Either the timing, the track, or both are bogus in London

I'm beginnning to think that the old assumption that heat is best for sprints is erroneous. Maybe for training (to avoid strains) but having your legs slightly "tight" (muscle tension) may be beneficial for maximum speed.

The real speed killer is wind, and it hasn't been a big factor in finals.

Also, sprinters (aside form the drugs), get super-amped in big competitions, something which can hurt distances, which require more relaxed overall effort.

Let's also remember that England is part of Great Britain where the metric system is used. Thus, all distances in these Olympics are measured in METERS, not yards.

They said at the start of the meet (on NBC) that it was made to be the fastest track in the world. If it is fast for sprinters it will be slow for distance.

In terms of the women's 4x100, the sum of the individual PR's of the US was approximately 0.5 seconds faster than the East German team. Not surprisingly, they ran about 0.5 seconds faster than the GDR WR when the handoffs were cleaned up.

You must be kidding - NBC got something right?

Yards are still used in England.

The London track gave them a huge boost.

Nesta Carter has a legal PR of 9.78 & Michael Frater has run 9.94.

Not sure if that counts as as "ok" leadoff.

In fact, the Jamaican squad had the 1st, 3rd, and 5th fastest humans ever. I'm not sure what math you would have to do for that not to add to a new world record.

runn wrote:

They said at the start of the meet (on NBC) that it was made to be the fastest track in the world. If it is fast for sprinters it will be slow for distance.

Not true.

I was thinking the same exact thing when seeing the fast sprint times, the comments from Rupp and Farah about being tired, and the tape and performance of Dibaba. Some similarities to Atlanta with respect to Michael Johnson and Geb? As I remember, Geb bailed on the 5k due to his feet being beat. He said the track as too hard.On a related note, I can't figure out why everyone let the 5k go that slow, especially after the 10k. To say it doesn't make any sense would be putting it mildly. What were their coaches advising? Salazar must have been laughing watching the 5k final.

WD40 wrote:

There's been a lot of discussion regarding the hardness of the track. It's been postulated that the track's engineered to be hard, enabling fast times for sprinters, but being tough on the legs of distance runners. This was suggested as a reason why Farah might have a hard time recovering for the 5K (in an interview a day before the race he said he felt fatigued in the 5K heat), and that Dibaba was nowhere near as sharp / wearing tape in the 5K.

EnglishSystemUnits wrote:

Yards are still used in England.

Yes, for drinking ales. But the track race distances are measured in meters (or, "meters").

Yes the track is rock hard. Why do you think that one 400 runner got an instant stress fracture all the way through the bone just from running on the track?

As opposed to the 100 yard dash run in the US and elsewhere?

you are gay or castrate? cuase if you said that sprinters have more balls than the distance runners, i guess you have no idea of what ¨¨balls¨¨ means..

Seriously, 13:41 for 5000m, or 27:35 for 10,000m or 4:12 for Women's 1500m or 3:34 for Men's 1500m. 8:16 Steeple.

Short track.

twice a runner wrote:

The track is legit. No company doing an Olympic track would mismeasure. No claims of mismeasured tracks have EVER been verified.

The timing is not wrong. Computer time is standard at this point.

The track is fast. The athletes are fast.

If the track was short, you wouldn't see so many slow distance races. Or is London only short for sprints and Stanford's track short for distance?

Not disagreeing with you post in general, but you are wrong about the distance races. Most of the distance races have been slow not due to condition of the track, they have been tactical affairs.

Anyone with a basic understanding of distance racing should understand that tactical races can produce painfully slow times.

The dimensions for an English football (soccer) pitch are in yards.

The BBC reported that Mo Farah "produced a last mile of four minutes 00.50 seconds" in the 5000 today. How did they know that?

RRRR wrote:

Not disagreeing with you post in general, but you are wrong about the distance races. Most of the distance races have been slow not due to condition of the track, they have been tactical affairs.

Anyone with a basic understanding of distance racing should understand that tactical races can produce painfully slow times.

I agree--but with a short track (ignoring track conditions) you'd expect faster times nonetheless, with faster finishing laps. None to be found.

Schwazy wrote:

As opposed to the 100 yard dash run in the US and elsewhere?

Yes.