Using Deano's splits (he is know'n to be very carefully in such things and there is no reason to believe he hasn't done it the best way he could - they may differ here or there by 1 tenth, but hardly by more than 2 I would say) Iguider would have run sometihing around those 100m split times:
0-200m: 12.95s
200m-300m: 14.8s
300m-400m: 16.4s
400m-600m: 13.75s
600m-800m: 15.6s
800m-1000m: 13.9s
1000m-1100m: 14.2s
1100m-1200m: 16.0s
1200m-1300m: 12.3s(?)
1300m-1400m: 14.1s
1400m-1500m: 13.4s(ca)
This adds up to 3:33.6 - 7 tenths too much
If we add 1.3s for running the extra distance between the two curved lines, we would get the folowing 100m times:
0-200m: 13.6s
200m-300m: 14.8s
300m-400m: 15.1s
400m-600m: 14.4s
600m-800m: 14.95s
800m-1000m: 14.55s
1000m-1100m: 14.2s
1100m-1200m: 14.7s
1200m-1300m: 13.6s(?)
1300m-1400m: 14.1s
1400m-1500m: 13.4s(ca)
The 2nd string of times definitely is the one which I think is the more realistic one.
It clearly leads to the conclusion that they started the race from the wrong line.
LetsRun sleuths do it again! Abdalaati Iguider's 3.32.88 2015 World Leading 1500m was run from the wrong start line!
Pro News/Info/Results
Distance
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
jjjjjj wrote:
A 3:32.88 that is no pr (for Iguider, a 3:29 guy) or national record, nor major championship winner does not merit this kind of analysis.
I really like such comments when someone wants to evaluate if the effort someone elso does is worth doing or not. Nobody says that you have to be interested in the question - curious that you think someone elso also hasn't to be interested in it. -
What if that line is actually for 2km steeplechase? Just under 5 laps since each lap would be over 400m? It really looks like they started in the wrong line judging from the 200m split. Or maybe that '200m' split could be actually a 185m or so split because it's hard to tell where the 100m line is on the curve. Either way i'm really interested in how things will turn out. Of course that either way 3:32 or 3:34 won't be the wl for much too long.
-
Good or bad? wrote:
It really looks like they started in the wrong line judging from the 200m split. Or maybe that '200m' split could be actually a 185m or so split because it's hard to tell where the 100m line is on the curve.
It is very easy to see, in fact. Look for when they hit a the white line between two yellow lines before coming off the bend. That is dead-center in the relay exchange, 100 meters from the finish.
As RCS says, the TV display clock says 25.2 if you stop the video at that line. Fast, but not that crazy. The TV clock seems to start properly at the start. I doubt the start was too far forward. -
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
There is no way the legitimate last 4 x 100m splits were 16.0, 12.3, 14.1, 13.4
WTF are you talking about?
Pausing the video when the leader hits the curved 3000 start (100m in) shows the TV clock at 13.3.
Pause at 100 hash line (middle of relay takeover) = 25.2. (200m in)
Pause at start line: 39.9. (300m in)
Pause back at 1500 start: 54.6. (400m)
That makes 13.3 / 12.9 / 14.7 / 14.7.
Duhh!
Look at the start line they use 43 secs into the video. It is the 2nd curved line on the back straight. There is a black box on the infield next to this line and an orange symbol on the advertising board around the outside. From that start line they reach the 100m from home line (the white staggered line before the yellow one) in 25.1 for the pacer. That's 50.2 400m pace.
The pacer then hits the finish line in 39.8 (the guy in yellow is more clear at 40.0) . That's a 14.7 stretch. No problem.
You then foolishly quote the 400m split as 54.6. You are taking that split on the first curved line, which is indeed the proper 1500m start line, BUT, the 'official' 400m split is taken at the 2nd curved line, which is the one they actually started from. So the 54.6 split is for 390m.
The pacer doesn't pass the start line (the 2nd curved line) until 55.9. The African in the yellow in 56.1. That represents a 16.1 100m stretch from the finish line to the line they started the race from.
So the 13.3 / 12.9 / 14.7 / 14.7 you quote is absolute nonsense. Yes, that is roughly what the splits should have been if you take into consideration they started 10m further up the track.
Using the (wrong) start line you get a first 200m (the 200m start line is not clear on this vid) of 25.1, then a 14.8, then a 16.1.
