otter wrote:
The second guy didn't slip after seeing first place slip. Make sense?
No it doesn't. Njenga took a different path to the right of Cheruiyot. What caused the slip was the braking action by Cheruiyot. We don't even know if the material of the logo was the culprit. There could have been debris like a leaf or dirt on top of the logo material that initiated the slide.
At the Beijing Marathon last year (which is an international sanctioned event), the lead runner was about 800m ahead of the 2nd runner in the final mile. The TV truck (which most assumed, including him, was leading the way) veered off the course for some reason a few hundred meters before the end and he followed it. Of course there was noone that spoke english well enough to tell him not to.
Anyway, he lost the race, but the next day, the officials awarded it to him and it was not contentious as it was so clear he was going to win. And none of the other runners complained about it either.
There is room for subjectivity, fair play and sportsmanship in determining the actual finish order of a running race - it is not always as black and white as what the rules say in print; sometimes the spirit of the rules comes into consideration.
Well both feet slid. First one, then the other. What do you think would be the statistical likelihood that he landed on one leaf then another? It looks like the slide was initiated by the logo (the culprit).
watcher wrote:
otter wrote:The second guy didn't slip after seeing first place slip. Make sense?
No it doesn't. Njenga took a different path to the right of Cheruiyot. What caused the slip was the braking action by Cheruiyot. We don't even know if the material of the logo was the culprit. There could have been debris like a leaf or dirt on top of the logo material that initiated the slide.
The King Makes The Rules wrote:
Rulers are rules.
Every olympics athlete misses a contest because they were given bad information from the organizers of the games, or the bus they were told to be on got lost (as happened in Athens).
In ALL these cases the athlete is told "tough luck, try again in four years."
Following this logic that he should have been award the win as he was "close enough." What is the banner was 100 yeards from the finish? WHat if they had a blue line painted on teh street and they slipped on that. How close is "close enough?"
Why don't we go back and award the gold medal to Dos Santos in the 2004 marathon? Everyone agrees he would have won if that crazy nut did not shove him off the course.
I hate when people make arguments like this..."what if this? what if this?" It WASN'T. The fall was right before the starting line. It doesn't matter if "it could have been 5 meters further back and that that would've made it harder to tell." If it was 5 meters further back, then it would obviously be harder to judge: but as it stands it's close enough that we can all pretty much agree he had finished the race. Don't let the prospect of having to use judgment on a case-by-case basis scare you.
poulter wrote:
this may have been addressed previously, but to me it looks like while his feet may have crossed the line, his chest did not, and this is the criterion for finishing the race. so it looks to me like they are already bending the rules by giving the cheruiyot the win - not that i'm opposed to that.
The determining factor is the runner's TORSO, not chest, and the hips are just as much a part of that as the chest (although it's almost unheard of for someone to get their hips ahead of their chest when finishing at any kind of speed). If you look carefully, Cheruiyot's butt hits the mat when he falls. The mat is placed beyond the finish line (to answer and earlier post) thus his torso broke the plane of the line.
Interestingly, there was a proposal a few years back (which may still be alive) to make the foot rather than the torso the determining body part, in Chip-timed races.
ok but wrote:
Old Runner Guy you don't get it do you? You seem to be wrong on most issues.
The winner of the 1908 Olympic Marathon collapsed and could not get across the line. The officials then helped carry him across. You make it sound like he ran the wrong way and they just directed him the right way and he was DQd. He couldn't get across on his own because he was exhausted.
Sigh, just assume that I'm never ever wrong, because I'm not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_Summer_OlympicsThe most famous incident of the games came at the end of the marathon. It occurred when the first runner to enter the stadium, Dorando Pietri of Italy, collapsed several times and ran the wrong way
I definitely think that in soccer if the ball hits the post or cross bar you may as well give a goal becuase it was almost a goal anyway.
:)
Maybe you're not wrong, but your reading comprehension is abysmal as you obviously didn't read the rest of the post. He agreed that that the runner was disqualified in 1908 but pointed out, in his opinion, that the circumstances in Chicago were quite different. Argue that point instead.
Why are people around here so bitter?
The REAL question here is this: If you were in second place in this race, and video evidence conclusively showed that he had not crossed the line, would you accept the victory?
If your answer is yes, then get the hell out of my sport.
Interesting thread. Just a few comments after reading...
- You can't blame the 2nd place runner from crossing in that situation after seeing the 1st place runner fall. He doesn't know at the time why #1 fell. Could have been from exhaustion or passing out or something, which would give you a legit win if you get across then before he recovers and gets across. Not stopping to help him across (suggested in an earlier post) doesn't mean poor sportsmanship.
