agree with the sentiment on this thread, it's unfair to denigrate these athlete's performance. They're getting after it and running as fast as they can, why rip on them?
The guy who posts as "Webster" on here... What a dipshit.
They're just operating under a different language game.
Avocado's Number wrote:
The word "illegal" may seem jarring or harsh, and perhaps could be misleading to some who do not understand its reference to international standards for indoor track performances, but I support the underlying sentiment, even if its expression seems a bit ham-handed. For better or for worse, this sport has elevated race times to a fetishistic level. If people are going to make serious comparisons of performances in different races based on how many hundredths of a second have elapsed from start to finish, it makes sense to distinguish between performances on tracks or courses that meet widely-recognized standards and those that don't.
By the way, your comments about wasting "parents' money for an Ivy League degree" and "Trust Fund Kiddies" don't help your case, at least in my view. They simply give the impression that you've got a few chips on your shoulder, and not just about track standards. I realize that discussions and debates about standards for tracks, courses, and races can get pretty heated, especially when people perceive that their own performances are being denigrated, but adding a layer of class conflict to the discussion doesn't help.
I don't disagree with you. The thing is, if the Brojos want to write an editorial piece about the way track is going, especially indoors, or on the merits of time-trialling vs. racing, etc. they should do THAT. Or they could write an investigative piece about the phenomenon and perhaps draw an intelligent and well-articulated conclusion that, in THEIR opinion, this does a disservice to the sport. I would have ZERO problems with a well-done application of those opinions in the proper form.
However, since the Brojos are neither capable of writing a well thought out, intelligent argument or piece of writing or making the effort to present their opinions in the appropriate format, they instead insist on constantly making backhanded, misleading, confusing, uninformed, etc. comments about people, events, etc. on the front page. Half the time their application of critique doesn't even make sense. It isn't effective, it comes across as petty, and it also hurts the sport, seeing as it can be perceived as denigrating athletes rather than conventions.
I encourage them to put together something intellectually conceived about their opinions on track size and time trialling vs. racing.
I don't encourage their asinine comments that they think are funny or snarky or something, but make them look like children and make college athletes, who have nothing to really do with the problem, look bad.
Websters wrote:
However, since the Brojos are neither capable of writing a well thought out, intelligent argument or piece of writing or making the effort to present their opinions in the appropriate format, they instead insist on constantly making backhanded, misleading, confusing, uninformed, etc. comments about people, events, etc. on the front page. Half the time their application of critique doesn't even make sense. It isn't effective, it comes across as petty, and it also hurts the sport, seeing as it can be perceived as denigrating athletes rather than conventions.
If a serious journalistic critic could sum up Let's Run and it's content in a few quick sentences, this quote would be perfect.
Isn't a track at an indoor facility supposed to be less distance than the standard outdoor track to be considered a "legal" indoor track?
So you could have a track 399 meters and still technically be "legal."
Nor Cal Runner wrote:
Isn't a track at an indoor facility supposed to be less distance than the standard outdoor track to be considered a "legal" indoor track?
So you could have a track 399 meters and still technically be "legal."
There's nothing legal about it. It is standard, or not standard (oversized.)
If someone breaks 4 minutes in the mile outdoors on a 400m track, we credit them.
If they do it on a 300m track we don't - because it is indoors?
What kind of f***ed up logic is that?
I don't think anyone will be charged with a crime for running on these tracks.
In fact, the times are official times for qualifying purposes.
It is just inelligible for record purposes.
If you run a 1500m in 3:35.00 or better on these tracks you will have earned the 'A' standard for the outdoor IAAF World Championships.
Doesn't sound illegal.
I think that I understand your position, and you make some fair points. I agree that the college athletes, who are simply competing under the rules of the NCAA and at the venues where (I assume) they're told to compete, aren't the ones to blame for the perceived problem of using oversized tracks to enhance performance, and comments about such matters should be sensitive to that.
toro wrote:
If you run a 1500m in 3:35.00 or better on these tracks you will have earned the 'A' standard for the outdoor IAAF World Championships.
Are you sure about that? (I don't know one way or another, but that would be a bit surprising to me. Can a banked and oversized indoor track really be used to qualify for the IAAF World Championships?)
toro wrote:
If you run a 1500m in 3:35.00 or better on these tracks you will have earned the 'A' standard for the outdoor IAAF World Championships.
Doesn't sound illegal.
Perhaps that was once the case but doesn't seem to be valid for 2001 WC.
http://www.iaaf.org/wch11/standards/index.htmliaaf wrote:
7. Indoor performances for all field events and for races of 400m and longer, shall be accepted.
8. For the running events of 400m and over, performances achieved on oversized tracks shall not be accepted.
That should have been 2011 WC.
For the most part, it seems that everyone in this thread has a problem with the content that the owners of this website choose to put on it.
Then go somewhere else!
The Brojos can write whatever the hell they want on their website. If you don't like what they have to say, get the f*** out! Go somewhere else for your track and field news.
Brojos, I enjoy your website and (for the most part) hearing your opinions about all the news in the world of track and field. Keep up the good work!
Did you actually expect a higher standard of journalism on this site?
Websters wrote:
I don't encourage their asinine comments that they think are funny or snarky or something, but make them look like children and make college athletes, who have nothing to really do with the problem, look bad.[/quote]
Snarky? What the hell is that?
Then Go Elsewhere wrote:
For the most part, it seems that everyone in this thread has a problem with the content that the owners of this website choose to put on it.
Then go somewhere else!
The Brojos can write whatever the hell they want on their website. If you don't like what they have to say, get the f*** out! Go somewhere else for your track and field news.
Brojos, I enjoy your website and (for the most part) hearing your opinions about all the news in the world of track and field. Keep up the good work!
The Brojos are a lot like Oprah. They want to be treated like serious journalists when it's convenient but they don't want to do serious journalism. Choose one or the other and I'll have no problem.
Wow let's all nitpick at one word out of thousands on the main page and get up in arms about it. I don't think that legal and illegal were there to belittle the efforts of the people on the oversized track, but just to point out the difference between the two tracks. Obviously it is harder and more impressive to do it on a 200m track rather than 300m. Maybe oversized would have been a better choice of word, but wow lighten up a bit. Only someone who is extremely defensive/insecure or someone who already has a negative attitude about the site would get so pissed about such an significant and innocent word slip.