On the 2nd lap the pacer runs the 200m (from the wrong start line - 56.1)from 400m to 600m(1:23.8) in 27.7. The video then is badly edited, but the 800m time (to the 2nd curve) is 1:54.5, meaning that 200m from 600 to 800 was supposedly 31.3.
The pacer hits the 1000m mark (which reinforces that this is the 100m from home point) in 2:22.3. Again, the 200m stretch from 800 was a super fast 27.8 (following on from the previous 200m of 31.3!) Iguider would have gone through 1000m in c. 2:23.2. He then runs the nest 100m to the bell in about 14.4. (2:37.4/2:37.5)
On the last lap, we see Iguider hit the mile start curve in 2:36.1, meaning he went through the bell (9.3m further on) in c 2:37.4/2:37.5. He then goes through the start line (the 2nd curve) in 2:53.5. That's a 16.0 100m stretch!?
Again, the 200m start line is not obvious, but he certainly hits the 100m from home line in 3:19.0, and his torso is over the finish line in 3:32.5. There is obviously a residual error of about 0.4 sec, but that would have been the same at all the marks where splits are taken.
So from 1000m we have a 14.4, 16.0, 25.5, 13.5. There is no way that they slowed down that much for 100m and then sped up to 51.0 400m pace from 1200 to 1400m.
If you take the first curved line as the 1200m split, which is where the race should have (but DIDN'T start from), then you'd have got the following from 1000m for Iguider: -
2:23.2/2:37.5/2:52.3/3:19.0/3:32.5
or ~ 14.3, 14.8, 26.7, 13.5
That gives closing splits of ~ 55.0, 40.2, 13.5, based on the running clock. Because of the residual error of 0.4, then his times at each 100m point over the last lap would have been more like - 2:37.9, 2:52.7, 3:19.4, 3:32.9
But the splits obviously don't change.
It is clear from just watching the race with the naked eye that there is no such drastic fluctuation in pace. The reason for the wildly changeable splits is because they started from the wrong line and ran less than 1500m.
If you can't follow that then I can't help you. -
Deano is right. All the skeptics - pause the video at 28 seconds in. You will clearly see the athletes standing behind the 1500m start line. Then they are called up and several athletes seem very confused with a few almost staying back and then deciding they have to get up there.
The leader hit the Start line (300m into the race) in approx 39.5x - this is way too fast of a split. Any fool reading this that didn't watch the video needs to have their head examined. They ran short and it is very clear in the video. -
Leader of the Pack wrote:
Deano is right. All the skeptics - pause the video at 28 seconds in. You will clearly see the athletes standing behind the 1500m start line. Then they are called up and several athletes seem very confused with a few almost staying back and then deciding they have to get up there.
The leader hit the Start line (300m into the race) in approx 39.5x - this is way too fast of a split. Any fool reading this that didn't watch the video needs to have their head examined. They ran short and it is very clear in the video.
Cheers bud! I'm glad some people are actually looking carefully.
It makes one wonder if they can mess up in 2015, how many more times has this happened before? -
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/75+Rue+Lenain+de+Tillemont,+93100+Montreuil,+France/@48.8609655,2.4618824,68m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47e612ac5a46ad3f:0xc755b47cc846176b!6m1!1e1
Looks like they've moved the water jump to the outside of the track (after this pic was taken), remarked the start lone for the outside jump and mistakenly started the race from that new marking.
If you look an see where the 300m start is in lane 3, then this is where the new start line intersects with the marker...as apposed to where it should intersect in lane one. The where standing on the right line before being called to on your marks. -
Right start line. The other one was for some wacky distance. Lots of depth, and iguider might contend for a medal at world's as that's how they're gonna run it. Who's Elijah kiptoo?
-
Leader of the Pack wrote:
Deano is right. All the skeptics - pause the video at 28 seconds in. You will clearly see the athletes standing behind the 1500m start line. Then they are called up and several athletes seem very confused with a few almost staying back and then deciding they have to get up there.
The leader hit the Start line (300m into the race) in approx 39.5x - this is way too fast of a split. Any fool reading this that didn't watch the video needs to have their head examined. They ran short and it is very clear in the video.
