Either the timing, the track, or both are bogus in London

To clear some things up:

1. I never suggested that the track was too short.

2. I acknowledged that the track technology might be the answer.

Also:

80 degrees is undeniably better for sprinting than is 70 degrees.

Timing needs to be calibrated. Saying something like it is "computerized" is laughably simplistic.

Regarding the wind, the most important thing is not the actual wind, but the actual wind relative to what the gauge reads. Does the wind gauge accurately reflect the wind on the track? I know it's placed properly, but does it function appropriately in the setting?

The other timings that I have questioned are a meet in Rieti, a meet in Eugene, and a meet in Clermont, and now possibly the 19.26 meet.

Oh, and if the answer was reducible to doping, then a huge percentage of the athletes would have to be doped, more than they have been before, and I don't think that is the case (although I don't know, of course).

It sucks, of course, that they will be tearing up the track, because we won't be able to see how any future performances pan out. How convenient. I guess we'll have to wait until another such sub-surface is installed elsewhere, where it can persist for at least a decade.

And no, I don't trust anybody, least of all anybody associated with event and sports administration and promotion.

This is all shades of the 1991 World Championships, complete with the imminent removal of the evidence.

Mrrr82 wrote:

Please read the thread before commenting. That way you would know I already corrected another fellow who thought like you.

Yes and you were wrong that time too. Having lived in the UK for several decades I should know.

The track is simply loaded for sprinting. Michael Johnson would have run 19.0x on this track in his prime. It's very harsh for distance running hence the reluctance of the runners to push on the pace.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Um--

Planning is different from actual delivery.

Again, I don't know if these numbers are unusual. Yes, I "should" find out if they are, but I have neither infinite time nor infinite knowledge.

I was hoping somebody else more knowledgeable would chime in with historical specifics.

The Olympics are the biggest sporting event on earth, taking many years of planning and billions of dollars to execute. I imagine the London 2012 organisers cut corners and ordered a 400 yard track off eBay instead of a 400 meter track. Either that, or you don't know what the fvck you are talking about.

Mrrr82 wrote:

Andy L wrote:

Yes and you were wrong that time too. Having lived in the UK for several decades I should know.

What exactly is wrong about saying track distance races are measured in meters?

Oh, wait....you still haven't read the thread. I tried to warn you.

You are a buffoon and about as funny as toothache.

and it's 'metres', 'meters' are a tool for measuring distances and such, not a unit.

'This is all shades of the 1991 World Championships, complete with the imminent removal of the evidence.'

Evidence of what?

Its a fast track same as recent world Olympic Championships. It was warm enough for sprinting, take a look at the marathon times

To rule out doping is idiocy.

So wait, you're saying that... when people really need to run their best, in a national championship (ie: Eugene) or on the world stage (London) that people tend to run faster..? NO WAY!! I didn't know that was true. Thank you for telling me this. Just as Eugene's track is bogus, right? And it has nothing to do with the fact that it's one of the best, well-maintained tracks in the world and that there is usually a tailwind on the back stretch? London weather luckily cooperated with the events that were being run at the time and that the track was recently completed and new. But that has nothing to do with it, of course. I'm sure the Olympic track was short, and it was a conspiracy by the IOC and IAAF to produce faster times to make track look mor glamorous. Bolt only ran 99 meters in his 100.

It has been between 70 and 80 in London all week. Hardly cold.

drt

mondo has said this is their fastest track, if anyone actually watched the olympic games...

http://www.vincosport.com/news/258-mondo-tracks-london-olympics-and-fast-times/

"Ignorant Buffoon":

Good moniker.

The Eugene meet was not a national championship, it was the 2011 Prefontaine.

Why would you assume something nobody ever suggested about the Eugene track being bogus? The track is fine, it was the timing that was bogus.

WTF does the wind on the "back stretch" in Eugene have to do with 100m times? Absolutely nothing.

And one last time, I never suggested that the London track was actually short.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

And one last time, I never suggested that the London track was actually short.

But you did suggest it was bogus.

What other kind of (non-short) bogus did you have in mind? Anything that would violate the IAAF specifications?

80 better than 70???? Hmmm!!!

Sprintgeezer, are you actually reading/believing what you wrote?

Exactly what about the track could potentially be "bogus"? If not for the technology, it's the distance. A track that was certified by the IAAF suddenly is "bogus"?

