Monaco track short ???

Oh No Apollo wrote:

T&F should be like ice skate racing and embrace shortness. Heck speed skating even has a set of records called Short Track records

Swimming has a whole season for short courses...

HardLoper wrote:

List of short tracks according to LetsRun:

Stanford

Rieti

Florence

Boston University

Doha

Swarthmore

Heusden

Chinese National Games

Occidental

Brasschaat

La Chaux-de-Fonds

Monaco

And if you point out they ran similar times on another track, that one was probably short too. In fact it is possible that every track is short.

Add Clermont and Port-of-Spain (T&T)

Hoopster wrote:

I think until someone goes out there and officially measure the track, it's all just speculation.

autoxfil wrote:

Don't you think this has been done? An IAAF Measurement Report Form must be submitted for every WR certification, and I think just to host certain events.

^^ This. Even at NCAA level tracks have to be surveyed and re-surveyed. If a facility just removes the curb and lays it down again (even in fixed mountings), has to be recertified before NCAA marks can be run on it. Having some guy go out there with a wheel does not cut it... proper surveying crews with laser transits, etc.

TDodd22 wrote:

I'm laughing quite hard at the point you're trying to make. This wasn't a simple question, you obviously didn't see who I was replying to, I called the man that named off 15+ tracks, claiming that they could all be short, yet there has been world records on numerous of those tracks. This means the tracks are certified, proving that they are the correct length, and that there should be no questions asked.

Perhaps you should be laughing less at the point Daniel A Gore made, and more at yourself for posting in this thread in the first place. Just a suggestion.

M. Junren wrote:

Track too much bounce!

Very short!

Not Rupp certified!

M. Junren, you're not getting near the attention you deserve for a very amusing collection of posts on this thread!

These are just suggestions

Psychological - history suggests it's a fast track, so runners go there expecting fast to run fast times. I'm sure that's how middle-distance runners felt about Brussels, Oslo and Zurich back in the early 1980s.

Time of year - it's close to major championships so athletes are peaking.

Accomodations - Monaco has some of the best hotels in the world, so maybe athletes are more rested. It's also pretty central, so anyone that trains in Europe can get there in an hour.

Climate - it's warm enough for sprinters to run well but distance runners may benefit from it being surrounded (on 3 sides) by the Mediterrean, which may have a cooling effect. It's also rooved on 3 sides, which may help shade the runners during the day. I don't know, I've never run there.

Stadium design - It's compact, covered stadium and supposed to have a great atmosphere, according to soccer fans, even when it's not full. Compare that to big open stadiums at Rome, Paris, Manchester or New York.

Next year will be interesting as it will be held immediately after New York, so it will be interesting to see how the athletes who showed up at Icahn fare.

it didn't start from the wrong line, the splits (100 or 200m) don't fluctuate like they did that race in Marseille.

Here's Molly Huddle after setting the AR there last year:

Athletes will tell you, the track is fast. You might wonder what that means, how one 400m regulation track could be faster than another 400m regulation track. I’m not sure, but some tracks just seem to give you a few seconds. Monaco is on the 4th floor of a building (interestingly, built over a landfill), so I think there is some added bounce from the hollow underside. Soft wide turns help the distance races as well. I'm sure the top of the line, well maintained "double sandwich Conica Conipur coating" doesn't hurt either, whatever that is.

http://ironman.timex.com/chasing-times-monaco/

I seem to remember reading speculation that the IAAF allowed the Monaco track to be "extra" bouncy since it was their hometown track.

This (what I can only assume is a sarcastic comment) illustrates the level of cynicism on these boards. If someone runs fast then A) accuse them of doping B) accuse the track of being short. Sure there is doping, and sure, a couple tracks out there might be a bit short, but the product does not necessarily indicate the process is rigged.

vxc wrote:

Anytime a WR is set the track is short. That's the only way a WR can be set, because all previous WRs have also been set on short tracks.

Not only is the track most surely short, but if you look really closely during the replay, you can see little pointy things on the bottom of her shoes!

I bet she uses those to get a better grip!

Outrageous.

CDA wrote:

Not only is the track most surely short, but if you look really closely during the replay, you can see little pointy things on the bottom of her shoes!

I bet she uses those to get a better grip!

Outrageous.

hahahahahaha

M. Junren wrote:

Track too much bounce!

Very short!

Not Rupp certified!

Periwinkle wrote:

M. Junren, you're not getting near the attention you deserve for a very amusing collection of posts on this thread!

Very smart person!

You must be Chinese!

Now run more lap! Very fast!

Most tracks with soccer fields inside have 80m straights and 120 curves. While it IS faster to run on the straight than on a curve, a more gradual curve will be faster than running on a tight curve.

As a 170 lb 400m runner the track always felt a bit spongy to me, like running on soft ground. I felt I was overpowering the track. Workouts and races were flat.

My GF (115 lb) swore the track was like a spring for her, made her stride "effortless".

I don't think it's short. Zurich felt much the same to both of us.

1993 wrote:

It was 1993

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-09/sports/sp-33176_1_chinese-women

Just Another LRC idiot wrote:

Like they did in the 1997 Chinese National ... never mind.

1993 had fast times in 1500 and 3000 and 10000. So something other than the incorrect start line should have been a factor.

1997 had fast times only in 1500. They passed the 300m mark in about 43, and ran the remaining 1200 in 3:07.

The Chinese were doping, so that alone would account for the times. In 1997, maybe they were not doping the runners at higher distances (unlikely) or maybe they just were not targeting fast times at higher distances (?). 43/3:07 doesn't prove anything, since they would have slowed down from a 43 300. On the other hand, 43 is extremely fast. Still, someone who could run 8:06 could surely run 3:50. Rupp ran 4:01 mile (=3:43/44 1500m)/8:07 in hs, for instance.

jjjjjjj wrote:

The Chinese were doping

What one runner says wrote:

Monaco is on the 4th floor of a building (interestingly, built over a landfill), so I think there is some added bounce from the hollow underside.

AHA. Trampoline.

It's just like the modern indoor tracks that regularly produce 7:30 3000's in low key meets. 13:01 solos by Rupp that he can't get anywhere near outdoors with rabbits. Trampoline tracks have made middle distance a joke.

The IAAF needs to set strict limits on the bounciness of a track and retroactively strike all records on tracks that exceed it from the books.

This means that anyone who set a PR at Monaco is not really that fast. Here are the real PR's of top elites:

Kiprop: 3:29.18

Kiplagat: 3:29.63

Souleiman: 3:30.16

Farah: 3:34.66

Centrowitz 3:31.96

Manzano: 3:32.37

Wote: 3:30.86

Iguider: 3:31.51

Makh: 3:30.40

Kwemoi: 3:30.43

Every one of these set their PR at Monaco, most by more than one second. Since January 2010, all the top 10 men's 1500 times happened at Monaco, and 20 of the top 25. It isn't doping, it's obviously the track, and its effect is so thorough and consistent that it should be banned.

Interestingly, one of the few current elites to PR somewhere other than Monaco is Augustine Choge who ran 3:29.47 in Berlin. Only Kiprop has him beat in the real world. Yet another reason Choge is the 800+ GOAT.

you set your PR on a fast track in near perfect conditions.