08-26-2003, 04:51 AM
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"...)
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"...)