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

Shannon Rowbury has a hot little body on her.

okayy wrote:

Shannon Rowbury has a hot little body on her.

Agreed. If she cut in front of me, I wouldn't hesitate to make contact from behind.

Umpire wrote:

sgt han wrote:

You do not know the rules.

First rational reply you've made.

The swing back to the outside was a bad move. She should have been DQ'd. Very clear from the video.

Doesn't make her a bad person or anything. She was in the heat of the moment and I assume she wasn't clearly thinking "I need to block Huddle."

TrackFan19 wrote:

Rowbury should have been DQ'd and not been given her 2nd place prize money.

I agree with this and have been feeling the same way.

It sets a bad precedent to not DQ those who impede other runners.

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.

That's clear, thank you.

Note, there's nothing there about blood needing to be on the track.

It was definitely a violation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't beat them, make them break their stride.

Stop the nonsense! Lose with honor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't beat them, make them break their stride.

Stop the nonsense! Lose with honor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/quote]

Sit and kick was bad enough.

Sit, kick and block is much worse.

"boo hoo....she cut me off".

Next time a runner has to go three wide to get around a runner who's moved wide to get around another runner we'll just file a protest. After all it's right there in the rules. No veering right?

What a group of crybabies.

Umpire wrote:

"boo hoo....she cut me off".

That's totally right. I never said she was a bad person. Only that she needed (in cycling parlance) to hold her line.

If other folks reading this want to change the rules to allow greater freedom to veer, trip, impede, whatever, petition USATF. There's a process for that (albeit a slow one).

Meanwhile it's rather obvious that Rowbury veered in order to impede. I don't know her, and am perfectly content to call it a heat-of-the-moment lapse. But it was a lapse.

Meanwhile, this is my first time on Lets Run. I can't say I'm overwhelmed by the level of the discussion.

What a group of crybabies.

---------------------------"

This isn't freaking NASCAR. You don't block people. You pick a lane, kick hard and hope it's good enough.

It seems clear that it was an infraction worthy of a disqualification. I have two questions, however:

1. In such a situation, is there any need to demonstrate any likelihood that the infraction changed the results? (I would think not.)

2. Who has standing to seek disqualification when there is no significant likelihood that the infraction changed the standings? I would guess that at least one official had standing. But what about coaches and athletes? For example, did Huddle have standing, even though the infraction didn't change the order of finish (although it may have cost Huddle one or two tenths of a second)? Did Hall (I believe she was the third-place finisher) have standing, even though the infraction didn't affect her race? What about the coach of the eighth-place finisher? Did he or she have standing?

I have had a crush on Shannon and Molly both for about a decade, as had a lot of letsrun readers. Irish American lasses rule. I like them as USA reps as well and like then both as people to talk to. We need BOTH on our team in both Worlds and Olys. Its all good.

Avocado's Number wrote:

For example, did Huddle have standing, even though the infraction didn't change the order of finish (although it may have cost Huddle one or two tenths of a second)? Did Hall (I believe she was the third-place finisher) have standing, even though the infraction didn't affect her race? What about the coach of the eighth-place finisher? Did he or she have standing?

I assume moving up a place for those behind Huddle would result in a few extra bucks in the pockets of some athletes.

That Huddle won doesn't change that Rowbury impeded her down the stretch.

A very impressive race by Huddle. To lead most of the way, get passed on the last lap, try to come back, get blocked twice on the final straight and still have the energy to win. That shows a lot of toughness and determination. I wish her all the best for the next couple of years through the Olympics!

To sit on someone's shoulder for about 2 miles and then jump to the lead and try and block someone from retaking the lead {b]who had taken the pace the whole night...that was disgusting.

And it shouldn't be just about contact:

Everybody who has had to chop their stride coming off the last turn knows how it saps your closing to the line. I'm really mortified over these kinds of tactics. Bahhh.

Umpire wrote:

"boo hoo....she cut me off".

Next time a runner has to go three wide to get around a runner who's moved wide to get around another runner we'll just file a protest. After all it's right there in the rules. No veering right?

What a group of crybabies.

Try reading the rules before attempting to be a smartass. A runner CAN veer to go around a slower runner. That is called passing. You still can't impede another runner when doing so.