Can someone please explain to me how a track can be illegal? (UW)

It sneaked into this country without going through the proper channels. That track is taking races away from hardworking, regulation-complying American tracks!

It's only "illegal" on g-a-y running websites looking for "controversy".

The nominal length of a regulation indoor track is 200M according to USATF/IAAF, but if you look at the rules carefully it's not really the length but the curves. There are rules about the minimum and maximum radius of the turn.

There are places that have 400 meter indoor tracks, they are "legal" but you can't set an indoor record on them. The purpose of maintaining separate indoor and outdoor records is indoor tracks generally have tighter turns that hamper performance. I don't know the specifics of the UW track, but my guess is the large track with the fairly wide infield has turns similar to outdoor tracks so you'll get faster times than a normally configured 200M indoor track.

More turns = slower times. An indoor 300m (or 400m) track isn't considered for indoor records since it provides a slight advantage to runners compared to traditional, shorter indoor tracks. I think 160y/11 laps to the mile used to be considered pretty standard. What's the limit for indoor records? 200m maybe? And they used to have class indoor records, too. In Ottawa, Canada one year there was a lot of hype for a race featuring Steve Scott and Eamonn Coghlan since they were going for some class indoor world record for the size of track--125m. Coghlan bumped Scott on the last lap, cutting him off pretty badly and just dipped under 4:00 and set something like a Class IIa indoor world record for the mile.

The UW track is a really awkward distance (307m) so they have people with flashing lights yell out splits to you when you run. That being said, I ran a race there and it is VERY fast, the Mondo surface is incredible, and given the length, you don't feel the turns like you would a regular 200m indoor track.

A properly banked 200m track is significantly faster than UW's 300m track for 200-400m events. 800 is slightly faster on 200m, mile on up is equal or slightly faster @ Dempsey. Consider that German ran 3:55 on a banked 200 virtually solo, which equals 7:42 for 3000. Shortly after, pushed by Michael Coe to the wire at UW, he ran only 7:47.

It actually is equal to 7:47.

Not getting it... wrote:

Why is the University of Washington's track considered "illegal"? My understanding is that it's a 300m track. As long as the races are the same length as every other race on any other track on the planet, what is the problem? Why aren't 160-yard, 180-meter ovals considered "illegal"? would a 201-meter track be "illegal"? How about an 800-meter track? What is the difference how many meters one lap is as long as the length of the race is an official, accepted, standard distance? What unfair advantage is gained by those in the race? What gives?

It's not "illegal" it's "oversized". There's a big difference.

The words "legal" and "illegal" are often applied for record-keeping purposes, but they're not really the appropriate words to use. We're talking about records, not laws, so what the heck is an "illegal wind" anyway?

The curve does indeed affect times. I went to school with a guy, it was long ago, who ran 47.0 for 440y very early in the season. That times was run on a regulation track, but they only ran one curve. The track had a 220y straight section.

The guy's best time later on in the year was about 47.4. My guess is the loss of one curve was a 0.5 sec bonus.

I used to run 200s on a 176 yd./ 10 lap to the mile dirt track. Going hard, like just short of sprinting, I could go like 28, whereas I can hit 26 on a 400 meter track at the same effort. Length can definitely make a difference.

The Answer My Friend wrote:

The words "legal" and "illegal" are often applied for record-keeping purposes, but they're not really the appropriate words to use. We're talking about records, not laws, so what the heck is an "illegal wind" anyway?

I agree. "Illegal" is the wrong word to describe the track. If you run on the track are you arrested?

Just put a big tent over a 400m outdoor track. It wouldn't be illegal to run on it, but it might be misleading to call those times your best "indoor" times.

Agreed, "illegal" is the wrong word to use.

BTW, tracks can also be "not valid for record purposes" if their bounciness(?word?) is too much. Mike Powell's WR LJ in Tokyo (I think it was) was set on a surface that was actually too bouncy. Somehow they gave him the record anyway.

OK, 7:46 by IAAF Tables (damn those are a pain to use!)

joecrunner wrote:

It actually is equal to 7:47.

A Skeptic wrote:

Length can definitely make a difference.

That's what she said.

Back in the day, Johnson City had some fast times, but they were not "recognized" as legit. Track was "oversized."

Wisenheimer wrote:

I agree. "Illegal" is the wrong word to describe the track. If you run on the track are you arrested?

You might be if you try to run at Dempsey during football practice!!

A Skeptic wrote:

I used to run 200s on a 176 yd./ 10 lap to the mile dirt track. Going hard, like just short of sprinting, I could go like 28, whereas I can hit 26 on a 400 meter track at the same effort. Length can definitely make a difference.

Ah, but the important question isn't how Dempsy would compare to a flat 10 lap/mile dirt track, but rather a banked mondo 200m track, as that is what is considered "legal". And if those banked mondo 200m tracks run just about as fast as a 400m track, as they seem to do, why is a 307m (and I believe flat?) track considered "illegal"? As it wouldn't be any faster to any significant degree, unless similarly banked, it makes no sense to consider the similarly fast track "legal".

But who cares... it's indoors! The season when no one really cares, because they are just looking forward to the real, outdoor track season, and not just because everyone is running on virtually identical (sans the surface or altitude) tracks.