If true, then I hope Deano will let the stats people at T&FN, the meet directors, and any relevant media folk know about this... -
JRinaldi wrote:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/75+Rue+Lenain+de+Tillemont,+93100+Montreuil,+France/@48.8609655,2.4618824,68m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47e612ac5a46ad3f:0xc755b47cc846176b!6m1!1e1
Looks like they've moved the water jump to the outside of the track (after this pic was taken), remarked the start lone for the outside jump and mistakenly started the race from that new marking.
If you look an see where the 300m start is in lane 3, then this is where the new start line intersects with the marker...as apposed to where it should intersect in lane one. The where standing on the right line before being called to on your marks.
This is the Jean Delbert stadium in Montreuil, the next `stop' in the series.
In Marseille, it should be this one, but the picture is old, if it really is the right place:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Stade+Delort/@43.2689908,5.398793,199m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x12c9b8a60e873249:0xdaae88bc48a7ad8!6m1!1e1 -
seb wrote:
Right start line. The other one was for some wacky distance. Lots of depth, and iguider might contend for a medal at world's as that's how they're gonna run it. Who's Elijah kiptoo?
It was definitely the wrong starting line.
For starters, the steeple water jump is on the outside on this track, so the 1500m steeple start would not be found in the usual place (behind the 1500m start). instead it would move up and be in front of the 1500m start line. So the first line should be 1500 and the second 1500 steeple instead of the other way around.
Secondly, look at the athletes faces when they are called forward. They are looking at each other with confused expressions and none of them budge for 5s until they finally heed the starters call to come forward to the 1500 steeple line. Every single one of them hesitated. They knew it was the wrong line.
Thirdly, the splits. Deano has shown that the splits are consistent with starting approx 10m forward from the correct line. -
lol lol lol lol wrote:
Leader of the Pack wrote:
Deano is right. All the skeptics - pause the video at 28 seconds in. You will clearly see the athletes standing behind the 1500m start line. Then they are called up and several athletes seem very confused with a few almost staying back and then deciding they have to get up there.
The leader hit the Start line (300m into the race) in approx 39.5x - this is way too fast of a split. Any fool reading this that didn't watch the video needs to have their head examined. They ran short and it is very clear in the video.
If true, then I hope Deano will let the stats people at T&FN, the meet directors, and any relevant media folk know about this...
Thanks. Any ideas how I go about doing it!? -
Measuring this track with MapMyRun.com resulted in the first line being .3km (300m) and then second line resulting in .31km (310m), MapMyRun is actual very accurate on tracks. Now this is an old photo and the water jump has been since moved to the outside (from my understanding of other posts on the thread) so the lines may have been changed. but if they havent the 1st line or the one they started from appears to be correct.
-
JB06 wrote:
1500 Steeple most likely.
Thanks for the link.
Comparing the marks after the line they go past at the start (see the video at 38s) with that schema, I think they are indeed going past the 1500m start line. (See the 300m start in lane 2, or the 4x100 start of transmission zone in lane 4.)
That leaves us with the question: what could this second line be? The 2000 steeple chase? That would work with 423.28m laps (with an outside water jump that can be seen with some difficulty on the video, or the dashed line that goes from it back to the home stretch), which does not seem too far fetched. -
(I had to drop the link to the track schema in the quote because otherwise, I get an unfinished HTML page that ends in "No Spam". Weird.)
Video at the right offset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05GEhZqhYcQ#t=38. -
grox wrote:
That would work with 423.28m laps
And that ridiculously precise number comes from the assumption that the next line is 10m down from the 1500m line, which is probably not even the case. -
Deanouk wrote:
lol lol lol lol wrote:
Leader of the Pack wrote:
Deano is right. All the skeptics - pause the video at 28 seconds in. You will clearly see the athletes standing behind the 1500m start line. Then they are called up and several athletes seem very confused with a few almost staying back and then deciding they have to get up there.
The leader hit the Start line (300m into the race) in approx 39.5x - this is way too fast of a split. Any fool reading this that didn't watch the video needs to have their head examined. They ran short and it is very clear in the video.
If true, then I hope Deano will let the stats people at T&FN, the meet directors, and any relevant media folk know about this...
Thanks. Any ideas how I go about doing it!?
Email? Starting a post like this one on the T&FN site? -
So, what's the verdict, was it a short 1500 or not?
-
When I wrote that they went past the 1500m start line, I meant when they went past it when they were called to their marks. So I vote short.
