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

Sprintgeezer wrote:

To the poster upthread who answered simply "no", more info, please.

The difference in demonstrated potential of the track athletes in the 2012 Games versus those of recent Olympics was not statistically significant.

The truth is, the British being very reluctant to give up the metric system, measured the track in yards rather than meters.

Maybe it was revenge for having to listen to all those French announcements.

Sprintgeezer is offically off his rocker. Certifiably whackaloon. Has this been pronounced yet?

It was the Olympics!

Say what you will but Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter of all time!

The track was known to favor sprinters--hard track=fast sprint times, tougher to recover from distance races.

Same deal in Hotlanta in 1996, and that's why Geb did not double back for the 5 after winning Gold in the 10.

Sprintgeezer writes as though a bunch of world records were set in the sprints. They weren't. In fact, most of the top athletes didn't seven PR.

Gatlin was the only finalist in the 100 to set a personal best in theh final (Churandy nabbed a PR in his semi). Weir was the only 200 finalist to set a PB in the final (Jobodwana got one in his semi). Two women set PBs in the 100 final (and an additional finalist did the same in the semis). One woman set a PB in the 200 final.

I ask you, what is so remarkable about these stats?

hahaha--

Clearly, nobody performs beyond their potential. If you will look at posts that I made subsequent to that one, I added the adjective "demonstrated" to potential, to clear it up, because I know that some posters like to hold others here to a higher standard than that to which they hold themselves.

I anticipated your pedantry, as you can now plainly see.

And by beyond demonstrated potential, I am referring to a PB, NR, or WR, of course.