rimot wrote:
Good Troll, even got the brothers to post it on the main page. But to think it is anything besides the combination of better athletes (doping or not) and a better track technology is ridiculous (AND the fact that it's the biggest event per four years!). Just think logically:
1. 'Maybe the track is short?' No way, they would be found out the first time someone takes a wheel to the track and proclaims WAIT A MINUTE IT'S SHORT!
2. 'Maybe the clocks are running slow?' No way, it's video recorded all over the place, not only via NBC and BBC but also on people's cell phones.
So what else is there????
First of all, as said many times before, the "Super Hot on LetsRun" thing on the homepage is automated by how many views a thread gets. No one "posts it" there.
Second, I think you and most people in this thread are being a little too harsh on the OP. I had thoughts along the same lines after the first couple days of competition actually. And those thoughts led me to not put as much stock in times throughout these two weeks when measuring the overall quality of a performance. For example, I was a lot more impressed with Duane Solomon and Nick Symmonds going 4-5 than I was with them running under 1:43. People asked Lolo Jones if she got any solace in running a time that would have medaled at any other Olympics and she said no and that didn't mean anything to her. And my thoughts were, "I agree, it shouldn't because there was no way you weren't running fast on this super fast track; everyone was."
That said, I never thought it was a timing malfunction or a short track. There is no way they messed up the timing for every race and while it could be hypothetically possible to screw up the placement of lines on the track, I highly doubt that would happen at the Olympics.
No, I just credit the fast times to a very very fast track. Maybe the fastest track ever. It's very "hard" from what I've heard and that makes for super fast sprint times. And it's not just the surface. The stadium and track were built to greatly reduce wind resistance. I've read articles about other features as well (maybe I'll google them later). There's a lot that went into building this stadium and clearly it worked.
And that's not to take away from the performances. They are still World Records; they covered the distance in that time. And peaking and quality of competition have a lot to do with it obviously. Improvement in technology is just part of sport though. World records used to be run on cinder tracks. Modern tracks are obviously a lot faster and this London track even faster still.
But when it comes down to it, I believe the performances were aided by the track. All these times weren't getting put out at once on your standard track. So the OP was right to suggest something is up, but I think it's just the technology behind the track, rather than any mistake in construction.
Those are my thoughts anyway.