When You Cheat But Break The World Record
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- Was it legal?
========================================================
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS - Спорт
Donovan Bailey looked embarrassed during his interview and knew he got away with a false start in that record 50 metres run.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. It was their problem, not his. Besides, it makes up a little bit for all the times they called a false start on Ben Johnson, just because his reaction times were very fast, even for a sprinter. Much faster than a few non-athletes used to set the 0.10 standard.
W/out the actual starting gun included for viewers here, it's not worth an argument either way. Silent video doesn't offer necessary info. Plus, narrative overdub only distracts viewers focus further. The false start controversy is basically the reality of how human error will always prevail over science, statistics, precision. Just let them all run in place til only 1 remains. The Ultimate Running Challenge: TURC!
At the time, this false start was allowed. Rules were different back in the 90s. But this 0.10 reaction rule is so f-ked up.
let it slide. Lol
Even with the slight false it was a masterful run as soon as he left the blocks.
A college meet with no electronic blocks. Thats a no no
Everyone is blood doping and on designer drugs steroids. Bigger problems
Honestly very few have them 😂😂
In meets we time it's up to the timer to provide them, and that's just not an expense we can afford, then only use them a couple times per year.
That almost never happens, I’ve never seen them in any meets. Including nationals
College no no. Correct
You forgot the part where the Finnish study was on 7 amateur athletes, not even professionals... xD thanks for covering this. I'm glad it's getting more light as this really needs to change. Disqualifying people because they can react faster than some random non-professional athletes 30 years ago did is a huge problem.
yeah, it was probably one of his other videos, but when I learned about what all went into why they have the .1 rule, I was dumbfounded. Imagine being someone genetically gifted and super trained to start well, and getting effed by this because it was done on a mere 7 genetically who knows what, non trained people. You'd actually have to train yourself to NOT start so good, that would be hard.
Why isn't it just zero?
@@onewhocollects6658 Because then you'd get people who don't have a realistic chance at medaling trying to time it perfectly. Effectively gambling, and that would not be fun to watch.
@@Daniel-ng8fi I kind of disagree there, for one poker is fascinating, plus if you keep the rule where starting before the pistol is penalised then reaction time becomes still a huge factor.
@@Dracon7601 This 0,1 second rule was not always there. I remember races when it was 0 and everyone could 1 false start. Every race took like 20 seconds (setting it up and running) up to 30 min. Can you imagine where every athlete tries to time it and it gets called back over and over again. Yes, that was happening back then. I don't want this shit back. Thats why this 0,1 rule AND 1 false start per race was implemented.
I'm glad you're making some noise about the silly 0.1 second rule. The Devon Allen fake false start was so unjust, it put a damper on my enjoyment of the Worlds. You can only imagine how it affected him. Who knows, the 2024 Olympics are 18 months away, maybe he can take another shot along with Julien Alfred in her 100m specialty.
Sadly they will be extremely unwilling to change the rule, because of the appeals they would have to deal with from past athletes.
Awesome video, I really appreciate how you look back to past races and raise questions a lot of people had back then and since then. I like how you call it straight as you see it, and props for mentioning Flo-Jo's highly dubious 10.49. That race deserves its own video! It's time these races get more publicly scrutinized, great job.
Couldn't have said it better. 👍.
The worst thing is that World Athletics did actually commission another study in 2009, also with Finnish athletes and similar testing methods. But that time they did record reactions as fast at .85 and the researchers recommended a rule change. For some reason World Athletics said the study wasn't robust enough to warrant a change.
We truly appreciate the effort you put in for these videos!
Indeed
Hell yeah! Can I get a what what?!?
I do appreciate the efforts but can we call a spade a spade..."very likely made the wrong call"? Puuulzzzeee...meanwhile he's willing to definitive about the World Record error...why the equivocation on the race where it was a blatant early start. But I do appreciate the this video (do over) showing the race with the audio...that really shows the magnitude of error.
One thing that would also be interesting if you could look into, is that one of the coaches (don't remember if it was Devon Allen's or someone else) claimed that the starting gun equipment at the World championships was likely miscalibrated, since there were an unproportionally high number of extremely fast starts (under 0.115 or whatever he said). He claimed that it would be statistically impossible for the number of fast starts to suddenly be many times higher than at previous championships unless the calibration was off. Again, if you have the opportunity, it would be interesting to hear more about.
