Innocent wrote:
eurodonkey wrote:
I think 'material advantage' means something different to the jury: it's not 'theoretical microscopic advantage', it's "unlikely to have affected the race outcome".
+1
Also on the infield there is slightly more oxygen in the air so he got to inhale better air two times.
How do you know? By Heavenly inspiration? By pure reasoning? Well, that is not enough.You never know, you know.
Semiler: It is a disgrace to this sport that the brits continue to file protests in championships - also happened last time in in Rio when Jacob´s brother was DQ after Sebastian Coe filed a protest.
... Andrew Butchart in a 5000m final ??? Give me a break. He does not have the talent and he does not train enough !
Rojo: if your wet dream comes through, i.e. Andrew Butchart in a 5000m final...(!!????), I am sure will never bet one single shilling/cent/pound (or what ever currency you are using in your country) that Andrew Butchard will finalise among the top 8 in the final
LOL
Lol_Norway - is your head mounted correctly or just fixed to something ?
So how many steps would have resulted in a disqualification that couldn't be reversed? I think we should see it as a legitimate race practise now, that runners on the inside should be able to pass on the in-field; Jakob has led the way (er - literally). Well done, the IAAF.
Coevett wrote:
Every Kenyan performance at this Championships should be given an asterix, and every medal put in doubt until the AIU finishes its investigation of the ZDF video.
OK, and every Ethiopian performance should be given an obelix, every Mongolic performance an vitalstatistix and every British performance an geriatrix. But - why?