Shanon Rowbury should have been DQ'd from the 5000.

Umpire wrote:

I don't particularly care about the NBA. What happened last night on the track was not a foul nor was it any form of cheating.

This board sometimes reduces to a bunch of whiny pansies more interested in finger wagging and teeth sucking than watching the sport.

Which include the guys who run the board btw.

bart wrote:

Was there blood on the track? If not, no foul...

0/10

Here is the rule straight from the USATF rulebook:

3. Each competitor shall run in a direct line after entering the final straightaway in all races

of two or more turns unless there is another competitor in his or her path.

4. Any competitor or participant jostling, running across, or obstructing another competitor

or participant so as to impede his or her progress shall be liable to disqualification in that

event.

I'm glad Shannon was not DQ'd even though it is clear she violated rule #3.

What I don't like is the inconsistency in enforcing the rules and simply relying on 'protests'. I guess the big factor is the ultimately Molly won the race so most, including me, are OK with the no protest.

What if Molly's coach had another athlete in 4 or 5th and filed a protest just to move that athlete up a spot? Sounds like something Al would do in the 'interest of the athlete'.

What happened last night on the track was not a foul nor was it any form of cheating.

Even though the rule book describes exactly what Rowbury did last night. Interesting.

umpire wrote:

Hayduke wrote:

I think all the disagreeing is a generational thing. younger folk are more ready to accept grey area cheating and call it clever or tactical. It reminds me of flopping dispute with lebron james. he was quoted as saying "You're just trying to get the advantage. Any way you can get the advantage over an opponent to help your team win, then so be it." I thought that was ridiculous, but apparently young track fans feel the same way. 20 years ago this wouldn't even be a conversation, everyone would say Rowbury was trying to block Huddle and that it was cheating.

It's not generational. I've been a fan since '70. There was no foul.

Presumably, then, you know who Henryk Szordykowski is and thus what a real foul looks like.

Umpire wrote:

I don't particularly care about the NBA. What happened last night on the track was not a foul nor was it any form of cheating.

This board sometimes reduces to a bunch of whiny pansies more interested in finger wagging and teeth sucking than watching the sport.

You do not know the rules. A runner cannot deviate from their path and impede a competitor unless they have a clear step, whether they are moving in or out. That is the rule. Bumping in traffic is unavoidable, but weaving in and out on the stretch is against the rules, against the spirit of hard, fair competition and just sort of pathetic.

I'll run as hard as I can, and if I can't outrun you, I will let you pass. By your logic, failing to tackle you on the way past makes me a pansy. Weird.

This might relate to Jordan giving Conley a clear inside lane the night before. Shannon might have seen that critically and kind of overdid the maneuvering in order to not give that kind of leeway to Huddle. I've watched her race a hundred times and she is not a dirty racer.

Of course, Huddle comes off of this like a true gem, as she deserves.

Rowbury clearly impeded Huddle the last 70m. She blocked the inside by drifting along the rail after passing Huddle and then when Huddle went wide out to lane two to pass, then Rowbury tried to block her again by pushing her into lane 3.

Roxbury should have been DQ'd and not been given her 2nd place prize money. I bet you if Molly lost she wouldn't have been so gracious and would have protested.

full contact track wrote:

Presumably, then, you know who Henryk Szordykowski is and thus what a real foul looks like.

A man of many elbows.

sgt han wrote:

You do not know the rules.

Was it the last Olympic Trials where Wurth-Thomas went out fast, died in the last 50 meters, and began drifting out into lane three, blocking Rowbury's path and forcing her wide while both were fighting for the third spot on the 1500 team? Had Wurth-Thomas finished third, no doubt Rowbury files a protest. Rowbury used similar tactics last night.

Bugs Malone Bunny wrote:

Was it the last Olympic Trials where Wurth-Thomas went out fast, died in the last 50 meters, and began drifting out into lane three, blocking Rowbury's path and forcing her wide while both were fighting for the third spot on the 1500 team? Had Wurth-Thomas finished third, no doubt Rowbury files a protest. Rowbury used similar tactics last night.

There's a quality precedent.

This is so simple: Rowbury is a cheater. She has no morals. All NOPers are cheaters and all NOPers are dopers.

rojo wrote:

Take a look at the rule book. As stated above, it's very clear.

Been an Umpire wrote:

The rule on this is simple. As stated in the Umpire' s Manual:

"A competitor may run anywhere on the track at any pace or any change of pace as long as the competitor does not impede or obstruct by any body or arm action the progress of another runner. It is a violation if the runner veers to the right or left so as to impede a challenging runner and forces the challenging runner to run a greater distance."

It was definitely a violation.

Yes, the rule is clear. What you're missing is it's the umpire's judgment just what constitutes IMPEDING. Was Rowbury impeding by running in lane 1? Don't think so. But she WAS by running in lane 2? How can you impede a runner you can't see who's behind you? Rowbury did not look to see where Huddle was, if she had I can see the basis for DQ, but again, it's the judgment call of the umpire in any case.

Les wrote:

Yes, the rule is clear. What you're missing is it's the umpire's judgment just what constitutes IMPEDING. Was Rowbury impeding by running in lane 1? Don't think so. But she WAS by running in lane 2? How can you impede a runner you can't see who's behind you? Rowbury did not look to see where Huddle was, if she had I can see the basis for DQ, but again, it's the judgment call of the umpire in any case.

Another thing that's clear is that Rowbury was owned by Huddle.

Les wrote:

rojo wrote:

Take a look at the rule book. As stated above, it's very clear.

Yes, the rule is clear. What you're missing is it's the umpire's judgment just what constitutes IMPEDING. Was Rowbury impeding by running in lane 1? Don't think so. But she WAS by running in lane 2? How can you impede a runner you can't see who's behind you? Rowbury did not look to see where Huddle was, if she had I can see the basis for DQ, but again, it's the judgment call of the umpire in any case.

christ, you're stupid

Note that there's nothing on Huddle's Twit' on this. Nada. It's like she didn't even race. Sometime that says it all.

Rojo, and others.

1-Let us read the actual rules. Rowbury is clear violation of both USATF rules 163.3 AND 163.4. Plz read:

http://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/f1/f101f17f-1b8b-4f1b-ac9c-d9022155aa94.pdf

2-Regardless of what Huddle feels, those two rules are good rules. This cutting-off bullsh*t is getting WAY too common...it is trashy and sleazy. Running should be better than this crap. Sadly, a growing number of young runners seem to think it is acceptable. It is a foot race people...just run in a straight line to the g'dam finish on the homestretch. If someone else gets there first, guess what? You lose! Don't cut them off like a jackal.

3- Here is a GEM. Check out the Portland Track Fest 1500m video (its on flotrack, i think) where Jordan Hasay does THE SAME EXACT CUTTING-OFF nonsense to Anne Kesselring on final straight. IMHO (been watching races for 40 years now) Kesselring would very likely have overtaken Hasay if she did not have to break stride once and change direction on final straight to get around Hasay's bullsh*t cut-off tactic (who taught this nice girl that b.s. tactic anyway?).

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152503205469445&set=a.432324889444.208177.40233564444&type=1

Centro Sauce wrote:

This is so simple: Rowbury is a cheater. She has no morals. All NOPers are cheaters and all NOPers are dopers.

Hey everybody, repeat after CS "I'm a troll, I'm a troll, I'm a troll"

Typical LRC move - no facts, character assignation and non-stop ad hominem attacks on anyone who expresses a reasonable point of view. Especially (and almost exclusively) if they utter a word that could be construed as supporting a NOP athlete.

Just two recent examples of the hypocrites:

Accuse Cain of ducking competition, but DAG scratches and it's completely understandable b/c she's tired.

Berate Rupp for sit & kick, but claim Lagat is a master tactician for same exact racing style.

And for the mindless imbeciles that continuously repeat their twisted mantras, either get some evidences or shut up already.