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

Yes, the wind is mostly what concerns me, which is what I was trying to get at with my discussion of the wind gauge.

As I understand it, the track will be ripped up, just like the 1991 Tokyo track was. Chapter 3 of the IAAF facilities manual:

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/63/93/20080802085950_httppostedfile_IAAF_TF_Manual2008_web-1_4481.pdf

details physical properties of the tracks. It is undeniable that some track surfaces are better for sprinting than are others, even within the acceptable ranges offered by the IAAF. Going outside those ranges would make for an even-better sprinting surface, as was evident in Tokyo.

But it's the wind that I'm concerned about.

Does anybody know if individual sprint performances here were exceptional, with regard to demonstrated potential, compared to other Olympics?

Keeping the running track is a condition for the future occupants of the stadium.

It looked pretty windy during the mens pole vault.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Yes, the wind is mostly what concerns me

And yet the word "wind" is nowhere to be found in your original post accusing the track of being bogus. How come?

Because when I said "track", I meant the "track facility", not the "track surface", and the "track facility" has everything to do with the accuracy of the wind measurement.

I used the simple word "track" to distinguish the facility from the timing function, which is not something intrinsic to, and characteristic of, the particular facility.

VoR wrote:

categorically wrote:

It's a bit convenient that the track will be ripped up shortly after the games.

Is that true? Why wouldn't they keep it in place for the 2017 WC?

You are correct. I just remembered there was talk of two teams that wanted to take over the stadium and neither wanted to keep the track. Coe seems to have bid for the 2017 WCs just to force the issue of keeping the track. As of now the track will be in place through 2017 and we can expect another top level athletics competition there. Maybe we can compare performances in 5 years. Of course, by then if will be a 5 year old, weathered track.

It will be interesting to see how the WCs in Beijing in 2015 compare to the 2008 times.

Regarding the wind readings. I don't they were off or manipulated, just perfect - either by design or dumb luck.

categorically wrote:

course, by then if will be a 5 year old, weathered track.

They will almost certainly resurface the track before the WC.

What did you expect? 9.8? This is Usain Bolt we are talking about. Don't believe the stories, he was in great shape. He was being modest when he said he was 95% fit, it kept the pressure off until it was time to deliver, and no-one delivers in the sprints like Bolt.

Bolt was definitely in great shape, no doubt. The fact that he had his start back was evidence of that, after his dismal starts at trials.

It wasn't Bolt in particular, like I said, it just seemed that everybody was running great, which I find surprising--yes, I KNOW it's the Olympics. It's just somewhat difficult to believe, which is why I asked if anybody knew if this was any better than previous Olympics with regard to demonstrated potential.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I asked if anybody knew if this was any better than previous Olympics with regard to demonstrated potential.

It was not.

categorically wrote:

is it possible that the stagger was marked wrong? If so the advantage would be larger in the outside lanes. US women started in lane 7. Jamaican men started in lane 6.

I hope this track gets remeasured during the WR ratification process.

It's a bit convenient that the track will be ripped up shortly after the

games.

How can anyone even suggest that the track is short or the marking are wrong!? Beyond belief.

The IAAF & IOC would both have had people double checking the track.

The weather here in London has been pretty warm the last fortnight at about 21 degrees.

The track is not being ripped up! LOL

I would suggest that the track is very fast (within the legal requirements) but like Atlanta in 96, some tracks are just faster than others.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Bolt was definitely in great shape, no doubt. The fact that he had his start back was evidence of that, after his dismal starts at trials.

It wasn't Bolt in particular, like I said, it just seemed that everybody was running great, which I find surprising--yes, I KNOW it's the Olympics. It's just somewhat difficult to believe, which is why I asked if anybody knew if this was any better than previous Olympics with regard to demonstrated potential.

All of Bolt's starts were good last week, which shows that he was phsyically and mentally sharp.

But the times are not difficult to believe unless you have a suspicious mind. You are suffering from Carl Lewis syndrome.

All this talk of a super fast or short track surely not only devalues the sprinters times, it also casts doubt on Rudisha’s status.

