To clear some things up:
1. I never suggested that the track was too short.
2. I acknowledged that the track technology might be the answer.
Also:
80 degrees is undeniably better for sprinting than is 70 degrees.
Timing needs to be calibrated. Saying something like it is "computerized" is laughably simplistic.
Regarding the wind, the most important thing is not the actual wind, but the actual wind relative to what the gauge reads. Does the wind gauge accurately reflect the wind on the track? I know it's placed properly, but does it function appropriately in the setting?
The other timings that I have questioned are a meet in Rieti, a meet in Eugene, and a meet in Clermont, and now possibly the 19.26 meet.
Oh, and if the answer was reducible to doping, then a huge percentage of the athletes would have to be doped, more than they have been before, and I don't think that is the case (although I don't know, of course).
It sucks, of course, that they will be tearing up the track, because we won't be able to see how any future performances pan out. How convenient. I guess we'll have to wait until another such sub-surface is installed elsewhere, where it can persist for at least a decade.
And no, I don't trust anybody, least of all anybody associated with event and sports administration and promotion.
This is all shades of the 1991 World Championships, complete with the imminent removal of the evidence.