Salazar, I hope you're happy......

Bob Costas wrote:

The officials do the DQing, not the coaches.

What a stupid post.

A flag was raised. Therefore the contact was observed and discussed between officials on the field of play. No DQ.

A protest was filed. Therefore video evidence was examined by the referee and relevant officials on the field of play. No DQ.

An appeal of the failed protest was filed. Because no new evidence was added, the appeal of the failed protest was denied. No DQ.

An appeal of the failed appeal of the failed protest was filed. No new evidence. DQ.

"The officials do the DQing, not the coaches"? Officials and Salazar, apparently.

For competition standpoint, Grunewald has shown she has what it takes to compete against the africans cause that's how it's done! You get in the way, you get pushed...there some crazy contact out there...elbows, blocking lanes on the inside and outside...people do this all the time! Even Galen pushed Hill's back before outkicking him. Last week Nick Willis' move against Lalang was a perfect example for this! Face off or go to your mama!

Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:

Just answer this question:

"Is her prior cancer diagnosis relevant to the issue of whether or not she should have DQ'd?"

Post your answer and we can go from there.

Thanks

1. Stop quoting exchanges that include 10 posts. It's just you and george oscar bluth in a catfight here so you know what the other has written. Self-edit a bit, mmkay?

2. Here's a better question: "Is whether you think she should have been DQed relevant to whether or not USATF should make DQs on the basis of pressure applied outside the clearly delineated bounds of protest and appeal?"

Post your answer and we can go from there.

Thanks

If clipping a runner is a dq'able offense, then 80 - 90% of all runners who have ever run a track race 1500 meters or up should have been dq'd. That happens in every distance race on the track, to most of the people in the race. Just ridiculous, and not a dq'able offense.

rupp-certified rage attack wrote:

Emotional outburst logic fail wrote:

Just answer this question:

"Is her prior cancer diagnosis relevant to the issue of whether or not she should have DQ'd?"

Post your answer and we can go from there.

Thanks

1. Stop quoting exchanges that include 10 posts. It's just you and george oscar bluth in a catfight here so you know what the other has written. Self-edit a bit, mmkay?

2. Here's a better question: "Is whether you think she should have been DQed relevant to whether or not USATF should make DQs on the basis of pressure applied outside the clearly delineated bounds of protest and appeal?"

Post your answer and we can go from there.

Thanks

Yes, it's a better question, but not much. Of course, USATF should not make DQ's based on outside pressure, regardless of whether or not she should have been DQd in this instance. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

I'm still hoping for an answer from GOB, though. It's odd to me that an adult would try to frame an argument in such an immature way. Oh, and he seems to have substituted 'morals' with 'ethics'. Lots of people do this, though.

What?! wrote:

If clipping a runner is a dq'able offense, then 80 - 90% of all runners who have ever run a track race 1500 meters or up should have been dq'd.

Including Haile Genrselassie in his first World Championship win:

But how can you defend Brooks when Symmonds writes stories about sex acts.

xmas games wrote:

Totally! I'm sure they are keen to risk losing their endorsements etc. over a petty argument with their coach. I bet you get in your bosses face to every time a minor injustice is done at work.

It's amazing how big and tough and judgemental all you skinny little runners are on this forum...

Uhh, your agent negotiates your contract. Not your coach. Get a clue. Not to mention only Farah has any real endorsements. These other peabodies just get a few shoes in the mail each month and live like college students in small apartments.

The only comment I can make is if this was males instead of females, there would be no dq.

I agree. I have run a lot of indoor track and the foul to Hasay was nothing, just a minor clip. Jordan was done at that point anyway, look how far off she fell, that wasn't a result of a clip.

I am curious what Salazar wishes to accomplish. Hasay has no shot of doing well at Worlds. She should rest up and get ready for late spring and some longer distances.

Grunewald does need to learn how to run indoors. She came up the inside of Hasay and Rowbury who were both close to the inside rail of lane 1. She needs to go on the outside, especially with Rowbury because she had a clear path while she was closing in.

From The Stands wrote:

Grunewald does need to learn how to run indoors. She came up the inside of Hasay and Rowbury who were both close to the inside rail of lane 1. She needs to go on the outside, especially with Rowbury because she had a clear path while she was closing in.

No

Going into the turn, Grunewald had the inside. Hasay, who was slightly ahead was on the OUTSIDE of the lane. She then cut in on Grunewald and stumbled. Grunewald then went around her on the outside. Down the backstretch Grunewald first was running on the inside. Rowbury was on the outside of the lane. She then went into the middle of the lane before Grunewald could pass her, forcing Grunewald to break her stride, go around Rowbury on the outside, and pass her. She then left both of them in the dust.

You can stop repeating this lie at any time now. Hasay was in the middle/inside middle of the lane throughout the incident. There was no space to pass on the inside at all. At no point did Hasay enter the outer 1/3 of the lane until after the contact.

