I think the only reason Keely tried to run on the inside was that Athing was well over on the outside of lane one and there was a massive gap. If Athing was drifting out then she probably thought it was unwise to go around the outside of her and could see a clear route through. Athing then moved inwards and cut off that route, which is my issue with it. If she had held her line that would be fine.
I have never seen Athing run on the rail, so it was surprising to see her cut in like that.
In the Olympics she literally was on the outside of 1 with 110m to go and in the middle of the lane coming out of the bend into the straight, just like this. It's almost as if people's positions with in a lane vary when they come off a turn. But you'd have to actually run track to know that.
There was never a discussion worth having. It was as straightforward of a nothingburger as could be. Which is why the OP got downvoted to oblivion.
I've got to reply to that! Just the slightest hint that Athing bad behaviour might have had a bearing on the result is DEFINITELY worth a discussion. This was the world championships! And, guess what? The only people who think it wasn't worth while, are Athing fans who are clearly uncomfortable with her behaviour being put under a microscope.
Hodgkinson is as good as she is ever going to get.She couldn't beat a 75% Mu and she never will.The Kenyan is going to pass her by and she will be reduced to fighting for bronze.
I bet you also predicted that Hodgkinson was going to narrow the gap to 0.08secs this year.
Hodgkinson is only 20. There is no chance she could continue to improve. Really? If that is so, Mu may just as easily remain at the 75% of what you say she was.
There was never a discussion worth having. It was as straightforward of a nothingburger as could be. Which is why the OP got downvoted to oblivion.
I've got to reply to that! Just the slightest hint that Athing bad behaviour might have had a bearing on the result is DEFINITELY worth a discussion. This was the world championships! And, guess what? The only people who think it wasn't worth while, are Athing fans who are clearly uncomfortable with her behaviour being put under a microscope.
And what exactly, beyond earning LRC some advert money, do you hope to accomplish with this continued nonsense? It's not like you can get Mu DQ'd so something so ultimately this discussion isn't worthy of anything.
Maybe it's time to just hang up the spikes on this one.
You are very confused. The big screen was actually behind them.
Stop already with your crazy theories.
So you're saying that athletes entering the straight wouldn't look at the "smaller screen" ?
So first you insist that Mu was looking at the big screen. When you were informed that you were 100% totally wrong, now you have changed your theory to Mu was actually not looking at the big screen? Man, you can't even keep your wacky conspiracy theories straight.
You're a complete idiot who doesn't even understand how protests work. Athletes have to file a protest quickly. They don't have time to sit down and review all the footage before filing a protest.
And they never see footage of their entire race before their interview anyway. You really have no idea of the time line of how this stuff works.
Plus, when the officials decide on a protest, they look at ALL footage, not just what was shown on TV. And the runners, when filing a protest, don't know in advance exactly what footage was taking during the race or from exactly what angle. If a runner was impeded, they file a protest without regard to what footage the officials may or may not have.
And if Keely had actually been impeded, she would know that WITHOUT having to see any footage.
Your stupid theory of Keely not complaining about it in her post-race interview because no one had shown her head-on footage shows that you are both clueless and desperate.
How has this got to 15 pages? If there was any hint of obstruction, one of Hodgkinson's coaches would have mentioned it or the British team would have protested. She was side-by-side with Mu at one point, if she could have taken the lead, she would.
How has this got to 15 pages? If there was any hint of obstruction, one of Hodgkinson's coaches would have mentioned it or the British team would have protested. She was side-by-side with Mu at one point, if she could have taken the lead, she would.
15 pages, but you - and many others - can't be bothered following the conversation! 1. AGAIN! Because the IAAF have a disgraceful history of turning a blind eye to impeding violations, the UK team would have realised that putting in a protest was a waste of time. Get it! 2. Without the head-on video footage as proof of impeding, Keely and her team would not have raised the subject because it would have simply been a case of " he said, she said". Get it!
You're a complete idiot who doesn't even understand how protests work. Athletes have to file a protest quickly. They don't have time to sit down and review all the footage before filing a protest.
And they never see footage of their entire race before their interview anyway. You really have no idea of the time line of how this stuff works.
Plus, when the officials decide on a protest, they look at ALL footage, not just what was shown on TV. And the runners, when filing a protest, don't know in advance exactly what footage was taking during the race or from exactly what angle. If a runner was impeded, they file a protest without regard to what footage the officials may or may not have.
And if Keely had actually been impeded, she would know that WITHOUT having to see any footage.
Your stupid theory of Keely not complaining about it in her post-race interview because no one had shown her head-on footage shows that you are both clueless and desperate.
You sir, clearly can't take in information...or don't want to! AGAIN! Because the IAAF have a disgraceful history of turning a blind eye to impeding violations, the UK team would have realised that putting in a protest was a waste of time. Get it! and, 2. Without the head-on video footage as proof of impeding, Keely and her team would not have raised the subject because it would have simply been a case of " he said, she said". Get it!
BTW, had the BBC been in charge of the cameras, by now, we would have seen the "incident" from every perceivable angle, and the fact that we haven't seen such footage is very disappointing.