I would love to hear more about your conspiracy theory about the timing... Specifically, why don't you then inform us about your extensive knowledge about calibration of track timing? I'm guessing you have no damn clue.

If you did, you wouldn't even bother questioning it, since the potential for an error of the significance that you're suggesting is completely insane and ridiculous. We're not talking about breaking a record by a thousandth of a second, we're talking about complete beatdowns of records.

The thought that two (plus) independent systems could possibly be off kilter by the margin you're insinuating demonstrates a complete lack of credibility on your part.

(and for the record, you're putting way too much creedence into the idea of warm temperatures producing fast times. Practically every Diamond League meet is run in the evening.)

Time to move on from this thread and talk more about doping, at least with that, someone would actually be right about their accusation.

Andy L wrote:

The track is simply loaded for sprinting. Michael Johnson would have run 19.0x on this track in his prime. It's very harsh for distance running hence the reluctance of the runners to push on the pace.

You are either thick as a plank or have very selective memory.

I would point out that the great Gebrselassie himself complained that the Atlanta track was so hard that being custom made for the sprinters (Johnson) it blistered and hurt his feet so much running the 10,000, he had the drop out of the 5000 and lost an almost certain gold medal.

Farah doesn’t seem to have experienced any similar problems with the London track.

Bolts fastest times came, not from running on the London track, but the track at Berlin.

I suppose they conspired to fix the sprint times also.

Enoch wrote:

Andy L wrote:

The track is simply loaded for sprinting. Michael Johnson would have run 19.0x on this track in his prime. It's very harsh for distance running hence the reluctance of the runners to push on the pace.

You are either thick as a plank or have very selective memory.

I would point out that the great Gebrselassie himself complained that the Atlanta track was so hard that being custom made for the sprinters (Johnson) it blistered and hurt his feet so much running the 10,000, he had the drop out of the 5000 and lost an almost certain gold medal.

Farah doesn’t seem to have experienced any similar problems with the London track.

Bolts fastest times came, not from running on the London track, but the track at Berlin.

I suppose they conspired to fix the sprint times also.

The tracks have completely changed in the last 6 years. You obviously don't know that because you spend your time opening posts with insults rather than checking facts. The Berlin track was relaid just prior to those championships on similar specs to London. The reason he ran his fastest times there and not in London is because he's not as fit as he was in Berlin. The fact he still won streets ahead of the second fastest sprinter ever on paper is just further evidence that tracks are now so loaded. Blake is probably a 9.9 / 19.9 man at best on 1990s tracks.

You rancid dog's c0ck.

So Gebrselassie doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

Have I got this right?

Michael Johnson could have run under 19 on the London track?

Andy L wrote:

Yes and you were wrong that time too. Having lived in the UK for several decades I should know.

Mrrr82 wrote:

What exactly is wrong about saying track distance races are measured in meters?

Oh, wait....you still haven\'t read the thread. I tried to warn you.

Andy L wrote:

You are a buffoon and about as funny as toothache.

and it\'s \'metres\', \'meters\' are a tool for measuring distances and such, not a unit.

Resorting to insults obviously means you acquiesce. You\'re taking quite a beating on this thread, my friend.

I know this is in the realm of super engineering but is it possible that the stadium was built with a way to control track level wind?

I took a quick look at the wind readings for every sprint race 100-200 including heats, hurdles and multis. Out of 87 sprint races there were only 21 negative winds (maybe half of those were -0.1 to -0.3). And there was only one sprint race with an illegally strong wind!! There was only one session of the whole meet that consistently had the sprinters running into a headwind (M 200m semi, W 200m final, M 110H final).

Both the 100 finals for men and women had +1.5m/s readings, which if I remember correctly is stronger than the wind Bolt had for his WR in Berlin and stronger than the 0.0 that was read for Flojo's record, which has been disputed.

Combined with a hard surface and good temperatures I think consistent tailwind is enough to explain the good sprint times.

As for the relays, the theory is that a tailwind on one side of the track would be cancelled by a headwind on the other side. Hence, no wind readings are taken for races over 200m. But wouldn't a cyclone wind be possible? Essentially pushing the sprinter around the track? Unfortunately, the only field event going on during the relay was the pole vault. I know they give the vaulters the wind reading but they don't put it in the results. We'd have to look at the video for evidence of favorable winds during the relays.