If you assume she ran the tangent perfectly, and that she moved out by 1.5 meters (I think it was less than that, but not the point, say 1.5 meters), she would have run a total of an extra 4.5 *centimeters* on the straightaway, and at the speed she was running, that would have cost her an extra 0.076 seconds.
4.5 cm in 0.076 seconds - letsrun.
That's 100m in close to 3 minutes.
Sounds plausible to me, it was at the end and she was tired.
Good article on Tsegay, and the writer (Hannah Borenstein ~ does an excellent job with Ethiopian athletes who are limited as far as English) intimates that it might've cost her sub-14: "Having to navigate her way around lapped runners probably cost Tsegay a sub-14-minute finishing time,."
Good article?
There weren't lapped runners - just one. And as now explained several times, this small incident didn't cost Tsegay 22/100. More like 1/100 or 2/100 - or most likely: she profited from it.
Good article on Tsegay, and the writer (Hannah Borenstein ~ does an excellent job with Ethiopian athletes who are limited as far as English) intimates that it might've cost her sub-14: "Having to navigate her way around lapped runners probably cost Tsegay a sub-14-minute finishing time, but she was nevertheless delighted to emerge with her first senior outdoor world record, crossing the line in 14:00.21."
Either way, this record is on borrowed time for multiple Women ~ Kipyegon, Tsegay and possibly Chebet. Haylom certainly down the road may get there, as may Welteji. It might be past Hassan/Gidey for now as they look to the Marathon. It was run with some wind. I don't think the heat was too much of an issue actually, and the pacing was really good (~rarely get to 3K). If it doesn't happen because of championship doubles/triples these women are looking to do certainly in 2026, someone is going to go all out and maybe 13:55 is possible.
Has anyone calculated the effects of doping on her record? I suggest it is in the realm of 25-30secs. Passing a lapped runner did little to change that.
Why do you call it an good article, when it gives such wrong infos?
It's a tiny part of a much larger article, which takes you inside the mindset and backstory of an Ethiopian athlete who speaks limited English and doesn't do a ton of Social Media. So yeah I think it was a good read, even if that one part is arguable.
Why do you call it an good article, when it gives such wrong infos?
It's a tiny part of a much larger article, which takes you inside the mindset and backstory of an Ethiopian athlete who speaks limited English and doesn't do a ton of Social Media. So yeah I think it was a good read, even if that one part is arguable.
The part is not arguable, the part is wrong.
But yes, the full article is OK. But I really don't like it when such wrong infos are given - they are really easy to check.
It's a tiny part of a much larger article, which takes you inside the mindset and backstory of an Ethiopian athlete who speaks limited English and doesn't do a ton of Social Media. So yeah I think it was a good read, even if that one part is arguable.
The part is not arguable, the part is wrong.
But yes, the full article is OK. But I really don't like it when such wrong infos are given - they are really easy to check.
And I think, you have used the "good article" as some sort of evidence, that the point in question indeed must be true (when also stated in this article).
I'm just pointing again on this, because for me, you are one of the very few really good posters on this board - so I'm little bit surprised in this issue.
