TyNia GAITHER Of the Bahamas was DQ in semis of the womens 100m also Julien ALFRED. No outcry over those Disqualifications?
It wasn't until Jacobs was DQ'd in a final that people starting looking at the data and saw that it was a trend and a huge problem. That is obvious to anyone paying attention. And yes the outcry applies to everyone DQ'd due to this problem.
There's not necessarily even a problem with the rule. But the stringent nature of the rule demands equally stringent standards for how the timing equipment is manufactured, calibrated, tested, and monitored. There has been a MAJOR breakdown in that aspect in Eugene. Maybe whatever they're using in these championships is actually the best equipment ever, and everything previously underestimated the true reaction times. I don't think the 0.1 rule was ever based on a scientific determination about human limits, but was instead based on a review of field data indicating that .10 was a safe number 4 or 5 standard deviations from the mean.
It's mind numbing that there was no one in the organizational ranks monitoring the equipment and data to identify a major statistical anomaly that required either new equipment or recalibration of existing equipment, and warnings/guidance to the field officials about the issue. It seems the rules give field officials the authority to use their discretion, which they'd be much more apt to do if they realized the equipment is consistently showing reaction times .01-.02 faster than normal.
TyNia GAITHER Of the Bahamas was DQ in semis of the womens 100m also Julien ALFRED. No outcry over those Disqualifications?
I think there was a ton of outcry over those disqualifications. They interviewed Gaither specifically on NBC after the 200m heats yesterday on the topic.
People are getting hung up this narrative of "nobody cared until Allen" because it's easy to do that based on some lazy race, gender, patriotism angle, but that's not the case.
And if it was a cumulation of the absurdity that ended with Allens situation then what does it really matter?
99% of people can't start faster than .10, but as with everything, there are outliers and there are circumstances when a sprinter nails it, as-in getting a perfect start. What the system is attempting to do is force athletes to react to the sound of the gun with the assumption being sound travels at a certain speed the human neuromuscular response to can only occur within a certain amount of time. I watched Devon's start in super slow motion multiple times and I can say without a doubt Devon did release pressure and/or exit the blocks until after the trigger pull on the gun.
Isn't that the problem? Everyone in the meet is an outlier. Everyone in the meet is capable of starting faster that 99% of people. To hold them to a standard based on average human performance is ridiculous.
This is new. I've never heard that these world class athletes also somehow have faster neurological systems.
Isn't that the problem? Everyone in the meet is an outlier. Everyone in the meet is capable of starting faster that 99% of people. To hold them to a standard based on average human performance is ridiculous.
This is new. I've never heard that these world class athletes also somehow have faster neurological systems.
It could be true since world class athletes actually train for it vs. the average person.
It's unfortunate he lost to mechanical error. He didn't move before the gun. Now he's on to the NFL. Returning to chase a medal one year or two years from now is not going to be redemption. You're expected to gain weight to be effective in the NFL. But that decreases your speed running at the highest level. This was his prime ability in the hurdles. Taken away by mechanical error.
Yes, this is both good and bad for the sport. The bad, of course Devon Allen getting screwed. He was not the only one. Others were shown the door as well with close reaction times. They all lost out on an opportunity that they all have spent time, focus and sweat for. The good: The best way to get rid of any bad rule is to enforce it. The data used for the limit is antiquated. I have seen posts with studies that do not really address the situation here. I would maintain any study that used medical students for its test subjects is more of an effort to gather data for a paper. What needs to happen is a study that uses athletes. They may or not be geeks, but they have to be athletes and test more specific to their sport would be needed. Here is a study. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17461391.2012.738712?scroll=top&needAccess=true This study shows that athletes have a much quicker reaction time specific to their sport than the 0.100 second response standard. In the case of sprinters cutting the reaction time standard in half ( 0.050 seconds) would not be overly generous. We cannot expect all organizations to be proactive with needed rule changes. But, we would hope that the rules committee has a decent reaction time to implementing these much needed rules. I would think that the ambiguity of the language of the rule frustrates officials as well. If they allowed Allen to run, they are open to protests. Again, the best way to get rid of a bad rule is to enforce it. Kudos to the officials, the true, unnoticed guardians of the sport.
We have closed this thread to new posts and have started a new thread on the matter where everyone talks about the Eugene reaction times moving forward.
JC100 wrote: I am JC100, who did the charts on the T&FN forum, in this thread. I have been continuing to update the data a few hours after the events happen. A post here compares the RTs across the major championships, and in...