Plus he's still running the 200 and relay....you don't think he'll get tested after those events! Use your effing brain dickhead!
Plus he's still running the 200 and relay....you don't think he'll get tested after those events! Use your effing brain dickhead!
This is awesome. Bye bye Usain, all the SARMS in the world won't help you if you don't know how to start.
PhD wrote:
I thought that after a "DQ" a runner can still run "under protest" and then protest the DQ after.
Unless the rules have changed without my knowing (which could have happened, actually), this has never been a possibility.
There have been times when a DQ was charged *during the running of the event* and then overruled--example: U.S. 4x1, 1948 OG (U.S. passed within the zone, official who was watching the wrong line blew the call, film review reinstated the U.S. win)--but I have never heard of a DQ at the start that allowed the athlete to participate "under protest," as it were.
Think back to when L. Christie was DQed in the OG for reacting too fast to the gun. He protested mightily, and it took a long time to get him off the track, but he did not get to run.
PhD wrote:
I thought that after a "DQ" a runner can still run "under protest" and then protest the DQ after. Even if it doesn't change the outcome, I am kind of surprised this didnt happen.
No, you need to read the IAAF rule book. The track referee MAY allow an athlete to run under protest, but it is not an inherent right. The general consensus is that there would have to be reason to believe that a Jury would overturn the false start call before an athlete would be allowed to run under protest. If the starter and recallers all say you false started, why would a Jury decide in favour of an athlete who says "I didn't"?
The rule further says that if the electronic blocks say you false started, then there is no arguing and no chance to run under protest. There is no way Bolt's blocks would show he didn't false start.
And just to save any more posters spouting off about what they think the rules are without actually knowing what the rules say:
146.4:
"4. (a) In a Track Event, if an athlete makes an immediate oral protest against having been charged with a false start, a Track Referee may allow the athlete to compete under protest in order to preserve the rights of all concerned. Competing under protest shall not be allowed if the false start was detected by an IAAF approved false start control apparatus, unless for any reason the Referee determines that the information provided by the apparatus is obviously inaccurate."
And for those who think some random IAAF administrator will just decide to change the rule before the 200s:
See Article 13 on page 36.
rojo wrote:
I don't understand why the guys on Eurosport are doing two things.
1) Assuming Bolt would have easily won had he raced.
I mean Blake was very good and won by a ton - .16. That is more than what Bolt won by in 2009 when he ran 9.58. Blake ran fast into the wind. It equates to a 9.83 without the wind which is pretty good. He also was way faster than Bolt in the semis.
I would have loved to have seen Bolt-Blake for the first time this year and hope to see it soon in Europe.
2) Saying that Bolt needs to change his pre-race antics. Give me a break. They want him to be more serious before the start so he's more likely to fale-start.
Two other thoughts:
1) Maurice Greene looks like a genius. I ridiculed him when he said Blake would beat Bolt:
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sports/Greene-backs-Blake-to-upset-Bolt_95388332) Great medal by Collins.
People are awful with the whole wind accountance equating.
You, sprint geezer all you're extrapolations are terrible.
It is a well known fact that 2.0 wind equals .10 of a second on the clock. How you get 9.83 from 9.93 out of -1.3 i have no idea.
Tyson Gay ran 9.68 with a 4.1 tailwind and scientist said it would have equaled 9.86-9.88 with no wind.
Blake would have ran around 9.88. You're absolutely nuts to consider he could run 9.83 with no wind.
That's like saying Kim Collins would go sub 10... 9.99 with NO Wind. He hasn't broken 10 in like 7 years.
In fact, a quick look at his IAAF profile shows his PR is 9.98 with a blistering 2.0 wind behind his back.
Two false starts were a problem, most people recognize this.
One false start is patently unfair as someone will certainly go off on purpose to negate the great start of another athlete, effectively creating a no false start situation.
If David Ortiz strikes out in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded to lose the game, to people complain that he didn't get the chance to actually put a pitch into play?
This is going to be a good rule ... growing pains.
