it failed
it doesn't matter if it had 10 photo-electric timers
photo-electric is not acceptable
eh ???
that is just your assumption
where is your official surveryor's report ??
to believe all wr tracks are 400m is naive
go look up the length of tashkent track in stepanova's incredible 52.94WR ???
which means nothing as not acceptable timing
olizarenko's wr in 800 of 1'54.85 hand 1'54.7, 1'54.6 !! & 1'54.5 !!!
this shows how useless hand-times can be for 800
then we have rono's 13'06.20 with all 3 hand times 0.8s quicker !!!
hand-times not acceptable in modern era
no
they had standard quota of auto-timing, photo-electric & hand times
the auto-timing failed which whatever merits of the run means not acceptable as a wr
no
low-level meet which was not widely televised
it was timed as any low-level meet at time was timed
it was not the unquestioned meet in the era of a level of :
berlin, brussels, eugene, london, oslo, rome, stockholm or zurich
meets where auto-timing never failed or any question of length of track or calibre or reputation of meet
what part of auto-timing failed can't you comprehend ???
it gave Carl a 9.92wr which later amended to 10.13
they switched off auto-timing after his run as auto-timing was faulty
no
it is
learn to think
from 1/1/81 only fully auto-timings acceptable for wr submission
for iaaf to accept a non-auto time as a wr means breaking of their rules & if you wish to call it a "conspiracy" that is a valid description
quite simply, the photo-electric submission shouda been thrown out & as auto-timing was faulty & switched off prior to coe's run, nothing acceptable for submission according to iaaf rules of 1/1/81
breaking their own acceptance rules
a travesty
no
what do "national organisations" have to do with iaaf submissions committee ?
this was timing format not acceptable by iaaf rules from start of year
no
cruz certainly wasn't happy that coe's time was accepted after his unquestioned fully auto-timed 1'41.77 in '84
laughable
that "real data" was not acceptable for official submission
learn to think
i have only ever used hypothetical times to get a "real" measure of the value of an athlete in perfect race/conditions/etc, which is 1 of main purposes of an athletics forum
only someone who can't comprehend basic text coud consider those as "facts" even though i stand 100% behind my hypothetical assertions