Crooked Judges at IAAF

[dudearonymus_32]

Jon Drummond did not deserve to be disqualified from the quarter-finals like he was. If you look at the replay, you can see that the man (think his name was Apo or somethin) moved before Jon. You can aslo see that Jon jiggled his foot before Apo took off. The announcers pointed out that the blocks sense the pressure on them so they know when someone took off before the gun. Now if Jon jiggled his foot that could have set off the sensor, disqualifying him unfairly.

And even if he did take off before Apo you can't blame him. Like the Canadian racer who came in third said "When you get nervous you twitch so it's not his fault he twitched." The rules are stupid and should be changed. Give the athletes the benefit of the doubt, or give them more than two chances. These people train for years and years dreaming of going to the Olympics or the World Championship, all to be disqualified because they twitched?

The rules should be changed, the fans were right to delay the race by booing and yelling. Does anyone know the e-mail address or How I can reach the IAAF? They need a talking to and I'm in a mad talking mood.

[Bolty]

Huh?

-Bolty

[DeeBye]

I didn't watch the race or anything, but I did read the AP report.

From TSN.ca:

Chaos erupted when American sprinter Jon Drummond refused to leave the track after being disqualified under the sport's new false start rules.

Drummond lay on his back on the track for several minutes, saying, ``I didn't move, I didn't move,'' as race officials tried to get him to leave.

After about 15 minutes of confusion, all eight runners were led away from the starting blocks to the warm-up area. The runners from the next heat were brought in to run their race.

Later, Drummond was officially disqualified and did not appear for the rerun of his heat. He was seen sobbing uncontrollably and rolling on the grass as his coach, John Smith, tried to console him. Drummond also jumped into the water in the steeplechase pit at the practice track.

It sure sounds like he acted like an ass after being disqualified. Throwing a temper tantrum like some whiney 6 year old isn't really a good way to make people sympathetic to your cause.

Hell, I don't know if he deserved to be DQ'd, but rules are rules. It's the nature of sport. People in charge of calling infractions, be they referees, umpires, judges, or whatever, are human. They have to call things like they see it, and at times they can make mistakes.

Any athlete should be prepared to accept the fact that they might, at one time or another, get shafted by a bad call and learn to move on. If you can't do that, and act like a brat afterwards, then I have no sympathy for you.


Edit: I see no evidence whatsoever that the judges were "crooked". Care to back that up?

[dudearonymus_32]

It sure sounds like he acted like an ass after being disqualified. Throwing a temper tantrum like some whiney 6 year old isn't really a good way to make people sympathetic to your cause.

Think about it. He probably dreamed all his life about winning the World Championships, he's been training for years getting ready for this and then is disqualified even though it's obvious that Apo started first. The way the blocks work is they sense the pressure on them and they know when the gun goes off. According to the computer, a human cannot react in under 0.1 of a second. But both Jon took off at 0.08 of a second. So he was disqualified because of the way someone prgrammed the computer. Also if you look at the replay like I said before, it's very clear that Apo took off first.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the judges were "crooked". Care to back that up?

The judges saw the replay and still disquaified Jon, even though it's clear Apo took off first. So they were trusting a computer more than themselves. Maybe crooked isn't the right word but it's close. Jon could have a lawsuit here too. If he can prove that he didn't take off and that the computer is wrong. If you win the race there are going to be companies wanting your face on every cereal box, every bag of chips, millions of dollars worth of endorsements. On top of killing his dream they take away the chance at millions of dollars. So he could sue the IAAF for millions of dollars if he could prove they were wrong. I'm not sure if he actually will, but when I saw the race he looked ready to punch the VP right in the face. If he does I hope he wins

[Jarulf]

>Jon Drummond did not deserve to be disqualified from the quarter-finals like he was. If you look at the
>replay, you can see that the man (think his name was Apo or somethin) moved before Jon. You can aslo
>see that Jon jiggled his foot before Apo took off. The announcers pointed out that the blocks sense the
>pressure on them so they know when someone took off before the gun. Now if Jon jiggled his foot that
>could have set off the sensor, disqualifying him unfairly.

