Dear Brojos, are you familiar with the definition of illegal?

I agree, its a stupid word to use. If they want to apply the adjective "oversized" to it then that is okay. Still seems silly to be harping on it constantly.

Valid points.

Thread will be deleted in 3...2....1....

There are certain rules as to when a track counts as an "indoor" track. If the track is longer than that, then it is not an "indoor" track for the purpose of "indoor" track records. Hence, if it is longer than the rules allow, then it is in some sense "illegal" for purposes of "indoor" track times.

That being said, I agree that "oversize" is more accurate.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

There are certain rules as to when a track counts as an "indoor" track. If the track is longer than that, then it is not an "indoor" track for the purpose of "indoor" track records. Hence, if it is longer than the rules allow, then it is in some sense "illegal" for purposes of "indoor" track times.

That being said, I agree that "oversize" is more accurate.

Ok, whatever. That only holds true insofar as the record-setting goes. Still, the track is not illegal to break 4 on, nor is it illegal to use in qualifying purposes for indoor NCAAs. Look at the frontpage, where they backhand all the guys that ran at Dempsey by leading with "5 Guys Break 4:00 at legal BU track" or w/e the wording is, following by (and I paraphrase) "a butt-ton more do it at illegal dempsey track"

Illegal for what? What does a comment like that accomplish. I wrote better journalism in high school than the Brojos do on Letsrun. It's pathetic.

Gotta love the fan boy journalism... It won't be too long before they use the words "drug cheat" and "illegal indoor" track in the same sentence to solidify what kind of objective and respected journalists they are...

I wonder how that lawsuit with Universal Sports is going?

Concerned Citizen wrote:

There are certain rules as to when a track counts as an "indoor" track. If the track is longer than that, then it is not an "indoor" track for the purpose of "indoor" track records. Hence, if it is longer than the rules allow, then it is in some sense "illegal" for purposes of "indoor" track times.

That being said, I agree that "oversize" is more accurate.

By harping on it, for example on the current homepage, the Brojos appear to be invalidating the runs of the athletes. This is, I think, not the position they want to be in. If they wish to argue (and I presume they do from what I have read) that these times should have some sort of adjustment applied for NCAA indoor qualifying purposes, then that is really a systems issue. If they want to mercilessly attack the NCAA on that issue, I have no problem with that. Attacking the athletes, who are just using the rules that are given to them, does not sit right with me.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

3/10...learn some subtlety.

Crying about it like a b*tch doesn't sit well with me either. To each his own though I guess. It's their site.

I wish there was a like button for this post.

Thumbs up!

We might as well say the Frank Shorter track in Coxe Cage at Weldon's alma mater Yale is illegal too. although it is 200 meters it only has 4 lanes.

Yes Ill have cheez w that wine wrote:

Crying about it like a b*tch doesn't sit well with me either. To each his own though I guess. It's their site.

I'm not sure exactly how I'm "crying like a bitch about it"...that would imply I have some personal stake in the outcome. I'm not even fast enough to run in the Husky Invite, they didn't do anything to me. The Brojos, however, clearly want the respect afforded to a legitimate news/reporting site. Yet they still make snide remarks constantly, which wouldn't be a problem in and of itself, except that oftentimes, like this one, the snide remarks have no basis in reality and the LetsRun posse can't even grasp basic semantics. That and the hilariously bad interviewing displayed by Weldon at Edinborough only devalues the site as a source for real information, which is unfortunate.

If they are going to pretend this is their job, they might as well make a sincere effort to do it properly.

I don't think he's accusing you of crying about it. I think he's accusing the brojos of it.

padijosf wrote:

I don't think he's accusing you of crying about it. I think he's accusing the brojos of it.

ah my bad. i guess i occasionally have my own semantic struggles.

.

. . wrote:

.

Whoa... ghost post. Spooky.

Note the URL: legal=N

You can also run on illegal road.

Look, wejo had to have his wife explain to him that the word 'tantrum' might be insulting when applied to an adult. He's obviously "challenged"...so give him a break.

yeah i wanna challange the brojo's on their intention behind the action.

why degrade a performance when those athletes are doing the best they can do.

As long as the ncaa reconginzes an oversized track as an acceptable means of acquiring an automatic mark, it should be treated that way.

i dont see anything actaully illegal about an oversized track. so dont add some some arbitrary meaning to the word illegal, just to put a spin on a headline to make it sound one way.

A side note, on the west coast there arnt a lot of indoor tracks. why travel 4-5 days for a meet, when you can just go to seattle (an already established meet) for 2 days, and get the job done.

The word "illegal" may seem jarring or harsh, and perhaps could be misleading to some who do not understand its reference to international standards for indoor track performances, but I support the underlying sentiment, even if its expression seems a bit ham-handed. For better or for worse, this sport has elevated race times to a fetishistic level. If people are going to make serious comparisons of performances in different races based on how many hundredths of a second have elapsed from start to finish, it makes sense to distinguish between performances on tracks or courses that meet widely-recognized standards and those that don't.

By the way, your comments about wasting "parents' money for an Ivy League degree" and "Trust Fund Kiddies" don't help your case, at least in my view. They simply give the impression that you've got a few chips on your shoulder, and not just about track standards. I realize that discussions and debates about standards for tracks, courses, and races can get pretty heated, especially when people perceive that their own performances are being denigrated, but adding a layer of class conflict to the discussion doesn't help.