COOL GRAPH - Eugene's WC Reaction Times - ALL SCREWED UP !!!

Good stuff. People need to be tweeting this picture at World Athletics & any track reporter with a platform. This issue needs to get fixed before it ruins another final.

Good idea, except I don't use Twitter. But if anyone else uses Twitter, feel free to use this graphic.

The Governor of Oregon probably has too many other things on her schedule to be involved in setting up the starting blocks or the reaction time system.

Ok, if that graph is true then this is starting to get spicy.

Do you have the data and methodology for this graph? Because you could very easily just put that graph together. Not saying that Eugene isn't an outlier, but you need to provide the evidence.

The OP says exactly what information is in the graphs. And that's the evidence.

If you want to double check it you can certainly look at all of the reaction time data yourself. It's all available on

worldathletics.org

World Athletics Home Page | World Athletics

Open link

There are also several threads already discussing Devon Allen's DQ and the problems with the Eugene reaction times, including a thread that Rojo started this morning.

Aren't you the OP?

No source is provided for the information allegedly shown in those graphs. It can't be double-checked, because no one knows were you got the reaction time data. That was SSELHJ's point.

Can't you read? How many times do I have to say the same thing? World Athletics has all the stats from each world championship race that's ever taken place on their site, including the reaction times.

But you aren't going to double check anything because it takes a long time and you are too lazy and can't read.

There’s a reason math teachers ask you to show your work. I understand that anyone can go to the source and extract those data again and anyone wanting to validate these charts will have to look at the original data. But the validation process would be a lot easier if whoever built the charts shared their aggregated data file so everyone wanting to check doesn’t have to start from the beginning.

Test the equipment. It seems pretty obvious that the equipment is not accurate. That is a pretty huge issue.

So America shot itself in the foot since we are in the USA

Wrong! The problem is that the vaccines make people jumpy and quicker. But Big Pharma doesn’t want you to know about that side effect and the lamestream media wants you to believe the athletes are at fault. Study it out, sheeple!

The OP refuses to do that, which is suspect as hell. He just points you to the world athletics site and says have at it.

Note that this also shows that the 0.10 limit is a good number: typical reaction time is just below 0.15 (stdev maybe about 0.01?), so being below 0.1 and you probably did guess.

So definitely seems like there is an Oregon issue. Depending on where the issue is, it could be biasing the final times down by 0.02 also.

If Kerley had gotten Bolt's record by a hundredth....

One thing I haven't seen discussed is whether anyone is controlling for the starter. For a chart like this to have any real meaning, you'd want to know whether (1) the starter super consistent in time between "set" and gun, (2) was the same starter used for all heats and finals, (3) in prior championships do they rotate starters throughout the competition? Any one of these might explain why the best at their sport are reacting quicker and it's not a software issue. I'm not saying it's not the software, I'm just saying we're missing a key piece of the analysis.

You are absolutely right I'm not going to do it, because I don't believe you did it in the first place. If you did, you'd have a data file you could easily upload.

By the way, I'm spot checking 100 meter results on that World Athletics website from various years, like this:

worldathletics.org

World Athletics

Open link

I'm not seeing reaction times listed. So if you say "World Athletics has all the stats from each world championship race that's ever taken place on their site, including the reaction times" you could at least point out where some of them are on the website. They are not readily apparent, so even if I wanted to check your graphs, I can't.

Is there enough data to give a clue if the deviation is larger for a set of blocks? For example a specific lane for a particular session?

I think he's probably right because I counted 40 reaction times under 0.120, which is a pretty hard # to beat usually, and quite a few of those were under 0.110. None of them were absolutely ludicrous and obvious false starts such as 0.05 or under. I believe that 0.085 was the lowest, with three or four under .100, and numerous close to it including the .099 and .102/3 for Allen prior to the final and a couple .104, including one by Coleman. Kerley had a .107 in the first round. Something's not normal in the stats and their own study from around 2010 showed that reactions to sound begin around 0.08, so between the one and the other, Allen and the other dq's were jobbed.