No world record for Almaz Ayana because of missing curb

Let's hope so. Replace the 10,000m with 12k or 16k cross country. Maybe a half marathon.

The track 10k takes up too much time in the stadium.

A cross-country race could end in the stadium like the marathon does.

Monkeys typing wrote:

smile wrote:

Nope.

Not sure what you think that picture proves either. I already know cones were eventually placed and stated as much. The point is that for 15 laps there were no cones, and for the next 2 laps, cones only partially covered the removed curb, which is against the rules.

The photo shows Huddle with Ayana so it was clearly taken before lap 15.

It looks like the very start where the cones are set up for the break. The Kenyan "woman" took the lead very early so it can't be even a lap in.

Smile - the rule does not apply on the apron of a major championship. See 160.1b) exceptional circumstances. You should read the fine print next time

Track 10k ... we knew you well wrote:

The track 10k takes up too much time in the stadium.

A cross-country race could end in the stadium like the marathon does.

Except there ussually isnt much xc by the stadium, I say keep the 10k on the track and add 8k xc to the first weekend, make it real challenging with tonnes of hills something between typical xc and mountain running.

Another scoop for you Smile......income tax is constitutionally illegal. Go get 'em!

Starkman wrote:

Smile - the rule does not apply on the apron of a major championship. See 160.1b) exceptional circumstances. You should read the fine print next time

There is no Rule 160.1b) in the IAAF Competition Rules 2016-2017, in force from November 1, 2015. Ditto the USATF 2016 Competition Rules. There are no "a" or "b" rules under Rule 160 in either rule book. So shut up.

I don't know what you're looking at, maybe the elementary school rules.

The race was against the rules but the rules also say that two top IAAF officials get to judge the rules, one of whom presumably is Coe who doesn't give an F about the rules given his enduring love for obvious dopers. If he can let dopers get away with doping he can let a race get away with not having cones.

Am I the only one bothered by the word "kerb"?

The purpose of the rule has to do with track measurement. It's present so that runners have a clear indication of what the inside line is and won't inadvertently cut the course short. Having the flags/cones not present for a portion of the course doesn't take away from the measurement of the course, unless someone steps on the line. Now considering that this is the Olympics and there are multiple camera locations with multiple angles of the entire race, if Ayana had cut the course at some point, someone would have protested and she would have been DQ'd by now. The fact that they don't require the "kerb" on the straightaways shows that it isn't some technical deficiency in the course, it's for the benefit of the runner.

The record will stand.

rojo wrote:

That is terrible wrote:

This was the greatest women's 10000 meter race in all of history.

What a shame the record won't count.

Field event athletes should never be allowed on the track during running events.

The inconsiderate athletes and officials who allowed this to happen need to be held completely responsible.

Of course the record will count. Do you know how much extra ground she ran by lapping people? Way more than that curb not being there during the the first 6k.

Common sense says she ran way more than 10k since she lapped people. The curb not being there is way less of an advantage than her having to run on the outsdie of lane 1 once she started lapping people.

That's not how it works.

They don't factor lapping people as a counter balance.

you can run outside of the stadium for 24 laps but if you run a significant portion inside the line, it wouldn't count as a record.

Cmon dude wrote:

GJK wrote:

You guys must be new at track.

This happens at every major championship during the distance events. The kerb is always removed (I have done it tons in the past as a volunteer!) for the participants of the infield events.

C'mon, dude!

It is curb, not kerb. Got it? Curb, not kerb.

We use English here. You should, too. For example, when giving a soccer score we say, " One to nothing. " We do not say, "One to nil." If someone from somewhere else wants to say nil, let 'em. We say zero. Also, we say soccer, not futbol or whatever they call it, that is if we talk about it at all.

Just a quick review:

Curb

Zero

Soccer

I love this post!

you walked into this one wrote:

Am I the only one bothered by the word "kerb"?

Linguistic variation by nationality.

you walked into this one wrote:

Am I the only one bothered by the word "kerb"?

Yes. It's the British spelling, and that's why it's spelled "kerb" in the IAAF rules. Same thing as "curb" in the U.S.

For you youngsters, until the 1970s, most tracks had concrete curbs inside Lane 1, and tracks were not synthetic. When old tracks became synthetic surfaces, the concrete curbs remained, and some still remained past 2010 at Div. I power conference facilities, and probably to this day. This new doo-jiggy with a small aluminum rectangular tubing that you see on most top-level tracks now is indeed more like a "rail" than a "curb," but now you know why the rules call it a curb.

We Brits even have different ways of pronouncing kerb and curb. But Americans wouldn't pick up on the subtlety.

Kerbs are made of aluminium

Curbs are made of aluminum

The proper world spelling is aluminium. American misspelled it, like they did kerb, and so many other words, and refuse to acknowledge these language gaffes.

Duralumin, not aluminium. Duralumin is an aluminium alloy that is much stronger than pure aluminium.

RunnrsRUs wrote:

The purpose of the rule has to do with track measurement. It's present so that runners have a clear indication of what the inside line is and won't inadvertently cut the course short. Having the flags/cones not present for a portion of the course doesn't take away from the measurement of the course, unless someone steps on the line. Now considering that this is the Olympics and there are multiple camera locations with multiple angles of the entire race, if Ayana had cut the course at some point, someone would have protested and she would have been DQ'd by now. The fact that they don't require the "kerb" on the straightaways shows that it isn't some technical deficiency in the course, it's for the benefit of the runner.

The record will stand.

I don't think that's correct. My understanding is that tracks that are made to be used with a kerb are actually smaller in lane 1. Without a kerb, runners cut closer to the line and run less distance.

Correct. You've been around the track, too.

And for you dweebs who think the record should be ratified because the winner had to run around some lapped runners, or because there might possibly be enough video camera angles to prove she didn't step on the inner line, that's not how the rules work.

1. Salazar's "WR" at NYC Marathon was found to be on a course that was short. Even if he had run back and forth to the water station a lot and around the tables to make up the distance, that wouldn't have made the record a legal WR.

2. It's not enough to think you can prove she didn't step on the inner line. The measurement of the track itself is based upon an assumption that runners won't run quite as close to a curb/kerb/rail as they will to a stripe. If there is only a stripe, as was the case in the Rio w5000, then the runner might have moved in a little closer to the inside in the portion of the curve. Now, how are you going to determine her average distance from the stripe? Impractical to measure accurately, so that's why tracks are measured the way they are and curbs are built the way they are.

But I agree that the IAAF probably will ignore their own rules.