Nick Symmonds PRs in Ireland at 47.45

Great. That would have been terrible for his Olympic chances, absolutely aweful. This is solid and he's still on a good trajectory going into london.

What days are the 800 rounds?

What a close finish!

It looks like the 48.69 came from runnerspace:

http://www.runnerspace.com/news.php?news_id=27779-2012-Results-Morton-Games-Dublin&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+runnerspacerss+

(RunnerSpace+All+Content)

Here is how they listed the 400 results:

Mens 400

1. Gregan 45.61

2. Al Mirjabi 46.55

3. Murphy 46.63

4. Druce 47.43

5. Kervick 48.35

6. Kanonik 48.69

7. Maze 49.10

Symmonds 48.69

They don't give him a place even though he would have tied for 6th.

No results yet from the meet's website adds to the confusion.

We still just have a twitter post as evidence.

Don't know why you would have banned the OP of the other thread.

Looks like someone saw a result somewhere else and posted it here.

A large quantiy of Letsrun content is people doing the same thing.

Sometimes they get bad information.

You even put that result on your homepage.

Morton Games's own facebook had it wrong too:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Morton-Games-2012/189868537729185

Not the poster's fault, unban him!

* wrote:

Don't know why you would have banned the OP of the other thread.

Looks like someone saw a result somewhere else and posted it here.

A large quantiy of Letsrun content is people doing the same thing.

Sometimes they get bad information.

You even put that result on your homepage.

Spinterix, (*)

They don't have time to check out EVERYTHING, you know.

he looks good.

Full official results are at http://mortongames.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Results-of-Morton-Meet.pdf

* wrote:

They don't give him a place even though he would have tied for 6th.

No results yet from the meet's website adds to the confusion.

We still just have a twitter post as evidence.

Here are the official results with Symmonds finishing 5th in 47.45

This is the most anticipated result of a 47 second 400 since Maxie Long ran 47.8 for 440 yards in 1900.

It got a thread on letsrun with 12 posts... wow so anticipated!

I'm assuming this is without using blocks? Pretty good time. Get excited for London folks!

is the promise ring dead? wrote:

I'm assuming this is without using blocks? Pretty good time. Get excited for London folks!

I'm pretty sure everyone running in an elite 400m (and any race shorter than that) is required to use blocks. I could be wrong, though.

guy who pays attention wrote:

I'm pretty sure everyone running in an elite 400m (and any race shorter than that) is required to use blocks. I could be wrong, though.

haha, he didnt use blocks and i found it funny how you think using something to "get ahead" is required for everyone.

Some other 400m/800m personal bests...

Wilson Kipketer 46.85/1.41.11

Sebastian Coe 46.87/1:41.73

Joachim Cruz 47.17/1:41.77

Nick Symmonds 47.45/1:43.76

I think Symmonds could run sub-47 with a few more races at 400m and is in shape now to run 1:42. This puts him in medal contention... just depends on how the Olympic 800m final plays out.

guy who pays attention wrote:

I'm pretty sure everyone running in an elite 400m (and any race shorter than that) is required to use blocks. I could be wrong, though.

This is correct; according to official IAAF rules, all sprint events MUST be run starting from blocks. Of course, not all meets follow this rule, but in any serious international-level competition you will not have the option to forego starting blocks.

blocks required wrote:

guy who pays attention wrote:

I'm pretty sure everyone running in an elite 400m (and any race shorter than that) is required to use blocks. I could be wrong, though.

This is correct; according to official IAAF rules, all sprint events MUST be run starting from blocks. Of course, not all meets follow this rule, but in any serious international-level competition you will not have the option to forego starting blocks.

This would only be if they are using electronic blocks. This is because the blocks measure reaction time and anything under .100 would be deemed a false start.

nope... wrote:

This would only be if they are using electronic blocks. This is because the blocks measure reaction time and anything under .100 would be deemed a false start.

See the following link:

See page 142. Starting blocks are always compulsory. In fact, electronic starting blocks are optional, and only required in the high-level meets as indicated in Rule 161.2.

* wrote:

Don't know why you would have banned the OP of the other thread.

Looks like someone saw a result somewhere else and posted it here.

A large quantiy of Letsrun content is people doing the same thing.

Sometimes they get bad information.

You even put that result on your homepage.

I think what happened is Rojo thought the guy was trolling by purposely posting an incorrect result. However, it looks like that wasn't the case as he was just misinformed.

I sent Rojo an email so he can unban him.