After all, he only ran less than a second faster than Coe did over 30 years ago, when the tracks were, what? ….crap?

Incidentally, Cruz also ran in front from the gun in his Olympic victory in 84 and back then had it tougher than Rudisha to reach the final, having to run 45-44-44 and then 43 in the final.

Rudisha ran45-44 then the 40.

Cruz then came over to Europe and ran a 1.41.77 also within a second of Rudisha’s time.

deanouk wrote:

categorically wrote:

is it possible that the stagger was marked wrong? If so the advantage would be larger in the outside lanes. US women started in lane 7. Jamaican men started in lane 6.

I hope this track gets remeasured during the WR ratification process.

It's a bit convenient that the track will be ripped up shortly after the

games.

How can anyone even suggest that the track is short or the marking are wrong!? Beyond belief.

The IAAF & IOC would both have had people double checking the track.

The weather here in London has been pretty warm the last fortnight at about 21 degrees.

The track is not being ripped up! LOL

I would suggest that the track is very fast (within the legal requirements) but like Atlanta in 96, some tracks are just faster than others.

According to spoutnonsense geezer it was windy just one way the whole time, they fixed the gauges to now give +2 result. Then for the 800m the wind suddenly dropped to allow a world record

Track fast & sprinters doped, same as all recent championships

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Yes, the wind is mostly what concerns me, which is what I was trying to get at with my discussion of the wind gauge.

As I understand it, the track will be ripped up, just like the 1991 Tokyo track was. Chapter 3 of the IAAF facilities manual:

NO! The track isn't being ripped up. It's hosting the 2017 World Champs!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I'm not discounting the possibility of peaking...

You are so frigging astute!

Thoughts?

You have none. Just random, spastic electrical cortical activity, hosted by a cavalcade of tortured and misfiring neurons.

100 points for including the word "cavalcade" in a post!

Love it.

To the poster upthread who answered simply "no", more info, please.

Consider This wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

It's not the individual great times, it's the seemingly overwhelming frequency of PB's, WR's, SB's, and NR's, in the sprints.

In the men's 100m:

prelims (29 athletes): 5 SB's, 8 PB's, 1 NR

round 1 (54 athletes): 8 SB's, 3 PB's, 2 NR's

semi's (23 athletes): 2 SB's, 1 PB, 1 NR

final ( 8 athletes): 1 SB, 3 PB's, 1 OR

In the women's 100m:

prelims (32 athletes): 1 SB, 9 PB's, 1 NR

round 1 (56 athletes): 7 SB's, 3 PB's, 5 NR's

semi's (24 athletes): 3 PB's, 1 NR

final ( 8 athletes): 2 SB's, 2 PB's

I don't know if those numbers are unusual, but to me, it seemed like more athletes than usual were performing at or beyond their potential.

First, you should look and see if that is unusual. Next, if you think that the weather wasn't ideal, consider that perhaps sprinters do fine in ~70 degree weather.

No surprise that an athlete peaks at the Olympics - for a season's best. That's the goal.

But how stupid of you to say they are performing beyond their potential. What inside knowledge do you have on that?

This was a sprinter's track. You can see it by the way their feet come off the track. As for the distance guys, it's racing. Sometimes its fast, some times not so. Why would you want a time trial. Go out slower, come in as fast as possible. BUrn all the weak ones off. Fry all the kickers. Seems like it was a common tactic.

categorically wrote:

I know this is in the realm of super engineering but is it possible that the stadium was built with a way to control track level wind?

I hope Coe was up there watching every race with a button that turned the wind on.

Every one is an expert about fast times in the sprints weather its drugs or short track. with no basis for this. was Michael Jordan on DOPE or did the referee give favorable calls or did the the NBA SHORTEN THE COURT. Most of this argument would be Baseless.I am sure the track is measured and is the right distance, there are great talented athletes. then there are hard working athletes who do well like a John Starks etc, .Base ball get busted all the time no alarm. The Olympic just completed, 3000 athletes compete 1 busted. The System is working.