Anyone else think this article is absolutely asinine and incredibly ignorant? First she say's that AP's 40 time of 4.38 converts to an 11.98 100m. How the hell does that math work out? Then she claims that AP would have a better shot against Bolt in the 200 and 400. Why would a guy whose entire career has been based on short, explosive bursts of speed be better at longer sprints than shorter ones? The article also includes data on the longest NFL touchdown runs in the 2012 season and how much time they took. How is that relevant to the debate in the slightest? What does the amount of time a guy took to run 90 meters on a field, wearing pads and a helmet, carrying a ball, while dodging defenders have to do with how fast he'd run in a track race?