No world record for Almaz Ayana because of missing curb

Duralumin wrote:

Duralumin, not aluminium. Duralumin is ... aluminium ...

Sure thing, chap.

2 comments

# 1 Record will be approved. Yes rules are rules but also common sense is common sense

# 2 Little known fact to many, but the stagger for lane # 1 is less than the staggers for lanes 2-8, recognizing that runners avoid that rail more than all others avoid the white lines.

But even though #2 proves the reason for the rule, my assertion in # 1 ( common sense ) will still prevail. This is a 10 k with no rail for a small part of the race, she smashed the record to smithereens, and she was not blasting around a turn in the pole lane in a 400 or 200.

Forget it all of you... it's a richly earned World Record ! Stop being not-needed spoilers.

I'm pretty new at running. I've always wondered why there is a kerb. Looks like a way to snap an ankle.

Why is there a kerb anyway?

trailrunner73 wrote:

Forget it all of you... it's a richly earned World Record ! Stop being not-needed spoilers.

A lot of people on LRC MB seem to worship records. If you start ignoring the rules willy-nilly, then your precious records won't really mean squat. There is no "close enough" when it comes to track measurements and equipment specifications.

YOU forget about this, and stay on the trails where records and measurements do not matter.

trailrunner73 wrote:

2 comments

# 1 Record will be approved. Yes rules are rules but also common sense is common sense

# 2 Little known fact to many, but the stagger for lane # 1 is less than the staggers for lanes 2-8, recognizing that runners avoid that rail more than all others avoid the white lines.

But even though #2 proves the reason for the rule, my assertion in # 1 ( common sense ) will still prevail. This is a 10 k with no rail for a small part of the race, she smashed the record to smithereens, and she was not blasting around a turn in the pole lane in a 400 or 200.

Forget it all of you... it's a richly earned World Record ! Stop being not-needed spoilers.

The first lane 400m stagger isn't any shorter than the other lanes, it's always right on the common start line. If you measured the distance right at the curb it would be slightly shorter than the inside of the other lanes, but this isn't where the 400m distance is measured from. The white lane lines are always 20cm inside the measurement line, while if there's a curb in lane 1 it would be 30cm inside the measurement line since a leaning runner needs to clear the height of the curb plus an extra safety margin.

This can cause issues on a track that was designed with a curb but where the curb is buried in storage somewhere or they just don't bother setting it up. In this case the inside line would be 10 cm inside of where is should otherwise be, and the overall track length would effectively be about 2/3 of a meter short. 400m runners on such a track would also have an advantage if they are in lane 1.

I'm afraid I have to defend trailrunner73 on #2. He is referring to the distance from the lane 1 start line to the lane 2 start line (for the 400 or the 200). On a track measured for having a curb, this distance is less than the distance from the lane 2 start line to the lane 3 start line, and all the other such differentials all the way out to lane 7 to lane 8. You can see it on aerial photos. You can see it from the stands. On a lot of high school tracks never intended to have a curb, those staggers are the same, even from lane 1 to lane 2 start lines.

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.

You are so wrong it is not even worth dealing with this nonsense.

The track could be considered outside the track compliance requirements which is all that is necessary to have the WR not ratified. Nothing more or nothing less.

It may still be ratified but this is the issue.

So I looked up the IAAF track measurements and the stagger is indeed shorter from lane 1 to lane 2, for a standard track it's 7.038m vs 7.666m for the other lanes. Same thing for 200m.

Seems like they're making all the other lanes longer though, rather than making lane 1 any shorter - it still starts and ends at the common start/finish line. Maybe they assume the runners cut the lanes a bit in the shorter races, but they're going to fast for the officials to see every minor violation?

The rule needs to be changed because in major track and field competitions the curb is removed, and if flags or cones were there it would impede the run-up in certain field events (javelin, high jump). The rule is impractical and all they need to do is have officials watching the curb, or review the video.

Desperate high school coaches may need this rule, but international caliber competition does not.

Fogrunr wrote:

The rule needs to be changed because in major track and field competitions the curb is removed, and if flags or cones were there it would impede the run-up in certain field events (javelin, high jump). The rule is impractical and all they need to do is have officials watching the curb, or review the video.

Desperate high school coaches may need this rule, but international caliber competition does not.

The cones should have been placed in between jumps.

Kerby wrote:

So I looked up the IAAF track measurements and the stagger is indeed shorter from lane 1 to lane 2, for a standard track it's 7.038m vs 7.666m for the other lanes. Same thing for 200m.

This is actually a simple function of a diameter issue. Measuring 400m in lane 1 occurs at a different diameter with a curb (kerb/kurb/cerb or any other spelling) than without. (.3m v .2m)

And actually, it's a stagger from Lane 2 to Lanes 3-9 that changes. (Lane 1 has no stagger)

So the Athlete must suffer because the IOC doesn't know the kerb rules? Or the Athlete suffers because the IAAF won't ratify a fairly earned WR because the IOC doesn't know the kerb rules?

$hity deal for her if not ratified. The IOC is running the meet. Maybe sanction them for their incompetence but ratify the record for goodness sakes.

I can't believe people here are supporting rule breakers. It's the same as saying "Well she only doped a little bit, and everybody does it".

The runner is never in charge of kerbs either properly or improperly placed. I don't believe I'm supporting a rule breaking runner since there is no evidence to support the accusation she broke any rules during the 10,000 finals.

Perhaps the entire field should be dq'ed because they raced on an Olympic track during finals and not all of the kerbs were properly placed. Shouldn't the runners have noticed that the rails weren't in compliance? I mean it's wasn't their first rodeo was it. So then why didn't the runners point out the mistake to the proper officials?

Why should only a record be dq'ed because of kerbs? If the rule is that "Carved In Stone" important then dq the field and retrieve the awarded medals and re-run the finals.

It's not the runners fault. wrote:

So the Athlete must suffer because the IOC doesn't know the kerb rules? Or the Athlete suffers because the IAAF won't ratify a fairly earned WR because the IOC doesn't know the kerb rules?

$hity deal for her if not ratified. The IOC is running the meet. Maybe sanction them for their incompetence but ratify the record for goodness sakes.

You ought to look up the case of Phil Shinnick, He jumped 27-4 at the 1963 Modesto Relays, which would have been a WR, but it wasn't ratified because the officials failed to have a wind gauge on the jump.

Some people who were there swear it was windy, and others who were there swear it was nearly calm, including one John Chaplin. In the end, it didn't make any difference; it had to be denied because there was no wind gauge. Not Shinnick's fault, of course.

But there you go. If the facility doesn't pass muster, there is not supposed to be a ratification of a record. And forget that blabber about looking at video--this is not about whether Ayana cut the course or whether she stepped on the inner stripe--it's about how far out she ran from the stripe due to no scary trip-inducing curb (or cones) being in place.

Phil Shinnick's story:

ThinkAgain... wrote:

Overstating the length... wrote:

Besides the fact the track is only 383 meters

Tell me how fast the 400m runners ran so far!

Which one? Wayne van Niekirk?