- In the article they mention that it is a non-slip logo meant just for that purpose. Under perfect/lab conditions, I'm sure that testing works perfectly. However, over the course of the 5 years they said they had been using it, you know things change, stuff gets on it - sweat, dirt, Gatorade, maybe vaseline, etc... - that wasn't included in the lab testing (assuming that was really done). So saying "we've been using this for 5 years with 100,000 runners crossing it" doesn't mean much to me.
- When runners sign up for races, it's inherently understood (or should be) that there are possible circumstances that can occur over 26.2 miles that may hinder your performance. It is the nature of the event you are entering. You know you aren't running the event in a vaccum and perfect conditions. Pace cars, crazy fans, scaffoldings, slippery surfaces, potholes, missing aid stations, etc... are unfortunate but understood possible obstacles/events that can occur. You are ultimately going to have to accept consequences because you understood they were possible going into the race. It might be "unfair" that they occur, but you accepted the "unfair" part of it when you entered because you knew they were possible (and some even likely).
- The instant it happened, how happy/relieved do you think race officials were that he had signed his waiver? ;-)
P.S. Gives a whole new meaning to "fall" marathon, doesn't it? ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
CrossFan wrote:
P.S. Gives a whole new meaning to "fall" marathon, doesn't it? ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
That was cool.
1.JimG is correct- It's the torso crossing the finish line and not the tape. Infact, in most major track meets in the US the tape is held a foot or two beyond the actual finish line so as not to block the phototiming.
2.Yes there has been some initial talks to amend the rules to make it the foot instead of the torso. That's a hard sell with the IAAF.
3.As far as awarding the gold to a runner that slips just prior to the finish line (if he didn't cross) - that's why there is a Jury of Appeal. The Jury would look at all of the aspects of the situation. If they feel that the fall was caused by something out of the control of the athlete they could very well award the victory to him. If this was a real situation and I was the Referee or on the Jury I would award the victory. Some of you may not believe it, but the rules are designed to provide for fair and safe competition. That's why rules are always being amended as the sport evolves.
David Katz
Dos Santos himself said he didn't think he would win.
And I liked the 'jury of appeal' post. That should end this whole debate- even if hypotheticaly he had fallen mere meters short.
what happens if the guy blows an ankle 10 meters from the finish and can't crawl far enough to get his torso to cross the line and the guy that he just outkicked on the straight away passes him...No different in this situation...no different as in NASCAR if a driver gets spun, blows a tire due to debris, or runs out of gas in the final turn of a 500 mile race....fact of the matter is, the second runner didn't fall when he crossed the same mat...Should he be penalized becauae he didn't fall??? I feel bad for Cheruiyot, but if he truely didn't cross the line, the guy who placed second and didn't fall after crossing the same matt I think deserves the win....
Furthermore, the legal definition of Torso is as follows:
tor·so (tôr'sō)
n., pl. -sos or -si (-sē).
The human body excluding the head and limbs; trunk
It doesn't matter if his legs cross the finish line, it depends where his johnson and butt were with respect to the actual finish line.
MarathonMind wrote:
Dos Santos himself said he didn't think he would win.
And I liked the 'jury of appeal' post. That should end this whole debate- even if hypotheticaly he had fallen mere meters short.
Is Dos Santos the same guy as Vanderlei DeLima?
If it is I think DeLima appealed to some high level sport arbitration panel or something to be given a gold medal as well so I would say he did think he deserved 'a' if not 'the' (only) gold.
I liked the quote someone did about not worrying to judge on a case by case basis. Very true.
Yes, the Brazilian Vanderlei DeLima (sorry, others had used Dos Santos). And he did say initially afterward that he knew he was fading- (perhpas he later changed his "tune").
And yes I also liked the point about "not being afraid to judge on a case by case basis".
Brussels Marathon 2004 and John Kelai, leading by a couple of minutes, follows the motorcycle instead of going straight into the Grande Place where the finishing line was, noone having pointed out the right way (I guess the organizers assumed that he would instictively follow the orange carpet that had been laid down - a foreigner in the city and totally exhausted). That was practically 50-100 meters before the finish.
Kelai gets lost back there, losing around a minute. He was begging for directions.
http://www.eurosport.com/imgbk/watts_/all/md-i163338.jpg
He finally enters the finishing area from the back and crosses the finishing line in the opposite direction. All the while shown on the big screen that had been set up. Hilarious. One wonders what would have happened if the next runner wouldn't have been so far back.