The clip happened on the turn, Hasay was DEFINITELY IN THE MIDDLE TO INSIDE of the lane. I don't know why you take such offense to say a runner should be on the outside to pass rather than try to ram and bump someone and pass on the iside.

rupp-certified rage-on wrote:

xmas games wrote:

Totally! I'm sure they are keen to risk losing their endorsements etc. over a petty argument with their coach. I bet you get in your bosses face to every time a minor injustice is done at work.

First, get one thing straight: Salazar is not Hasay or Rowbury's "boss."

If I lost a contract to a better prepared and more qualified professional, and a colleague engaged in corruption to get our competitor off the contract, I would leave that position.

If you wouldn't, I feel sorry for you and those around you. Gutless.

Mostly agree, but their is a caveat here depending on how the athlete feels.

If they believe that Salazar is absolutely the best coach and thus their best shot at a medal, WR, whatever the goal is, that odds some complication.

If all else is equal and they feel that Salazar is not acting in an acceptable manner and didn't leave because of some uncertainty that would be somewhat gutless. But, in this case it's quite possible many of Salazars athletes believe he is the best possible coach.

So then its balancing questionable Salazar practices with the belief that he is their best shot at achieving dreams.

I got some Brooks too. And I got injured in them. Terrible shoes. I'll be in Nike full time now that NB is making crap shoes like Brooks.

From The Stands wrote:

The clip happened on the turn, Hasay was DEFINITELY IN THE MIDDLE TO INSIDE of the lane. I don't know why you take such offense to say a runner should be on the outside to pass rather than try to ram and bump someone and pass on the iside.

Isn't that the lunatic Ventolin you are arguing with? (pretty sure it's his other main name, correct me if I am wrong). If so, then you know why he is making no sense.

Here are the facts on the point you are discussing:

1) Hasay was doing a bit of "weave" most of the race, weaving backing forth between inside of lane 1 and outside of lane 1. It was a little annoying, and I think a little purposeful (she was trying to not get boxed, but anytime she felt someone moving on her inside, usually Grunewald, she moved back inwards). So she was not completely innocent in a sense. However...

2) You are certainly correct that at the moment of contact, Hasay was CLEARLY on the inside of the lane. Maybe Grunewald thought she was going to move out again, but there was no reason to really believe that. And all race long Grunewald had kept trying to sneak on Hasay's inside. But at the moment of contact, Grunewald probably was not trying to pass on the inside, again, maybe just thinking Hasay would move to the outside of lane 1 and not slow down.

Bottom line: it was dumb of her to keep trying to sneak inside of Hasay, and it was dumb of here to run right up Hasay's butt, and then right up Rowbury's (whether or not she clipped Rowbury or not). When you are running the final lap and getting ready to pass people you move to the outside of the lane. Duh.

Probably not a dq'able offense. But people are overreacting.

I remember an article in the Eugene Register Guard in the early 80s during Alberto's heydey, he expressed admiration for Pit Bulls, noting their fighting spirit.

I've been a fan of the guy since his high school days. His fighting spirit and determination are his best attributes. However, this weekend we saw him take it too far.

Al, it's time to take it down a notch. In our sport, you need to be super competitive. But don't let it spill over into being mean. I'm saying this as someone with a genuine admiration for you and your accomplishments.

NWA ; Alberto we don't need your type here.

If the rule book was followed to the T in every case, half the field would be disqualified in the first 50 meters of every race.

Salazar picking to fight this battle and having someone DQ'd when the contact didn't affect the result of the race is a clear example of posturing and bullying. If he wins this, my only hope is that other coaches and athletes either avoid races where his athletes are running, or they file protests, regardless of the outcome of their races, where a rule book infraction occurs.

I'm tired of people saying how Nike does so much "good" for our sport. It co-insides with the idea that track and field couldn't survive without them. It's bull shit. Nike has complete control over the sport, most athletes, and the officials that run it and they don't even pay that well to get it. They control what athletes wear, who can advertise at a meet, and who runs where. And worse, Nike's entire grasp over track and field costs less than a standard contract with good NBA player.

Running isn't dead, it's cornered, and while people in the business continue to be afraid of dick heads like Alberto, nothing will change and people will continue to get screwed out of spots because a bureaucrat doesn't have the balls to tell Alberto... hey, she just lost, deal with it.

I feel terrible for Gabe, but I also feel pretty bad for Hassay. She's at the mercy of an egomaniac. Had the protest come from her mouth, I'd actually give it some credence, but it didn't. What can she do? If she says, yea, I just lost, it undermines her coach and transitively, her sponsor. If she goes to worlds, she loses all credibility with her peers and fans... she's screwed.

In the end, the USATF is no different than the AAU of old. Our athletes are still on food stamps and still barely making it while their sponsors reap the rewards of having professional teams for a cornered market. It would be like the Yankee's not only owning the team, but the league, and the players union as well... it's just not healthy for the sport.