More DQ drama - Poland's Lewandowski is DQd - Britain's Andrew Osagie elevated to bronze !!!

crazy run wrote:

So you don't think that running less distance for a stride could account for a hundredth of a second, the difference between 3rd and 4th?

So you don't know what a disadvantage it is to sprint on the inside lane (let alone inside of it) of an indoor track?

juicy lucy wrote:

Who cares what you think! Osagie even said in the interview that this isn't a way he wanted to get a medal, but it is in the rules as he himself has been dq'd in the past for the same infraction. Just like athletes stepping on inside lanes at starts of races (or on turns in 200's), with easy access to video, these things will be called. Ask AlSal how that video process works.

You cared enough to reply, idiot.

Osagie was almost smiling. He didn't care about the fairness of it, he cared about the medal.

AlSal?

ha! great example. Just shows what type of person you are.

And again, who cares what I think?

Never use that against anyone because you have cared enough to reply.

And you must be like the other poster who thinks sprinting on the inside of a 200m track gives you an advantage...

reer wrote:

He only lost to the Polish guy by 0.01, so it's not as though he was soundly beaten in 4th. With that close of a margin it's absolutely reasonable to think that stepping inside on the turn could have made a difference to the finishing order.

Again:

You get NO advantage from stepping on the inside lane of an indoor 200m track while sprinting.

Did you see the Men's 4x400m?

Did you see how the thirs American runner, being in the front, ran on the outside of lane one? Just as Galen Rupp does?

You saying that Lewandowski got some sort of advantage know nothing about indoor RACING.

and Again, even from the photo, he is not JUST on the line, he is easily well inside it

It goes to a clear violation , an easy and correct call.

If you are referring to MY post, please reread it -- "Potential advantage," I said. I don't think you get an advantage by stepping inside the line (especially on an indoor track) but the rules rule it out, presumably because the potential is there. One step inside,no advantage; cutting off the whole curve, big advantage -- so, it's illegal.

IAAF Rule 163-3(b) must have been reviewed by the Inspectors at the start of the meet. Seems like a unusually large number of that specific lane violation has been called recently.

singalong ads must go too wrote:

IAAF Rule 163-3(b) must have been reviewed by the Inspectors at the start of the meet. Seems like a unusually large number of that specific lane violation has been called recently.

Agree, after every race youre just waiting to see who will be DQed.

osagie has never struck me as a particularly gracious man. always seems to come across as pretty arrogant.

in the past he's always had weird hair too.

LabTech wrote:

If you are referring to MY post, please reread it -- "Potential advantage," I said.

Point taken.

LabTech wrote:

It was not a gracious interview

Why do you say this? Anything specific?

He said repeatedly that it is not the way anyone wants to get a medal, but that the rules are the rules. He also mentioned he's been DQd for it himself.

The margin between 3rd and 4th was 0.01.

Could running unhinged and cutting the last corner get you around the oval 0.01s faster than controlling your line at 27s lap pace? Of course it could.

I actually think most lane infraction DQs are weak, but this one is entirely legit.

LabTech wrote:

they need to have a rail.

THIS is the smartest post of all. Seriously, how could they not? Aren't WRs not ratified without a rail? (Could be bad news for the US 4x400 men...)

LOL II wrote:

You get NO advantage from stepping on the inside lane of an indoor 200m track while sprinting.

You sound like you have raced the 200/300/400 indoors.

If so, you should get that the distance isn't the only thing. The unfair advantage in this case is that it is harder to fight the centrifugal force involved in taking a corner at 27s lap speed, balancing that with the inward force you need to apply, if you ACTUALLY KEEP YOURSELF IN THE LANE.

It's like the relay hand-off zones. It it doubtful that handing off one step outside the zone makes a material difference to the race per se, but NOT WORRYING ABOUT THE ZONE AT ALL would make it a lot easier to just run. Unfair disadvantage to those who do it by the rules, as Osagie did here.

generally, losing your balance, taking a step inside, and then having to correct for it does not benefit you during the spring at all. that was the case with lewandoski. I'd not protest that to get myself a medal because it should be who gets to the line first without blatant cheating, but the rules were followed by the officials.

What happens if Lewandoski doesn't step inside the track? He made the decision to step inside the lane because staying in his lane would have negatively affected his stride. Costing him more than 0.01s?

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

generally, losing your balance, taking a step inside, and then having to correct for it does not benefit you during the spring at all. that was the case with lewandoski. I'd not protest that to get myself a medal because it should be who gets to the line first without blatant cheating, but the rules were followed by the officials.

1. You are correct. The rules were correctly followed.

2. I agree that IN THIS CASE there was no advantage gained. The point, though, is that there is no way for officials to determine this objectively. If we looked at the actual advantage/disadvantage, every single athlete who stepped inside could simply argue, "Yes, I stepped inside, but it didn't help me." It would be a sh!tstorm.

3. You wouldn't pursue this DQ as an athlete? Fine. But would you pursue it as a coach or other team official? Probably. Can you imagine how lambasted the GB staff would be if they DIDN'T pursue an obvious DQ at a championship event?

Aren't you allowed two steps inside?

Mmmmmmarc wrote:

What happens if Lewandoski doesn't step inside the track? He made the decision to step inside the lane because staying in his lane would have negatively affected his stride. Costing him more than 0.01s?

This^

Lane Infringement

3.

b) In all races (or any part of races) not run in lanes, an athlete running on a bend, on the outer half of the track as per Rule 162.10...shall not step or run on or inside the kerb or line marking the applicable border (the inside of the track, the outer half of the track

If the Referee is satisfied, on the report of a Judge or Umpire or otherwise, that an athlete has violated this

Rule, he shall be disqualified.