after dropping out of the 5000m?
after dropping out of the 5000m?
not unless she got a medical waiver.
When she dropped out yesterday it looked like she was fine. She walked around the area for a while, hung out, didn't look happy, but she didn't look sick or hurt, so I would guess she's out.
Here is the rule as it is listed in the NCAA Track & Field rules book. From what I understand from this rule, Mary Cullen will not be able to compete tomorrow in the 3k. This was mentioned in a 5k post thread, but I got ripped on for letting people know she wouldn't be able to compete.
Honest Effort
ARTICLE 2. a. Athletes must participate honestly in all trials and finals of
all track or field events in which they legally are declared or they shall
be barred from all remaining events in the current meet. Athletes must
compete with maximum effort and/or qualify from trials into the finals.
b. Athletes must participate honestly in the finals of all events in which
they are legally declared and qualified, and in which such participation
is a criteria for entry in a subsequent meet.
Note 1: It is understood that passing on trials in field events is a strategy available
in those events and is not considered a question of honest effort, provided at least
one trial has been made.
In my opinion, she did participate honestly in the 5k. She was not faking anything out there. If she were trying to "sneak" out of the event easily so that she could save something for the 3k, why would she have blasted to the lead midway through the race?
What happened was that she lost it mentally. She was going for the win, fully expected to win, and fairly deep in the race, it came apart for her physically. She weakened, then when the pack came past her, she shut down mentally. It was not planned, it was not desired.
You know, we are not machines, and I would fully endorse her running the 3k, as it is my belief that she competed honestly, that she did nothing to gain a competitive advantage.
perspective wrote:
In my opinion, she did participate honestly in the 5k. She was not faking anything out there. If she were trying to "sneak" out of the event easily so that she could save something for the 3k, why would she have blasted to the lead midway through the race?
What happened was that she lost it mentally. She was going for the win, fully expected to win, and fairly deep in the race, it came apart for her physically. She weakened, then when the pack came past her, she shut down mentally. It was not planned, it was not desired.
You know, we are not machines, and I would fully endorse her running the 3k, as it is my belief that she competed honestly, that she did nothing to gain a competitive advantage.
You sir continue to amaze me with your posts. You absolutely do not understand track & field and every post you make shows that this is so. I really like Mary Cullen and I wish she would be able to race tomorrow, but she will not be able to race tomorrow because she did not follow the honest effort rule. It is actually pretty simple and I really do not know what you are talking about in regards to not being machines, she lost it mentally, etc. None of this has anything to do with what the rule is. Sorry.
agreed.
The rule does not just entail participation.
The rule denotes MAXIMUM participation, meaning you finish the damn race.
This is all so silly and preposterous, and a symptom of over-regulation. She qualified for the 3000. She should be able to run the 3000 no matter what happened or didn't happen in the 5000...even if she was out eating pizza during the 5000. None of that should have any effect on the fact that she earned her way into the 3000, period.
dont be silly you lot.of course she can compete in the 3k.
Just cause u dont finish doesnt mean she gave maximum effort.
good luck.
axel, you're going to look like an idiot when she runs.
Axel F.;
We get your point, and you have stated this too many times to not have somewhat of an officious tone - are you trying to convince the meet officials that she shouldn't be allowed to run the 3000m? We got it the first time.
However, it doesn't say that DNF'ing constitutes abrogating the "honest effort" rule - something Providence will surely appeal. Why don't you let the meet officials decide, instead of telling us that she won't be allowed - according to your interpretation.
As another poster said - this type of thing just makes a farce of rules for the sake of rules. The intent has purpose but the task of defining "honest effort" itself is so subjective as to potentially create more problems than it is supposed to prevent.
I don't understand why you all are flaming someone for posting the NCAA rule.
I've seen this at numerous NCAA meets, mainly with the 10k/5k double. She will MOST LIKELY not be allowed to run.
He/she is pointing out what the Honest Effort rule entails. She did not complete the event, and she's out.
Spoke to a friend of mine, mary cullen suffered from aparent dehydration, word it she saw the trainiers at the meet and the coach talked to the meet ref. looks like they will allow her to run, but not 100% certain yet.
i imagine it has something to do with his condescending tone. i imagine it also has to do with the rule quite obviously not being that simple. i rather doubt providence's coach is so stupid as to not have the meet doctor check her out and get her the exemption (presuming whatever stopped her from completing the 5K doesn't preclude her from competing today). i'm sure mary complained of a "cramp" and will be on the track tonight.
go on mary and kick some ass.bunch of cry babies here.grow up and get a life.rules are there to be broken(silly one at that)
She is in the Start List.
All the best,
Giles
How the hell do you detect a "condecending tone" from a text message? You are good
first of all, it's "condescending." second, are you so mentally deficient as to think condescension needs to be heard?
i think you're good enough to detect what tone this was in.
Mills wrote:
Spoke to a friend of mine, mary cullen suffered from aparent dehydration, word it she saw the trainiers at the meet and the coach talked to the meet ref. looks like they will allow her to run, but not 100% certain yet.
That is quite possible. It got up to 80 yesterday in Oklahoma; my guess is it was about the same in Arkansas. It's 74 right now with 11 mph winds. Even though the meet is indoors, it's probably a shock on the body to go from Providence, RI to 80 degree weather in the Midwest.
And I agree with innocent bystander. Axel F has hashed this like a gazillion times. We get the point. It's almost like you're trying to flaunt the fact you know the rules and point the finger. Did she really break a rule? Let the interpretation be up to the officials.
Ya'll missed the point completely! Did you see how that girl blasted out in the middle of the race? That was the most beautiful move I have seen in some time. She must be reading Gerry Lindgren's book (www.gerrylindgren.com). Courage like that is rare and wasting time worrying about whether or not she can run tomorrow is pointless. SHE SPRINTED IN THE MIDDLE!
no clue