Huh? Why would it be unfairly if it is not allowed and is a false start (is that the name?) In addition, who actually moves first is kind of pointless since all get disqualified (in this case, both was). Judging from only camera fotage is not enough since, as you note, movements with the foot can take place that is not shown as the body moving.

He started to early and was disqualified. He then refused to accept it and so on and just made a fool of himself. Of course he gets dissapointed, who wouldn't but that is not an excuse, and definately not an excuse for not disqualifying anyone. If it was, there would never be any disqualifications.

>"When you get nervous you twitch so it's not his fault he twitched."

So a false start due to being nervous is OK? It is part of the game, control your nervousness.


>The rules are stupid and should be changed. Give the athletes the benefit of the doubt, or give them more
>than two chances.

That is of course something that can be discussed. The rules recently changed. Before EACH player had two chances. That is, each runner could fals start once. However, that lead to the heats taking for evere with 3, 4 or even more false starts in each heat (in some cases probably runners taking a chance hoping to hit the shot better since they knew they had one more chance). That was the whole reason they changed it. On can argue it is not right or wrong, but since it is the rule, it is stupid comming and blaming it on him being nervous or that he trained his whole life. He should have trained starting more then and trained controlling his nervousness. Obviously the start is of utter importance in 100m so it is important to train it well and be able to not false start, yet get of quickly.



The fact that the public then made major fools of themselves and acted stupidly is of course another story. Thus:

> The rules should be changed, the fans were right to delay the race by booing and yelling.

No, they were acting like idiots, only destryong the competition for the ones remaining that had a harder time concentrating, and affecting all athlets to compete later that night. Since everything went along how the rules work, there was no reason for such a thing.

If you wanted to protest, why didn't you do it in advance, when the rules changed and so on? Or did it only strike you since it happened to be one of your own country?




From other post:

>The judges saw the replay and still disquaified Jon, even though it's clear Apo took off first.

So what, BOTH get disqualified. Why do you think neither of them started later when the race was done?


> Jon could have a lawsuit here too. If he can prove that he didn't take off and that the computer is wrong.

Get real here. He clearly started to early and according to the rules that means disqualifications. Accept it.



>If you win the race there are going to be companies wanting your face on every cereal box, every bag of
>chips, millions of dollars worth of endorsements. On top of killing his dream they take away the chance at
>millions of dollars.

What on earth does that have anything to do with it? So you can't disqualifying someone if it is possible to make lot of money later on? So if I promise to give anyone that wns lot of money, he/she should be treated differently since there is money involved?

[dudearonymus_32]

You make much better points than I do. And your probably right he did act like a fool but I just couldn't help feeling sorry for the guy. Anyway you and Deebye are both right so I'll just shut up now.

[Jarulf]

You make much better points than I do. And your probably right he did act like a fool but I just couldn't help feeling sorry for the guy. Anyway you and Deebye are both right so I'll just shut up now.

Well, I do of course feel sorry for him too. It is of course not a fun thing to experience and I *do* feel for him.

For the record, IAAF has appearantly given the americans a deadline until tomorrow tuesday to give him a "penalty" for his behaviour of not leaving the track and refusing to accept the disqualification (that was all it said on the text TV news). No idea what it means. Seems a strange way to handle it. Appearantly many in the board (is that the name) of IAAF got upset by his behaviour and even consider working fro banning him in the 4*100m. I think THAT is going a bit to far though. Will be interesting to see what happens though.

[dudearonymus_32]

For the record, IAAF has appearantly given the americans a deadline until tomorrow tuesday to give him a "penalty" for his behaviour of not leaving the track and refusing to accept the disqualification (that was all it said on the text TV news). No idea what it means. Seems a strange way to handle it. Appearantly many in the board (is that the name) of IAAF got upset by his behaviour and even consider working fro banning him in the 4*100m. I think THAT is going a bit to far though. Will be interesting to see what happens though.

Ya that would be too far. Oh and for the record I should probably mention that I don't usually watch the IAAF or any track and field contest and didn't know that they had just recently changed the rules.

[Vandiablo]

I wish I knew whether the intent is that runners don't start, meaning don't cross the start line, or that runners remain perfectly still. I know very little about T&F but I would think that since T&F was around before slow-motion replay cameras that judges would be looking for *any* movement to count as a false start. So, in my mind at least, the foot-moving thing is probably enough for a valid false start call.