Great analogy to David Ortiz.
effing idiot wrote:
Plus he's still running the 200 and relay....you don't think he'll get tested after those events! Use your effing brain dickhead!
Only idiots use during a championship....or they think their substance is undetectable. You use during training, training harder and faster and with better recovery, you then cycle off before the championships yet you still maintain the results of the training you put in. That's why steroids will always be the #1 PED of choice for all athletes, it's a training drug.
Alan
TrackFan19 wrote:
How does this help destroy the sport?
Bolt false started and he was DQ'd, period. He didn't need a great start to win, especially with the watered-down field he was facing. This should have been his easiest world title.
Dunno but destroy, but certainly hurt. Bolt is the biggest draw. Why did IAAF change the rules in the first place? It wasn't like there was always a false start rule. Anyone got data on how many medal winners in the sprints wouldn't have them because they had one false start before this rule?
Try applying this type of rule to fouls for soccer, basketball, etc. and see what it does for those sports.
LL Cool J wrote:
I know this is hard to imagine, but starting in the sprints is actually different than starting your local 5k. They're trying to react in a matter of hundredths of a second, which means from time to time people are bound to start early.
and relay runners are bound to drop the baton/go out of the zone and mid/distance guys are bound to get their legs tangled up and tripped...I get it. Shit happens. That doesn't mean they need to change the rules.
The start of a 100m is an enormous part of the race. To take away the importance of nailing it is to change the essence of the race.
LL Cool J wrote:
I know this is hard to imagine, but starting in the sprints is actually different than starting your local 5k. They're trying to react in a matter of hundredths of a second, which means from time to time people are bound to start early.
I don't agree with this, Eveyone know becasue of the reaction time DQ rule that you cannot anticipate the gun. The gub goes and you set off its not that hard. Colin Jackson was a brilliant starter nearly always getting to the hurdle 1st and I can't remember him ever false starting, and that was in the day when you were allowed one
The rule is aslo a good one as the races used to be ruined by several false starts nearly every time
They don't have hurdles to clear or any other real technical issue. The starters have also improved a lot since the old days when they used to hold in the set position for far too long. Its pretty much the only rule they have to adhere to and you would expect an experienced professional to be able to master what is a simple task
SomeCoach wrote:
If David Ortiz strikes out in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded to lose the game, to people complain that he didn't get the chance to actually put a pitch into play?
This is going to be a good rule ... growing pains.
body master wrote:
That's like saying Kim Collins would go sub 10... 9.99 with NO Wind. He hasn't broken 10 in like 7 years.
In fact, a quick look at his IAAF profile shows his PR is 9.98 with a blistering 2.0 wind behind his back.
I'm calling it, Collins will test positive. Three great races in a row and a PB quality time (wind adjusted) at age 35??
if Bolt, Gay, Powell, Mullings are there then he probably wouldn't get a bronze but the times are still suspect.
Good. It's about time something like this happened. They changed the rule because EVERY 100m race would have 2+ FS's. People will sit around for 20minutes for a 9second race but then claim that a 1500m race is too long to watch at 3:30minutes. Sprinters aren't disciplined these days. Give them the opportunity to FS and they will take advantage of it. THAT is why it was changed.
or they could have just instituted a time limit after false starts. Barring injury there is no need to sit around for 5 minutes while they strut and preen for the cameras. Require everyone to be back at their blocks in 1 minute and a restart in 2 minutes. DQ anyone who delays the race
problem solved
They need to start sprinters in cages, just like they do with race horses.
Bolt getting DQ for false start is probably the best thing to ever happen to our sport. Those f-ing spoiled ass, self-centered sprinters always get to see their events, beginning to end, even the friggin heats. Meanwhile, the real runners in the 5,000m and 10,000m get scant or no coverage. I\\\'m glad those sissy-ass 10 sec runners got their cumuppence.... F em all!!!
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Haile Selassie wrote:I had the same thought. Maybe his people tested him today, and they found something.
You people are incredible. You know samples have to actually be sent to a lab for processing? The don't just take your piss and stick it an easy bake oven and pop out with the results in 15 minutes.
Well played, +1.