No, lost all respect for Tarmoh

I agree, Felix waiting until she had her 200M spot and then giving up her share of the 3rd 100M spot was how it should have been. Lame of Felix for sure.

Why the hell are you people so butt hurt that Tamroh wont do a run-off?

This makes no sense, this is like whining about a non-athlete being at a track meet.

None of you will ever become anything worth a damn at what you now, much less anywhere near the world class level at the olympics on the woman side, as a man much less.

How does losing a run off for third place for the Olympics become humiliating? Humiliating is ducking the challenge and never really knowing how you would do. Actually, I feel sorry for Tarmoh's bad choice. Which would be easier to live with, running the race and losing, or choosing not to run and for the rest of your life not knowing?

jeremyqr wrote:

it would've just been humiliating to Tarmoh. She doesn't deserve that.

Nawtyxes wrote:

Why the fluck do you race then? Never seen such an open act of cowardice

She seems to display a propensity for cowardice. I was just watching CNN and they announced that they were about to interview her after a commercial break. Well after the break, they announced that she pulled out of the interview 60 seconds prior. Guess she had no real answer to the obvious question they were going to ask her.... because there really is no excuse.

Conundrum wrote:

Fair is irrelevant. Fair or not I would fight tooth and nail for my spot.

I would expect any competitor to do the same.

Now do you get it?

So, if you were a 110 hurdlers, and you were told before the race the hurdles would be irregularly spaced to advantage taller runners, you would run it?

Sagarin wrote:

an argument can be made that Felix actually FINISHED third as her full torso probably came across first.

Part of the problem with all of the crappy threads on this is that nobody here knows a thing about the actual rules.

The FINISH is BREAKING THE PLANE of the finish line with the torso. GOT IT?

You could run 99.5 m, do the hokey f#cking pokey, stick your chest over the line, never step over, and that's a finish.

Unbelievable, you people.

runSONrun wrote:

If I pulled strings at Nike she'd be off my roster.

That so?

If you pulled strings at Nike, your employer just finished paying her off to quit. So no, she's be on your roster.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

That so?

If you pulled strings at Nike, your employer just finished paying her off to quit. So no, she's be on your roster.

Any proof?

pjb wrote:

No, you're still mistaken about how the camera works. The entire photo is the finish line smeared out through time. The camera is capturing only a sliver of the front portion of the white finish line. Each frame is essentially only one pixel wide and they are stacked next to each other to make the picture. The further you appear to the left in that picture, the earlier you crossed the line.

This also gives rise to the distortions you see in the photo, such as Felix's water-ski-sized foot, which was caused by her stepping on the line.

According to the rules, it's "the moment at which any part of the competitor's body (i.e., the "torso," as distinguished from the head, neck, arms, hands, legs, or feet) reaches the perpendicular plane of the nearer edge of the finish line."

Ok, so if the finish line is smeared out over time and only captures a minuscule part of the front portion of the finish line, then I don't see how anyone can make a distinction as to who's torso hit that front edge first. It's an extrapolation.

The referee was probably correct in checking himself and kicking it to the USATF. The USATF botched it. However, a run-off over 100m is a perfectly plausible solution. Heck, Tarmoh shouldn't have run the 200m, where she had absolutely no chance of making the team, and rested for the run-off.

Moreover, if you don't want a run-off, flipping a coin is ludicrous. Why not just go based on reaction time? Whoever reacted slower (Felix) ran a slightly faster pace over the entire distance. Go with the person who ran faster, not including reaction time, even as I know the start IS part of the race. If they reacted the same out of the blocks, Felix beats her.

Either way, the USATF screwed up, but Tarmoh has no one to blame but herself. And now she is smearing Felix in the press? Maybe she should take it up with the finish line judge.

Ah, I see nobody has risen to the occasion and stated a cause of action. Exactly.

Again, there are certainly details about this incident of which none of us are aware, yet. Based on just the observable facts, Tardmoh is a complete idiot.

Like I said, I would have denied her any spot on the Olympic team before she withdrew, in any event(s), based on her own comments. It was somewhat predictable that she would withdraw. It is likewise somewhat predictable that she will withdraw from also the 4x100m team, if she is named to it.

Her quote reproduced on the letsrun homepage is essentially incomprehensible, with her inconsistent use of verb tenses. She feels slighted and unfairly disriminated against? Fine, then she should have filed an appeal within the appropriate window of time, which is something she failed to do.

She could have filed an appeal, and also done something like a run-off, with the results of the run-off being provisional and non-binding, pending the outcome of the appeal.

I think she has vastly sub-standard intelligence. If that is the case, then we really can't fault her for making bad, or unfortunate, decisions--but we CAN fault those around her, who are supposed to be looking out for her interests. I'm not saying that she is so deficient as to be of legally diminished capacity (although that could certainly be the case), I'm saying that she is sufficiently deficient that those close to her should be looking out for her.

And maybe they are, and this was just their way of doing it. Again, we don't know all the details. Given that I think she's one brick short of a load, I hope she's not being unfairly taken advantage of.

* whose

I felt sorry for Tarmoh initially but not any more. Nonetheless, I can't believe the USATF didn't have a tie-breaking rule in place for a FINAL and that they dithered around so long.

Sagarin wrote:

According to the rules, it's "the moment at which any part of the competitor's body (i.e., the "torso," as distinguished from the head, neck, arms, hands, legs, or feet) reaches the perpendicular plane of the nearer edge of the finish line."

Ok, so if the finish line is smeared out over time and only captures a minuscule part of the front portion of the finish line, then I don't see how anyone can make a distinction as to who's torso hit that front edge first. It's an extrapolation.

The referee was probably correct in checking himself and kicking it to the USATF. The USATF botched it...

It's not an extrapolation if the camera was aligned properly. The camera is aimed at the nearest edge which the rules refer to. You can't break the plane without appearing on the finish photo. Each vertical column of pixels on the photo is associated with an elapsed time. If your torso appears on the photo at an earlier column (further to the left in this particular photo), you get a faster time. The line drawn on the photo is just a cursor to compare the torso positions.

Roger Jennings' initial call was based on an extrapolation of the position of Tarmoh's right shoulder, which is obscured by her head. He has consistently stated that it was his educated guess. However USATF wanted to go by visual evidence only, and called a dead heat. I think this was the right call. All of the bungling of the situation happened both before and after the actual call.

Sagarin wrote:

Why not just go based on reaction time? Whoever reacted slower (Felix) ran a slightly faster pace over the entire distance.

Stupidest sh!t I've heard yet on this.

Why not just go based on time to 99m? Whoever got there slower ran a slightly faster pace over the entire distance.

Why not go on 11.97 to 84.38 meters?

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

The 10 is his better event of the two; if anything, his best success has been in the half and full marathon distance.

You lost me right here when you demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

this is some dumb s****

if the run off was to be non binding as you state - why do it then?

Whaaat? wrote:

I was just watching CNN and they announced that they were about to interview her after a commercial break. Well after the break, they announced that she pulled out of the interview 60 seconds prior.

Agreed this was brutal.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

The 10 is his better event of the two; if anything, his best success has been in the half and full marathon distance.

try again wrote:

You lost me right here when you demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

You obviously missed the point. Read again. More slowly.

It would only be non-binding pending the outcome of the appeal. If the appeal was lost, then the run-off results would be binding.

Nothing to lose--if you lose the run-off, it does not affect the appeal...and if you win the run-off, the appeal is rendered moot and you are in.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

You obviously missed the point. Read again. More slowly.

OK, I read it again. It is the same the second time. You still don't know what you're talking about.