US Robbed in 4 by!!

First of all, and the only thing that is important, those four Russian girls were smokin' hot.

That's a 10-4 on the Russian women in the 4x4. WOW.

Imagine Brent Musburger calling this meet?

They won fair and sq.

Next time.

I'm curious...

how much prep to the National coaches do with the athletes

leading up to the relays?

I've heard rumors (many on this board) and have talked to some athletes that have been to these meets (on the national team). Other than riding on the bus with them over to the track or practice track there is very little guidance the track coaches are giving the athletes at the international meets. All athletes are guided by other

coaches, but beyond babysitting these athletes, there should be more the coaches can do. In terms of motivation

and guidance at the event.

Come on! What are they really doing? Padding their resume

to get that cushy head NCAA position?

If I was national event coach at one of these meets

I would be scouting the teams and making sure hand offs

are practiced on a regular basis. Knowledge of the other teams is important.

correction...

I did not realize Amy Deem and Curtis Frye were

the relay coaches. They certainly know relays, but

sh&t...can't they get those girls motivated and

say...hey...they're all coming after YOU...

you're the USA...YOU think about what those people in Afgahanistan and Irag are doing...think about your Grandfathers and grandmothers who sacrificed to make this country great...everyone wants YOU to lose...

go out there and kick @ss! Play the Rocky 4 clips...something.

I know some of the motivation is cheezy...but

I'll bet some of those athletes are just bidding time

until the next diamond league meet. can't blame them...

when that's there meal ticket.

I know there are lots of critics of USATF. I think some

of their ineptness comes through at the big meets.

To summarize:

1. The #1 reason why USA's women's 4x4 lost was they lost to athletes to injury.

2. But the still could've won but the US didn't seem to run sharp, smart, or motivated.

2a. Hastings the #2 leg lost tons of lead at the end of her leg ... you gotta run the entire 400m ... finish strong no matter how big of a lead you have.

2b. US #3 leg didn't seem to know that her teammate was in lane 2, so I don't think she knew the rules which is pathetic on her and her coaches part plus she obviously didn't look at her teammate standing in lane 2. It was a smart move on Russia to move out a bit into lane 2. IDK if she did it on purpose or not but it was legal since she didn't impede with anybody else and it did force the US to make a decision.

2c. The anchor leg had terrible arm motion at the end of her leg. I don't think she could've won but how about you make a serious move to catch Russia before the tape and see what happens OR you do what you did and reel her in but have good arms the last 50 instead of wailing them around.

3. Russia's runners didn't have the best faces but hell yes they had smoking hot bodies!

Inexperience and odd situation

Great effort by a team missing 2 top runners

ryan foreman wrote:

I was thinking about this. But I'm curious what would have happened if the U.S. runner had been aggressive and moved into the second lane against the Russian runners space and forced her even farther away from lane 1. Not sure what the rules are, but conceivably she has that right to go there if the rules say she has to hand off in lane 2 in that situation.

marguis of queensbury wrote:

The lead runner in lane one should not be allowed to move out to lane two in that circumstance because there is no reason to do so except to impede the runner behind, who (by rule) must hand off in lane two.

Smart move if you can get away with it but the rules should not permit.

If Spencer were to have "forced" the Russian runner wider by going shoulder-to-shoulder she would be initiating contact and at risk of being DQ'd herself on that basis. And she never had the margin to step in front of the Russian and "force" her wider in that manner.

There simply was no good choice for Spencer to make. If the race were re-run and the same thing happened, she would have no good choice to make. If she runs wide and behind the Russian, she has no chance to pass and is still at risk of having her handoff impeded (or forced very wide) by the Russian's positioning.

Even though they establish lane position at the 200 mark, the outgoing runners will usually switch on their own based on what they see coming in.

It usually benefits both teams.

The Russiam team would have been messed up as well if the American just stayed in lane one and they did a cross-handed exchange at the same time.

* wrote:

Even though they establish lane position at the 200 mark, the outgoing runners will usually switch on their own based on what they see coming in.

It usually benefits both teams.

The Russiam team would have been messed up as well if the American just stayed in lane one and they did a cross-handed exchange at the same time.

Runners can't switch on their own in this meet. Officials enforce the positions.

Maybe. But is it illegal if she is taking the direct route to the handoff point? It seems like veering into the 2nd lane in this instance was her lane if that is where she needs to go to handoff. I agree that it would have been dicey taking that aggressive approach not so much from a legal standpoint as it was risking dropping the baton with her and the Russian arriving at the same time and crossing handoffs. But it seems to me that could have been a good calculated gamble. Of course obviously that is in hindsight.

The IAAF is never going to say that veering into another runner to create physical contact is the legal solution. It's not roller derby.

She could have put the officials on the spot to make a decision but I don't think it would have turned out well.

As many have said position for exchange is set by the official using the incoming runners order at 200m out. In this case actions of an official did not cause the poor handoff.

Recently saw a meet where an official placed the third leg 4x400 runners in order of the call at 200m out AND placed them one to a LANE telling them they had to take the handoff in that lane. The second leg on the last place team had to run about 8.5 meters out from the curb to lane 8 handoff and the outgoing runner had to run back in to the curb.

I can not believe an official picked for a National level+ Invitational was following the rules with that -stay in your assigned LANE to receive the handoff- instruction.

Eight outgoing mile relayrunners should take up no more than 3 lanes as they wait for the handoff.

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

The U.S. lost when the second leg runner gave UP a 10 meter lead in the last 15 meters!...I think it was Hasings?

all the rest is just desperation and excuses!

True.

Natasha hastings ----------it up badly. (just fill in the blank with the appropriate verb-of your choice).

She ruined it.

I couldnt believe it.

thank you for seeing how easy the answer is...all this other stuff is just semantics

Or how about

Think about the State governments that wouldn't let you vote ab

nd the national government that turned a blind eye

Think about going to segregated schools

Think about fighting Hitler with a segregated army

Think about lynch mobs

Think about Klansmen burning crosses on your lawn

On the main point, the US team was beaten fair and square, but it ran well - no need for recrimination.

* wrote:

Even though they establish lane position at the 200 mark, the outgoing runners will usually switch on their own based on what they see coming in.

It usually benefits both teams.

The Russiam team would have been messed up as well if the American just stayed in lane one and they did a cross-handed exchange at the same time.

If you switch lane position on your own you get DQ'd!

The GB 4x400 women's team was disqualified in the 2006 Commonwealth Games for this very reason following a protest by the Australians.