In the account I read, (Washington Post) it said that other runners, including the 3rd-place finisher (in the same event?), claimed that the foot-block sensors were too sensitive.

Also, I think part of the "unfairness" is that the first attempt at the race, the false start runner (someone besides Drummond) got a warning and was allowed to continue. The unfairness, albeit slight, is that Drummond's foot-twitch occurred in the second attempt, which by the new rules, meant that he was automatically disqualified. If he had twitched in the first attempt, he'd still be in.

I remember the days when all runners got a warning, and yes I know it took forever. But maybe they should just admit that short-sprint races are a little different-- let them run. If the first place finisher had a false-start, do the race over. Otherwise, (s)he's the winner. If only the 2nd place person did, re-run the race for 2nd and 3rd, but 1st place has already been decided. I can't believe that 100m is too hard to repeat after say 5 minutes.

As to Drummond himself, and his 8-minute, er, protest. (WP account says 8 min, the rest of the 15 min was the crowd.) Yep, that's a bit long. I won't defend it. However, I bet the entire world looks more closely at the foot sensors from now on. As for the crying and rolling in the grass outside the stadium, I don't get the feeling that it was for show, and I feel that he was entitled to express his emotional anguish, in a non-vengeful way, outside the event. Compare it to Mary Decker Slaney, who called a press conference shortly after the race with Zola Budd, to blast ZB and race officials, and it seems a bit tame. I'm sure Drummond will have a press conference at some point, but it remains to be seen how he displays himself at that time.

Aside: This reminds me of a beef of mine... In general, I think the schools in the US coddle athletes too much, at least the star ones. If they have athletic talent, they get much better treatment than Joe Blow student or even Joe Brain student. The US population lionizes star athletes, too, but that isn't such a bad thing IMO, but that's a different thread.

*ahem* Jarulf, I don't think your little snipe about "or was it only because it hit your countryman" is fair, because in general the press here only reports when bad things happen to US players. So you may have a valid point, but I wouldn't jump to point at dudeasumthin_32 as being the chauvin here. Point to our press. And heck, if this event had happened on a NFL game day, we'd have probably not heard about it. (we're still in NFL preseason, I think.)

Two exceptions to the US press bias that I can think of are:

- that Canadian figure skating pair (Sale and somebody) who protested their scores when they "lost" to a pair of Russians. The brouhaha smoked out some Russian influence on the French judge, so you can't always say that international judging is free from dirtiness. Not that the Drummond thing was about judges... yet.

- Hockey. As an olympic hockey junkie, I can say that any "unfairness" claims made by any country are reported here, no matter what country they originate from. And, let me point out, the "genteel" europeans are no less likely to be ugly than the ugly americans. (plz excuse the chip on my shoulder here)

(unfortunately, intl hockey coverage drops off when the olympics are over... except for the Canada Cup ... jeez exceptions to characteristics of exceptions...)

Van

(okay, "berates" was too strong a word, but so is "chastises" and "admonishes"...)

[Jarulf]

The check for false start involves preassure sensors on the starting block were the runners has their feet. The margin is 0.1 second after the shot (which is transmitted through a speaker behind each player). The reason it is 0.1 second AFTER the shot, is that it has been said that the human being can't react that fast to a shot. In reality, the human being can probably not react for quite some time longer, but there is at least some sort of margin now. There has been discussion to remove the margin. In effect, the smaller the margin (or no margin), the larger the room for a runner to take a chance and try to time his start so that goes of just before the shot can be heared, but after it was actually fired.

And yes, one is allowed to do one false start. It used to be one per player, but now it is one in total. So there is a warning done the first time (I think they still warn a particular runner to show how did the false start, but it is not as important now since it doesn't matter who do the second false start.

I think the crowed delayed for far more than 15 minutes. I think the 15 mintues was just the first time round, then they took the runners away to run last. But even then the crowed was incredibly silly and didn't let the athlets away.

I really have no idea about why he jumped into the water and so on afterwards (and outside), and as you say, he can do whatever he want, be it for being dissapointed, trying to make a statement and so on. It was the part inside the stadium that was a problem.


FInally, appologies for my insinuation regarding the being of the same country. It was perhaps badly worded and not needed. I guess we all have a bit of more care for our own country. Hey, Sweden got 2 gold and 1 silver allready. Not bad for such a small country :)


Now I am off to look up words such as berates and admonishes in the dictionary.....

[Yogi_Baar]

I wonder if you'd feel the same if it were some other runner.

Personally, I heartily greet the judges' decision. Rules shouldn't be changed if sprinters are nervous. All of them must have been nervous, so why should Drummond be excused? Maybe he thought he could get away simply by being American. No immunity, I'm glad to say.

Flame all you want.

[dudearonymus_32]

I wonder if you'd feel the same if it were some other runner.

He was American? I wasn't really palying attention to the countries and even if I was, him being American wouldn't have made any difference seeing as how I am Canadian.

Personally, I heartily greet the judges' decision. Rules shouldn't be changed if sprinters are nervous. All of them must have been nervous, so why should Drummond be excused? Maybe he thought he could get away simply by being American. No immunity, I'm glad to say.

I don't know why he would think he could get away with it because he's American.....Maybe if the race was held in the US he might think that, but it was in France.

[Vandiablo]

From today's Washington Post:

IAAF spokesman Nick Davies said Drummond, who reclined in the middle of the track for eight minutes Sunday, could be suspended for inappropriate conduct when the IAAF convenes for meetings Thursday.

Now, maybe I misunderstood, and he was lying down for 8, but complained etc for another 7, I dunno. But anyway, that's where I got the 8 from.

-V

[Yogi_Baar]

He was American? I wasn't really palying attention to the countries and even if I was, him being American wouldn't have made any difference seeing as how I am Canadian.

I never like it when my foot gets stuck in my mouth. I apologize, but I assumed you were American because of the enthusiastic way you defended his unnecessary display of lack of self-control and self-criticism.

I don't know why he would  think he could get away with it because he's American.....Maybe if the race was held in the US he might think that, but it was in France.

His... show kind of reminded me of the way the US government acts towards the rest of the world. IMHO they're of the "our way or... well there's no 'or'" type. And since most other politicians are too sissy to oppose the violent world cop, maybe he thought the same thing applies to sport and that judges wouldn't dare disqualify him. Who knows what was going on in his head at the time. I'd probably be pissed off as well, but I think I (and probably most of us here) would handle ourselves better.

[channel1]

I watched that whole fiasco when it happened, and part of it on re-run. :S

It seems to me that much of Track & Field is made up of people developing rather freakish physical attributes, and the delay in the starting block timers defeats a possible freakish ability.

If I recall correctly, conscious response time to a stimulus is a combination of sensation time, plus decision, and transmission time to the muscles. The one-tenth of a second delay in the timer is pretty close to being a reasonable time for that sequence of events.

But, these guys want an edge, and the edge could be in making their start a reflex action rather than a conscious action. That takes out the second event in the sequence (conscious decision to start), and the time for a reflex action is around one-twentieth of a second, also if I recall correctly.

An even greater reduction in response time could be achieved if the vibration of the starting shot was felt by the leg, rather than heard by the ear. That would cut response time to something on the order of one-one hundredth of a second. I don't know how likely it would be for a person to develop that skill, but I wouldn't put it past the realm of possibility. Many insects have exactly the same mechanism for response, that is, vibrations felt by the hairs of the legs trigger the leg to rapid motion.

Like I say, Track & Field has evolved into a "sport" that depends upon the development of rather freakish abilities. There is no point in "nerfing" one ability, by building in an artificial delay in the start. They should get rid of it. Even three of the human judges were sure that he never jumped the gun.

His "demonstration" was another matter. Delaying the race by about an hour was unforgivable, and unfair to the other competitors, both in that event and the others that were delayed. At the least, he should have been expelled from those games altogether.

But, the folks running sports LIKE that kind of incident. It reminds me of the John McEnroe "demonstrations" during his career. That brought people to the games who were not very interested in Tennis, but in the entertainment of seeing another childish tantrum. By tolerating that kind of behavior in Track & Field, they are asking to have those sports degenerate to something with little more relevance than American Pro Wrestling.

-rcv-

[Vandiablo]

I apologize, but I assumed you were American because of the enthusiastic way you defended his unnecessary display of lack of self-control and self-criticism.

He was ugly, so you assumed he was American, eh? Heh. Trolling for Americans, you caught a Canadian (pisces canuckis) and had to throw him back. Yeah, those Canuckfish are too small to fry very well, and you're too hungry to bother with little fish.

His... show kind of reminded me of the way the US government acts towards the rest of the world....[snip] maybe he thought the same thing applies to sport and that judges wouldn't dare disqualify him.

Your posts remind me of Hussein Loyalists... you know, anti-American sniping...maybe you thought that since they get to nail a few Americans a week, the same thing applies to boards and that you could get some American blood going too. This is fun! I like free association.

But seriously, two points for you: many of us Americans would love to see Bush lose next year, though I doubt it's gonna happen. He lost me (not that he ever had me) when he "unsigned" the Kyoto protocol, and he has reinforced my displeasure by his repeated shockingly-blatant hostility toward environmental issues. Does my anti-Bush tirade sound American to you? I assure you that it is. It makes me sick that he's doing an "environmental" tour to promote himself, he and his party think they can dupe people, it's pathetic. BTW, the right that I have to freely criticize the almost-elected leader of my country was granted over 200 years ago, and it's part of what makes America great. Maybe THAT's what was going through Drummond's mind!

The second point: Your arguments about a sense of entitlement may fly if the athlete were a country-club rich kid, but unless his name is Powell or Rice, no African American athlete will feel as an extension of the U.S. govt. It's just ludicrous.

-Van

ps. Canada fish taste better! Oh, to have a pike or walleye on the line right now... *sigh* ... or at least have one on the wall *sob!*

(Edit: changed an unclear "this" into "anti-Bush tirade")

[ShadowHM]

ps. Canada fish taste better! Oh, to have a pike or walleye on the line right now... *sigh* ... or at least have one on the wall *sob!*

Pike and walleye may be fine fighters, but they do not beat the taste of fresh-water salmon.

*tips hat to all those Americans who stock them from Michigan in Lake Huron*

And those fish on the wall? We have a very large-mouthed trout on the wall at the cottage - victim of a course in Taxidermy hubby and I took way back when. Ugly as sin, dust-catching and useful mainly as a reminder that some things should be done by experts. And the experts now don't even make the wall-fish out of the original one in any way. They are made from a mould of the original fish in man-made materials.

*heads back to Pike Bay for the last gasp of summer before the youngsters need to be returned to school*

[eppie]

I think the new rules by the IAAF should be changed again. The whole excitement (well not the whole but for sure a lot) of watching a 100m is the tension before the start with all the false starts and the acting of the runners. Another important factor is the times I think. In the 100m, like in more athletics disciplines, not a lot of world records are broken. If you now punish the making of one false start so heavily the runners will for sure make more slow starts, because they don't want to risk a disqualification. I think it might become much more difficult to run a WR with these rules.

[Tarlok]

But seriously, two points for you: many of us Americans would love to see Bush lose next year, though I doubt it's gonna happen. He lost me (not that he ever had me) when he "unsigned" the Kyoto protocol, and he has reinforced my displeasure by his repeated shockingly-blatant hostility toward environmental issues. Does that sound American to you? I assure you that it is.

I totally agree with you, both about Bush and his stance on the environment. However, as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And so Bush was with Kyoto. A flawed treaty that fails to accomplish its stated goals. It's downright stupid to punish countries that have already worked to improve (and in doing so, we've started to see the ozone hole decrease in size) while allowing developing countries free reign to do whatever the heck they want to the environment.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic. :D

Bob

[channel1]

...even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Too bad Life isn't a mulitiple choice quiz. Someone who's wrong most of the time is likely to be wrong all of the time.

Kyoto was not a perfect accord, but it was a first step that could ultimately lead to that. It is far more important as something that all nations can agree to, than in what it actually does. It is unfortunate that the administration of the most enviromentally irresponsible (per-capita) nation was afraid to take that first step.

-rcv-