Wonderful presentation TRP! You nailed it. Slight error in there, where you say 0.84, meaning 0.084. I can never resist mentioning the legend Armin Hary, gold medalist in the 1960 Rome Olympics. There are a couple of videos here on Tube that show, among other things, his world record in the 100. In particular, some type of ad? video isolates him in slow motion against the smoke from the starter gun where you can see how unbelievably fast he could start. In the Olympiad documentary for Rome they state that they tested his reaction time to be '3 times faster than normal.' All we need now is the average: say, if it's 0.125[about 1/8 sec.], that translates to a smoking 4 HUNDREDTHS of a second. I totally agree, 7 sprinters from a tiny country doesn't cut it. What you really need is the most random sample you can get, possibly even from the population at large, although non-sprinters as a group are probably slower without practice. I feel so, so bad for Devon.
That Donovan Bailey start was so obvious... But quick twitch reaction is everything in a race. #facts
You have been amazing with the consistent uploads great videos
Great video! I almost feel happy when a sprinter gets away with the false start. I myself am not a sprinter, but I’ve had the opportunity to train with a lot of college/university level sprinters here in Canada. And even at that level the amount of training and dedication these athletes have is absolutely amazing. and to have all that training sweat, blood and tears come down to the possibility of being eliminated after one fall start is mentally devastating. The rules definitely need to be changed. This is probably a conversation for another time, but it seems from my perspective and actually a lot of sprinters perspective that there is some kind of implicit bias at play when the .01 second and one false start rule was created 20 years ago.
I feel so bad Devon Allen. Getting a DQ by 0.001 difference. He went to a final for nothing.
as a jumior athlete in 1984 I got a "flyer" in my county 100m. Finished 3rd. Our club got the clean sweep. I was a mid distance runner . This was in Ireland when we were still peeing in bushes as a function, never mind track technology. We used to study the appointed starters and try and guess their timings and habits. If you got a flyer it was considered a skill almost, part of the game. Linford Christie would try to go on the B of Bang. We would try to go on The line "I", before the two bumps for "B" appeared.
I remember once me and 2 others caused a false start, IN A MILE RACE.
Did they DQ you? No? Hm.
Congratulations
I once intentionally false started a 800 because i could feel an injury coming on in my calf.. but my coach wouldn’t let me scratch. It was a meaningless race too.
Let's just also say we accept the officials are doing their best and we are so thankful for their efforts. None of us are perfect
In fairness to them: clean starting a short sprint is probably not possible with consistency now. It does not seem they have clearly defined what, exactly, a false start is. In my view, just cutting it off at 0.1 is illegitimate.
The rule should be a DQ if reacted before the gun and a restart if within 0-0.1 seconds
Agreed
At most 0.09 second false start imo
Horrible idea
@@Messup7654 How so?
@@Laxit-fn8yr they can’t determine who reacted before the gun and if they got within that time frame they earned it
i totally agree, i think its long overdue for a more in depth study than 7 athletes and all from the same country, considering how many races are run both collegiate and professional 7 is just barely 1 race worth of competitors, the fairest way would be to have a designated amount of countries and pick 2 or 4 athletes (male and female) from each country so they have a good cross section to parse from, if people were getting away with a few hundredths of a second or even 1/100th its understandable to disqualify but 1/1000th or 5/1000ths for the lady? thats seriously harsh imo, yet another great vid from TRP keep them coming as theyre much appreciated
I love your content, learning about these topics is great conversation in many contexts to avoid other sensitive topics.
Every forensic tool must be used. Forensics does wonders when applied to the unjustly convicted and when applied to the just from ever being convicted. This World Record Sprint injustice is proven by forensics. Forensically, you have told the truth. It's OK to tell the truth. Keep on making the awesome videos!
How about it's as long as you start after the gun? That makes the most sense. I know there is reaction time involved and all that, but on the rare occasion you could predict when the gun was going to go off and you still started after the gun, you just get lucky. Luck plays a part in sports too. Look at other sports. Football for instance, as a defender, you can't cross the line of scrimmage until the ball is snapped. There isn't a time limit, you just cannot cross before it is snapped. So you get plays where people go to early and try to predict and they get penalized for going early. Then you get plays like when Troy Polamalu jumped over the line to sack the quarterback because he timed it perfectly.
bro so u wanna make this sport all about being able to guess when the guns gonna go, so for example if usain perfectly guessed the gun on his WR run he wouldve run around 9.3-9.35, so that makes sense, right? (u trippin fr)
how far away was the mic from the runners in the terrence jones race? sound takes longer to travel than light, and the phone might add extra sound/video sync issues. but, I'm not saying it wasn't a false start, just that you can't use that footage with sound to work it out. I think you did a great deep dive using other methods that showed the start was questionable.
Clearly a false start by Bailey … but I’ll stand by my Canadian with pride nonetheless 👍🏻
The Devon Allen one is just so sad, I can't imagine how rough that would have been for him.
Maurice Greene is also run 50m 5.56 in Los Angeles 1999...
A worthwhile conversation. NEW STUDY!!!
What if you reached out to a bunch of universities and companies, get the ball rolling. See who wants to help fund this necessary work.
For the Flo Jo "wind reading" theory... There is a 62 page scientific analysis of that run, i did a write-up before on this... No one elses time appeared to be wind aided in her 10.49 heat. Gail Devers was in the heat and some other well known names and they ran around the times that they run at high effort. So what may have happened is the wind may have changed directions during the heat, so it may have been windy but for the heat the wind was not at their backs but instead a crosswind because the heat information doesn't show anyone aided by wind.
If I’m not mistaken I seen you post this on twitter?
But Flo Jo runs will always be a thing of question
@@mssha1980 I'm not on Twitter
Hey TRP are you going to cover the USATF XC championships?
I am still getting very sad when I am seeing the false start of Devon Allen (the non sense rule)
It broke my heart 💔
I have the opinion that track should be about how fast people can run a distance, not how fast they can respond to a gun. My idea is that we start sprinters like funny cars start. Have tones that countdown three, two, one, start, and also have LED lights on the line that the sprinters can see. Yes, it will mean a difference in world records of pre-tone starts and post tone starts, but we already have that with things like the polevault, and the records before and after fiberglass. Also in the javelin, when they changed it to lower the distance people could throw.
Ya, or even a digital clock counting down, and when it hits zero, a sound plays and the race starts :)
July 1996 Olympic 100m Finals in Atlanta, Donovan Bailey set the 100m Dash World Record in 9.84.
**He was NOT a great starter**
In fact he was probably in 4th-5th place, down by at least 1 meter at around 50 meters.
Bailey’s top-end speed was insane as he became the 1st person to ever top 27 mph in a race. This was based on his fastest 10m split as he went from 4th-5th place to 1st place **LIKE WHOA** in that race.
Loved Donovan as he was always entertaining in interviews.
He probably should have been a 200m specialist but he loved the sizzle of the 100 spotlight. My guess is like everyone else in Atlanta, he was on HGH, hence the WR. That Canadian sprint team was smoking fast!
Unfortunately, too often statistics are misunderstood and misused. They can absolutely be a powerful tool; but you always have to check your understandings of them to make sure you're not founded on an error, such as I believe the 0.1 sec reaction time false start rule is based off. Ideally, they would do a new study of reaction time with a statistically significant number of athletes; divide the time into a gaussian distribution, then say take the 2nd sigma or 3rd sigma as the mark. This way you could be pretty confident that either 97.8 or 99.9% of people would fall within the range. You could also just add a straight modifier, like you did... so 0.1 sec minus 0.025 for 0.075; like you said, where 0.025 sec is the "fudge" factor.
The problem is that it should be physiologically impossible for an athlete to react before a given time to make it fair for everyone.
@@wilhelmw3455 yeah this. The people this rule would be effecting are already the top .1% of humans, so whatever the time is, it needs to be such that its physiologically impossible for anyone to go faster than.
Punishing an athlete for having good reaction time is so stupid
Great video and 💯 percent facts 👏 👌 💯 👍 🙌
Point made. Well done. I believe that your reaction time can be trained to be faster. If this is all these athletes are training for, and their sole purpose in life at that time, they will train harder, train better, and with the advent of digital blocks, we can track exactly how fast their start time is.
Where there are digital blocks, why not just make the time 0? or 0.01? It doesn't really matter then what is possible... the only way the athlete would false start is anticipating the gun, and most likely would be taking off before the gun goes off. Currently, reflex action/reaction time can reach 0.08 seconds, which is within reason for athletes trained to use those muscles that quickly as opposed to using their brain to process the sound of the gun. Who knows, maybe this can be further developed with other techniques.
At the very least, the false start time should drop to 0.05 or lower, all to accommodate those amazing athletes we keep finding.
If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying😂😂
I got another one for you: When Usain Bolt was disqualified due to his alleged false start in the 100m final of Daegu 2011, I was pretty sure that it was the winner Yohan Blake who actually caused the false start, not Bolt! I remember watching the start many times in super slow motion, and it was pretty obvious that Yohan Blake moved up his buttocks BEFORE Usain Bolt did. I think Bolt just reacted to Blake's movement, and was thus disqualified.
There was a guy that false started the 3200 at state, and everyone at the time was pretty sure it's because he didn't want to lose after having been the 2 time champion. The reality is, only he knows what happened. The fact is he'd been 2 time champion at cross country, 1600 and 3200, then one guy beat him at cross country and the 1600 before he false started the 3200.
I remember watching Donovan Bailey's race when it happened and thought he false started and was in shock that they allowed it to stand. Hard to believe it's been almost 30yrs ago... Wow!!
Altitude helps the sprinters. Sea level helps the distance runners. There’s no logical reason that altitude should be considered “assisted” any more than sea level should be. As for Bailey’s 50m WR, it should stand. If you start going back and taking records away based on someone “looking like” they got a flyer, you’re going to open up a can of worms. Leave the past where it belongs.
I think it would be a good idea to revisit the arbitrary false start rule, based on a much larger sample size and the fastest human reaction times. Some people just have faster reaction times than others. Doesn’t seem right to penalize someone who has the fastest reaction times, any more than someone who has the highest top speed.
Why do those things help each other
@@Messup7654
Thin air at high elevation = less wind resistance for sprinters = faster times
Thick air at low elevations = more oxygen for distance runners = faster times
@@orwellknew9112 couldn’t they just do sprints on lose wind gust days?
@@Messup7654 scheduling. they can't just wait out the weather in major events most of the time.
Thanks. That makes it much clearer.
Take an old school stopwatch. Hit the start and stop button at fast as you can. Repeat as many times as you want to consider "statistically significant" and let me know what the average of that number is. That number is a conscious reaction to one's own stimulus. In no way should the answer to a false start number be less than this number.
If an athlete is able to "guess" that start gun and is WILLING to risk disqualification by "guessing" the pistol vs disqualification, that's part of the gamesmanship of the sport. Such is life. Such is the calculated risk/chance you take. And such is the sport.
Randomly penalizing a .001 differential is absolutely mechanical/technological error because it's incredibly hard to voluntarily start that close to a known stimulus, let alone an unknown one
Just here to let u know nyckoles harbor just ran 6.66 and 6.64 in the 60m
You clearly see him moving before the gun
😂
That can not be fair!
7 Finn's. Well, being Finnish, I am quite sure these were the 7 fastest in history, correct? 😳 Wow! How did that get okayed by any organization?
How did the Vikings win that game this year?
It's not just how you start but how you finish.😊
@@vernonfrance2974 nice pun if you intended
You are 100% correct!
Hello this statement is in regards to Donovan Bailey and is supposed false-start which rendered him a world record in the 50 m dash!
I personally in the past had one of the fastest starts that could have ever been the one thing that I have was taught and I still teach to this day is as you come into the blocks and the gunman calls you to your marks once in position you're settling your self! Once you hear the command set and you raised up you are to clear your mind and ready yourself to react to a "sound"
It is at this point if in fact you are listening closely enough and relaxed you can actually hear the gun click before the explosion of the round! So if you are reacting to a sound it is the sound of the click that you react to! Many athletes are simply not in tune to those types of sounds!
If they were you wouldn't have much closer races much more of the time!
Btw, the reason for this rule is to stop people from starting before they hear the gun. Hear the gun then go. Perfectly reasonable rule but I would increase it to 0.12 as no human is reacting at 0.1 consistently because they are just guessing the timing of the gun.
Finland? That legendary hot bed of international sprinting prowess!
I believe that 84 ms is the theoretical fastest and they used the lower limit of all estimates. So why not make it 80 ms, just to be sure? Interesting that taller athletes will be slower because the neurological signal is distance dependent. Hence SAFP would have an advantage at the start over Usain Bolt. Hard to argue with Usain's top end speed though!!!
The advantage is almost 0. neural impulses travel through melinated axons at 50m/s, a 30cm difference in travel length would make a 0.006s difference. that's like the difference from 0.100 and 0.106 RT, not something to take too much in consideration, if you consider that the same athlete has usually way bigger differences himself in different races.
If we're going after the Indoor 50m WR, then we gotta have a hard conversation about a bunch of Women's WRs from the 80s (100/200/400/800m, 4x4, Shot Put, Discus & LJ)!
Add the Heptathlon to that list too.
They are still doping today in Jamaica.
@@Ghoster311 Let me guess. Bitter American
All the top athletes are doping
And the men’s discus and hammer.
This is awesome
I have an idea that could help a bit.
If two athletes have the same time (one hundredth of a second accuracy). The athlete with the slower reaction time goes in front. This is fair and can lead to less false starting in the shorter sprints.
lets just get rid of reaction times then, do it all time trial style. clock starts when you leave the blocks and stops when you cross the line.
You should do Marvin Bracy's 6.08 55m
Level the playing field ...We should do that across the board 🙏🏿🤫🤔😉
If you’re supposed to be “reacting” to a gun going off, then it’s an easy fix. Have the gun go off between 3 and 8 seconds after “set”. You’re asking runners to react to a gun going off, but they’re just getting lucky on timing their take off.
Good followup to the link I gave you in the previous video.
Funny timing for this video, this weekend I just got beat by someone who obviously false started but the ref somehow didn't see it
As I said in comments on your video on Devon's disqualification, Armin Harry would be unable to compete in this environment as his reaction time was verified as below .09.
What was it?
What do you think about Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce’s start in the 2009 World Champs?
Why don't they just time the runs of each athlete from when they push from the blocks and then subtract that from the finish time for each athlete? That way we really wouldn't really care what their reaction time was, and a slow reaction time (within reason) would not be penalized. The traditional "photo finish" wouldn't mean as much, but the final composed image showing chests crossing the line is an artificial creation anyway, and it could be corrected for right there.
Because part of the race is getting out the blocks efficiently
I agree, they really should look at the older world records, it isn't fair for things like that to happen.
That clearly was a false start,without any doubt!
I saw the world record race in the womens' 800m and remember wondering to myself at the time ..."Why is there a man running with these women ?"
Only to realize shortly there after that it was a woman running after all !!!
She was definately on something...who in their right mind could deny that now !
this needs to be fixed before the next major international track championship
Ideally the sound recording should come from a point near to the athletes but between the athletes and the starter.
With modern technologies, instead of banning athletes, it would make sense to just adjust for the false start time to get the actual run time. This takes the pressure of timing as well as getting the perfect start out from them. Heck, if someone wants to remain back, they can and count down only starts when they say get their foot off the support bars. This would shift the focus on to objective running where the true fastest racer wins, not just the one who crosses the line first. That said, it would be in their interest to start together to get that split stream boost or motivation in chasing down or being ahead.
You can cry all day long because your favorite got disqualified, and I agree that we should not be using humans to time the starts but a sophisticated computer control that triggers both the gun and measures the takeout force. Pretending to retroactively apply rules is just nonsense and a show of emotion getting in the way of rules that are part of the human justice system since classical Rome, maybe before.
We have the technology to sync the triggering of the starting pistol with a laser light that can confirm whether a false start occurred.
If the legal reaction time was lowered to .07, as you suggested, is it possible that Terence Jones' reaction time was within this hypothetical limit?
There were studies done with professional baseball and hockey goalies. Which both at the very elite of the reaction scale can start to react around 30milliseconds. Which is 0.030.
Completely agree, TRP.
This is also why FloJo's 100m 10.49 needs to go. There was obviously too much wind and no reading.
In her memory her 10.61 should be noted as the real record from 1988 to 2021 when ETH lowered it to 10.54
No one else's time in her heat appeared to be aided. Every one ran around what they run at high effort except her.
@@dennisrobinson8008 it was a quarterfinal though. So she obviously was much better than the other athletes.
@@TheSriram28 4-5 meters ahead of Gail Devers and 6-7 meters ahead of Carlette Guidry, smoked the big names of the time by 4 tenths or more.
Everyone in the heat did get wind assistance. Flo-Jo also got mega drug assistance. She was juiced to the gills.
@@f.kieranfinney457 Here is the heat times:
Quarterfinal I Wind +0.0
1. Griffith-Joyner 10.49 Q PB
2. Williams 10.86 Q PB
3. Devers 10.97 Q PB
4. Guidry 11.11 Q PB
5. Sowell 11.19 Q PB
6. Thompson 11.35 Q PB
7. Howard 11.76 Q Not in rankings list
5 + m/s would've given them about a 2 tenths boost.
Here is the 62 page study:
www.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/Publications/IAAFReport(Linthorne).pdf
I'm sure this was looked at 1001 times. It looks to me the logic they might have used behind not taking this race down to be a weird math formula subtracting the early reaction start to distance at the finish line with the closest guy behind the record holder. It seems to have been a grater distance number even after subtracting the early start or something like that, wich seems to be the most fairway to handle it without start tech blocks at that time. Where as now hence the use of electronic start blocks to judge early starts. It looks to me more like a technology evolution timing conundrum rather than a malice corrupted cheat plot
Why don't they just implement something like a "rollout" in drag-racing and start individual clocks for each runner from the point of pressure/force being applied to the starting block? That way it doesn't matter if someone jumps the gun or not, the run time is exact and does not include the reacton time.That's the leveliest field you can make, I think.
For apples to apples comparison, does anyone have a slow-motion of Bailey's start with sound similar to the slow-motion of the TTU collegiate race with sound? It might be obvious to some at full speed, but to answer "did he jump" definitively you need to slow it down and include sound.
If we’re keeping Flo-Jo’s, where wind was off and she was juiced, we keep this. You can’t go back and use modern tech to rewrite history. Donovan’s career ending injury denied us some amazing races. He deserves this one.
Yes, nice video. Another former 60m WR is suspect. The great Maurice Greene ran 6.39 in 2001. which looks like a false start, was a world record at the time, although he also ran 6.39 in 1998. perfectly legal.
"perfectly legal", heh
@@Daniel-ng8fi :)
That would also allow more people to completely guess a starting gun
Even with the 100ms rule you can still cheat. Let's say you're an athlete, and you have a 150ms reaction time, you could still decide to start before you hear the gun and effectively have a 100ms reaction according to the blocks, even though you reacted faster than you actually can. This rule is dumb, other methods like a delayed gun shot are so much better.
Great video TRP. I think that athletes should be tested for their reaction times well in advance, using real science. That way, it can be established they are capable of such reaction times. In 1981, while at College, during a science class, I clocked a digital stop watch (stopped and started) at 0.03 seconds. That's 3/100 of a second. Then, in the nineties, I stopped and started a digital watch stopwatch, at, ready for it, at 0.01 sec. That's 1/100 of a second, the smallest possible time unit. At age 60 now, I am able to punch, at full extension, a punching bag at 6 punches per second, for around 30 seconds - I haven't tried to do any better because boxing bag work is very seasonal for me. Point is, some people, for whatever reason, are capable of lightning fast reaction times. I have other examples to establish this is not a fluke, so there must be others out there also with the same ability, albeit possibly few, but sadly, because it may very well be uncommon, it appears it's not accepted and that's nothing short of unacceptable.
Instant replay should be implemented, if it's good enough for the big three pro sports in the US (Football, Baseball and Basketball), It should be good enough for amateur sports, plain and simple, if a WR is set make it automatic to look
Should a reaction time be subtracted from race time (if reaction time is within ~0.2s)? It would ensure total accuracy, but would mean that the first to cross the finish line wouldn't necessarily be the winner. As someone who views time as more important, I would say yes. any way you do it, it's a strange thing to take into account.
