Martin - x wrote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2120957/
And despite all of that interesting information which proves that in EVEN in today's high-tech environment, there surely is still NO ABSOLUTELY EXACT way to measure tracks/performances perfectly, people get upset when one raises the possiblity that, for example, the grass track that Snell ran his 1:44 on might possibly have been short.
I am not saying it definitely was at all, but if times/measurements today are still somewhat subjective and prone to innacuracies, then what about nearly 1/2 century ago, with hand timing and less precise measuring equipment??? One can almost guarantee that there were ratified WR's that simply should not have been, in all fairness, recorded WR's. Again, not picking on Snell's time (but somehow the impermanent grass track, which also one might think would be slower, raises an eyebrow), because one could pick out any time really from those bygone eras.
And as we all know, NY marathon was short for awhile, and wasn't Boston short too? Who knows what other courses/tracks were short.
And I also hear there are some really short tracks in China somewhere, with some watches that run a little "fast."
This shit pales in comparison to the taint of doping on records. Remember, it was Tim Montgomery's record that was broken. Montgomery has testified to a grand jury that he used PED's and was part of the BALCO scandal.
Out.
Thanks. Most here had forgotten that performance enhancing drugs play a role in track and field.
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Official Suzhou Diamond League Discussion Thread (7-9 am ET+ Instant Reaction show at 9:05 am ET)
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday