Just saw. What happened? Brutal. Was pulling for him and he ran great.
My wife and I were watching and before the gun goes off, you can see him pick up his back foot and put it back down in a nervous manner before they fire the gun but after they said set… I found it odd they didn’t fire the double gun right there and let us watch the rest of that race. That’s just what we saw.. idk maybe it was something else altogether.
Mu cut off another runner causing her self to get tripped and fall. No one else is to blame except Mu. So why would an appeal make any sense ? Holt stepped over the line 5 seconds into a 1:45 race and gained zero advantage.
I ran the 800 many moons ago. I've run an 800 track race or two for fun since. I think starting in lanes in a 9 person field is pretty ridiculous. (Also the runner in lane 1 has an unfair advantage because of the rail on the inside and the runner in lane 9 has an unfair disadvantage because of the rail of the outside; it's natural for us to run a little further out from what we perceive as danger. A curb is dangerous, a railing looks just like a curb, so inside lane runners subconsciously drift a step or two towards the outside and outside lane runners drift a step or two towards the inside). I think alley starts where the lanes 5-8 break to lane to lane 5 and lanes 1-4 break to lane 1 then merge at 110 meters would be fairer and safer.
As to why this happened, it's because whomever was next on the time qualifier list appealed (or more likely their coach appealed). It looks to be Tinoda Matsatsa from Georgetown.
And here's where I think we get this thing wrong: Matsatsa wasn't even in the heat race with Holt. The coaches of the people in the heat race with Holt said "yeah, it didn't make a difference," and chose not to appeal. But when you're in another heat, you can appeal if you just miss a time qualification. I think that's bonkers, and that appeals should be restricted to people in the same heat.
Running in lane 1 is not a disadvantage as the distance is measured 30 cm (about 12") outward from the curb. The distance for the other lanes is measured 20 cm (about 8") outward from the outer edge of the line.
The argument that Holt should be reinstated because there was no advantage gained is pretty weak. How busy would a Jury of Appeals be if they had to decide on every foul, infraction, etc., if the athlete had gained an advantage?
But isn’t that the whole point of giving someone a a DQ, foul, etc is because they gained an advantage?
Yes. But the rules are intended to lay out clear criteria so that DQs don't have to be determined case by case in the eyes of fickle observers.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
I would be happy to see Holt added as a 10th, but not indignant if the DQ stands, as it appears it will.
So, did he run a few steps in the inside lane before the break or in the outside lane?
If it was a couple of steps on an inside lane, I still really don’t like the call, but I get it. By stepping in the inside lane he ran less distance than he should have, so even though it might be extremely negligible (a few centimeters?), I’m not sure you can say he gained no advantage. But, if he somehow ran to the outside of his lane and did not impede the guy to his outside, then I think the DQ is completely unwarranted and should be reversed.
I’m pointing out the difference. When a black woman with an adverse outcome in the 800 filed an appeal, the majority was against her and told her to quit complaining. When a white man with an adverse outcome in the 800 filed an appeal, the majority was on his side and complaining on his behalf. People were sticklers for the rules when they pertained to a black woman, but now they want to bend the rules in favor of a white man.
I’m a liberal and you are the reason we are being made so much fun of these days. What an absolutely ridiculous take on this.
This isn’t about politics. This is about fairness and consistent application of the rules. No special treatment for anyone.
Mu cut off another runner causing her self to get tripped and fall. No one else is to blame except Mu. So why would an appeal make any sense ? Holt stepped over the line 5 seconds into a 1:45 race and gained zero advantage.
They are both suffering the consequences of their own mistakes. As they should. No special treatment for anyone.
Like, Comment, & SUBSCRIBE to @DrSethJenny to not miss any 2024 U.S. Olympic T&F Trials content:https://youtube.com/@drsethjennyVideos PLAYLIST from 2024 U.S...
So, did he run a few steps in the inside lane before the break or in the outside lane?
If it was a couple of steps on an inside lane, I still really don’t like the call, but I get it. By stepping in the inside lane he ran less distance than he should have, so even though it might be extremely negligible (a few centimeters?), I’m not sure you can say he gained no advantage. But, if he somehow ran to the outside of his lane and did not impede the guy to his outside, then I think the DQ is completely unwarranted and should be reversed.
It's been mentioned a couple of times that he ran inside his lane...footstrike in lane 8 at least twice on the first bend.
This was the easiest of DQs since it was spotted immediately by the official and could be confirmed by video review.
Thanks for the answer. Sorry to follow up, but I’m genuinely curious and want to be sure. Are you saying that his assigned lane was #8, but that he took 2-3 steps in lane 9, and that is why he was DQ’d?
If so, that DQ is ridiculous and an utter travesty… probably the worst I’ve ever seen. Unbelievable, really.
The argument that Holt should be reinstated because there was no advantage gained is pretty weak. How busy would a Jury of Appeals be if they had to decide on every foul, infraction, etc., if the athlete had gained an advantage?
Nope! In 163.5, the USATF rules list five times a runner can run out of his lane without being DQ'ed. The rules explicitly say these only apply if the runner hasn't been advanaged. (I will leave it to others to decide which, if any, of these apply to Holt.)
163.5: Unless a material advantage has been gained...a competitor shall not be disqualified if he or she: (a) Is pushed or forced by another competitor or object to step out of the lane, or (b) Steps, runs or makes contact out of the lane on the straightaway, or (c) Steps or runs outside of the outer lane line on the curve, or on any straight part of the diversion from the track for the steeplechase water jump; or (d) In all races run in lanes, touches once the line on their left or the curb or line marking the applicable inside border on a bend, or (e) In all races (or any part of races) not run in lanes, steps once on or completely over the curb or line marking the applicable inside border on a bend.
Thanks for the clarification. Still a major bummer… like the Super Bowl being determined by an offsides penalty (at least for Holt), but once the red flag went up, it was done. Feel really bad for him, but hopefully he is able to use it for good (as some have suggested).
He was in the outside lane, lane 9. Stepping on the line to his right would not result in a DQ unless he impeded another runner (not possible in outside lane). The ruled he stepped on the line to his left at least two times.
If you look at the video in post #24, at time stamp 11:40, you can see an official clearly looking down the line at Holt. Then at time stamp 11:52, you can see the official in the background seemingly discussing something with (I assume) an official off camera.
Thanks for the answer. Sorry to follow up, but I’m genuinely curious and want to be sure. Are you saying that his assigned lane was #8, but that he took 2-3 steps in lane 9, and that is why he was DQ’d?
If so, that DQ is ridiculous and an utter travesty… probably the worst I’ve ever seen. Unbelievable, really.
He was assigned lane 9 and took several steps in lane 8 on the opening turn. Appropriate DQ
I know there’s a history in this country of white men going into any territory that doesn’t belong to them and claiming it as theirs because of some “manifest destiny” nonsense, but you can’t do that in track. The lanes are there for a reason. People need to stay in their lane.
I understand the DQ now, even though I would be perfectly ok if it didn’t happen. I’m not sure I understand the race angle that you think applies.
IMO, if Mu were DQ’d in this way, there would have been a much greater outcry that the official must have been a racist to DQ her for that minor infraction. I bet had the roles been reversed, she would not have been DQ’d, which is practically the opposite of the point you’re trying to make.