Vermonster, your point has a lot of logic to it. And it shows the problems that result when with meet directors try to please everyone.If you want to stage a WR attempt with a purse, great. This pleases the spectators and television advertisers (and of course thus the meet's bottom line). If done right, it can certainly please the runner making the attempt, too.If you want to run a time trial for (relatively) mediocre runners to make cuts, great. This pleases those runners (and of course thus the meet's bottom line).But, DON'T TRY TO DO BOTH AT ONCE. It's that simple.
Vermonster wrote:I think dealing with lapped runners is all part of setting WR's for 3k and 5k indoors.
Is it? And even if it is, does that mean it should be? ie...
Vermonster wrote:Yeah it sucks, but you have to remember that most prior indoor WR's had to deal with the same thing.
I hope we don't start applying the same argument to track surfaces, etc.
Vermonster wrote:
Yeah it sucks that she missed the WR marginally, but to me lapping runners is part of indoors racing. Deal with it.
Yeah, it does suck. And neither of us will ever have to deal with it. And if you do, I hope that whoever sets up your WR attempt shows some foresight.
[quote]Vermonster wrote:
She should have gone out in lane 2 instead of yelling and waiting.
Under those conditions, you're quite right.
What I'm saying is that these conditions shouldn't have come about in the first place; Boston shouldn't have tried to run two totally different leagues in the same race. Great meet, but you can't be all things to all runners (not on the same 200m track within the same nine minutes).
The Jerk says: robbed.