Shanon Rowbury should have been DQ'd from the 5000.

smart donkey wrote:

Try reading the rules before attempting to be a smartass. A runner CAN veer to go around a slower runner. That is called passing. You still can't impede another runner when doing so.

Everyone keeps telling those of us who recognize this wasn't a foul to read the rules yet no call here and no call at the trials a few years ago. Maybe the nerds and pansies on the board need to get their noses out of a book and start running some races.

Glad I'm not in a foxhole with any of you.

-10/10

The Ump is back wrote:

I'm a troll. I need lessons. Please help me. :-(

WTF!!! I didn't type that. I am not a troll. I support every running gimmick Alberto comes up with. Winning is the most important thing in life.

Not a Rowbury fan, and even less so knowing she eats at the SaladBar.

Troll outer wrote:

-10/10

It's cute how the Brojos try to support their lame opinions. Hard to believe there is an Ivy League education hidden in there.

Sounds like the USATF needs to step in and make a clear statement to athletes that the "no veering" rule will be strongly enforced. I've been in track for decades and wasn't aware of it. Just thought it was part of racing.

This is all just a big misunderstanding. Rowbury moved out to lane 2 to give Molly more room to pass on the inside. She din't realize Molly was veering out to lane 3, otherwise she would have stepped into the infield to give Molly the entire track. Al is an upstanding guy who goes to mass every Sunday, he'd never instruct his athlete's to stoop to such dirty tactics.

Forcing your opponent to veer as far over as possible to pass you now has a name: The Dirty Salazar.

chronic wrote:

Sounds like the USATF needs to step in and make a clear statement to athletes that the "no veering" rule will be strongly enforced. I've been in track for decades and wasn't aware of it. Just thought it was part of racing.

Now that we have a bunch of pansies focused on the sport who are more concerned with crying "it's NOT FAIR!" you'll probably hear more and more about it.

The Ump is back wrote:

Now that we have a bunch of pansies focused on the sport who are more concerned with crying "it's NOT FAIR!" you'll probably hear more and more about it.

Something that people who live in the bubble of their own making cannot understand is when the majority of population disagrees with them. It just makes them shout louder and louder as if name calling and screaming can prove that their minority thinking has to be respected!

When African runners go wide to impede an opponent in the stretch not one of the PC dorks at Letsrun ever complains.

The Ump is back wrote:

smart donkey wrote:

Try reading the rules before attempting to be a smartass. A runner CAN veer to go around a slower runner. That is called passing. You still can't impede another runner when doing so.

Everyone keeps telling those of us who recognize this wasn't a foul to read the rules yet no call here and no call at the trials a few years ago. Maybe the nerds and pansies on the board need to get their noses out of a book and start running some races.

Glad I'm not in a foxhole with any of you.

Why have rules if you are not going to enforce them. That kind of BS leads to the debacle at US indoors where people were being DQ'd for NO REASON AT ALL.

This was definitely a foul as defined by USATF. They just chose not to call it. That does not change the fact that it wasn't a foul. Just like any sport fouls often go uncalled.

You have never been in a 'fox' hole in your life.

Umpire wrote:

"boo hoo....she cut me off".

Next time a runner has to go three wide to get around a runner who's moved wide to get around another runner we'll just file a protest. After all it's right there in the rules. No veering right?

What a group of crybabies.

Veering out into lane 3 is poor sportsmanship (in addition to being clearly against the written rules). Wait, here's an idea, call me a crybaby again, that will clear things up.

It's also possible the umpire simply didn't see it. The camera angle was perfect for spotting this. And I have seen an African DQed for exactly the same behavior. It happened in the Pre, last year (I think), in the 800.

calm down, bro wrote:

melt down wrote:

the stupid poster is you. you have a agenda. it can ONLY have happened the way you predetermined it could have happened. geez, get a life dude, and realize your myopic view of events is not something you can force on others.

al sal would have absolutely filed a protest to dq huddle if the roles were switched. that is a fact.

Christ almighty, calm down. Huddle said she wasn't impeded. She called Shannon a smart racer. She then said if the roles were reversed, she would've done the same thing herself.

By your criteria there are a few hundred dopers who should be unbanned.

I totally agree! If the shoe had been on the other foot Salazar would be screaming bloody murder, especially if Rowbury didn't win because of the dirty racing tactics she pulled on Huddle.

Eye Hate Nike wrote:

Based on the criteria put forth in Alberto's melt down at indoors, Rowbury clearly impeded Molly MF'N Huddle.

WhooHoo! wrote:

I totally agree! If the shoe had been on the other foot Salazar would be screaming bloody murder, especially if Rowbury didn't win because of the dirty racing tactics she pulled on Huddle.

Eye Hate Nike wrote:

Based on the criteria put forth in Alberto's melt down at indoors, Rowbury clearly impeded Molly MF'N Huddle.

This is the correct answer^

Total hypocrisy.

i like rowbury but she was blocking a faster runner

This is all just a big misunderstanding

-------------------------------------------"

Save the misunderstandings for some other race this was for a nat title.

It's fine to want to win that bad but when you actually try to impede the compition that should be understood by officals and action taken. DQ'ed.