This would completely take away the excitement and nature of the sport
I personally think it should be gun time as the standard. We should do our best to prevent false starts using the equipment we now have, which would mean updating the standard using medical research. But athletics should not become a time trial, kinda the entire point is that it’s head to head.
If you do that, a lot would change. Yohan Blake would have the 200m world record!
This has to be the stupidest take I've ever heard
If it was then Bolt looses his 200m world record.
Do men and women have different reaction times?
Of course it's important to realize that sound travels much, much, much slower than light.
Cheating? In professional sports?!? *theatrically faints*
The Allen situation was so jarring, we missed out on what could've been a very fast time because of how fast his start was, IAAF need to change this
world athletics, iaaf, whoever.. they need to see this video, because it’s straight facts.
Questioning WR and oficial readings !?!? Flo-Jo anyone !?!? Wind reading is enough, no doping talk is required
It's interesting that you bring Jamil Kratocvilova world record in the women's 800m as being drug aided.You brought up the fact that FloJo's world record in 100m was winded aided. But failed to mention that all FloJo's world records were drug aided.Nobody has in improved there times in 1 year, as much as FloJo did.Her100m best was 10.99, she improved that by .5 seconds and in 200m best was 21.96 and she ran 21.34 improving by .62 sexonds.
Was that Maurice Greene in lane 1 in that 50m race? I know that stride anywhere.
Yes it was
Donovan powell #2
Mike Marsh #3
Henry neals #5
Jeff lanes #6
Shocking the biomechanical variation even at this level
💥 They Stripped Lance Of 7 World Records 😵💫 Let’s Don’t Stop There💥
IWhen judging false starts from video and audio, one needs to consider the positioning of the start pistol, the athletes, the camera and the microphones. Typically the microphone is not placed level with the athletes, so the sound travels a different distance for the TV viewer and the athlete. The equipment, especially in some of the older clips, also produce some small delay. In a millisecond game it all matters.
Stop creating rules that you can't consistently and fairly govern with. The rule should never be the problem.🤦
Great Production🎯🎬
The computer let's them consistently govern.
Why not + or - the finish time by the electronic blocks measured start time? This would properly measure their actual time to run the race.
Slo mo shows what it is !!!
Never been a fan of Bailey... and I'm Canadian, and this just adds to it
Lmao what? It's the officials job to stop the race in case of a false start not his.
What exactly did you want him to do?
@@sir_sack Yeah, I can see it now... Donovan requests an interview on national TV so he can tell the world that, hey, he just got away with a false start and that's plain wrong and unfair to everyone else in the race. He wants his name scratched from the results and the record books! If only...
@@76Aston Well Carl Lewis decided to wait until years after he retired to admit to using steroids during his career. That's a little bit more unfair if you ask me
@@sir_sack I agree with you. Steroid use is cheating out-and-out. The blame lands squarely on the user. But getting away with a false start? That's a gray zone. The blame is more on the starter, the equipment and the rules than it is on the athlete. But what a different world we'd live in if, in cases like Bailey's, the runner would admit they false started...
Seek to change yourself, not the rules.
I call this the Ben Johnson rule.
Do you think a record should count if there are no electronic start blocks?
100% agreed that it shouldn't
if you go look at e-sports pro players reaction times, it's very very fast. (Hiko's pistol flick, faker's reaction vs nidalee and a lot of other times, and there's a lot more but those are the most famous) and would be more efficient to test reactions than running for instance.
But in cs go reaction time is part of the game, here you are supposed to be trying to see who is a better runner not who reacts faster or was lucky enough to get out right after the shot.
@@emanuellandin7403 in 100m/60m it literally is a lot of the race. The faster you react the faster you can get to top speed out of the block. The shorter the race is the more reaction time actually matters. If you want reaction time to not be a factor make racing like a 40 yard dash in the NFL combine.
The rule needs to change. I false started at the World Championships as well even though I didn’t guess the gun. Just felt like a great start then we were all pulled back. Luckily decathletes get a warning.