Gay flies into record books.

walshb

Gay breaks an old 200 metre straight record with a 19.41 time

http://vodpod.com/watch/3641680-tyson-gay-breaks-44-year-old-record

His 150 metre split was 5/100 slower than Bolt's WR for 150 metres.

Paul Hession ran 20.66...

TrackFan123

He embarassed them

walshb

Bolt come close, and if he really tries and commits I think he can go 30.5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGN3knX1kSQ

BTW, can someone explain how a split of 9.07 was recorded at 100 metres?

DeVore

I read this subject as "Gay flies in record books" and though "wow the athletics forum is really going bonkers!" visions of same-sex insects squished between the Guinness Book pages... :eek: )


I too would like to know how they recorded 9.07 for the first 100m (is that accurate?)....


Personally I think Bolt is just holding back a bit to shave and shave off the WR simply for the fun of breaking it repeatedly. If he ran 9.4 in the olymipics then that would be that, but now he's a very sale-able crowd puller as everyone kinda expects him to break it at every meet he goes to...


Personally, I love the guy, I think he's great for the sport though I do wish they would banish the cloud over Jamaican sprinters and doping. I hope Bolt isnt doping and is just a freak of nature. We need heroes in sprinting again.

DeV.

thirtyfoot

walshb wrote: »

BTW, can someone explain how a split of 9.07 was recorded at 100 metres?

Can't open Youtube but are they saying it was the first 100 or the middle 100? The middle 100 would easily be 9.07 or even faster as its a flying 100 (like in a relay) but the first 100 would not have been 9.07, no doubt about that especially in a 300.

ecoli

As far as i know the the first 100m was something like 9.8X and between 50-150 was something like 8.7X from what i can remember i will get the proper splits as soon as i can

ecoli

ecoli wrote: »

As far as i know the the first 100m was something like 9.8X and between 50-150 was something like 8.7X from what i can remember i will get the proper splits as soon as i can

9.88 for the first 100m (-0.4 wind)

gerard65

As you look at it, the clock stops at 100m - 9:07, 200m - 19:83, 300m - 30:97. The 100m seems a bit fast.

DeVore

Ah, that makes more sense.

aside: as a retired 100M runner, I always had huge admiration for the 2,4 and 800 metres guys... they are awful races and I couldnt manage them.


(1500M runners were consider suspect by sprinters in my day, and anything long was frankly... unnatural!! )

DeV.

ecoli

gerard65 wrote: »

As you look at it, the clock stops at 100m - 9:07, 200m - 19:83, 300m - 30:97. The 100m seems a bit fast.

Sorry misread this thought it was Gay's splits not Bolts lol:D

ecoli

gerard65 wrote: »

As you look at it, the clock stops at 100m - 9:07, 200m - 19:83, 300m - 30:97. The 100m seems a bit fast.

I cant see these being accurate as 11.14 for his last 100? most likely because it is an odd distance race the electric timing was a bit off and 100m being slightly short with the 200m -300m being slightly long in terms of the bends? Most likely the splits were worked off the 400m marks which could allow for the discreprancies

thirtyfoot

DeVore wrote: »

Personally I think Bolt is just holding back a bit to shave and shave off the WR simply for the fun of breaking it repeatedly.

You can't selectively choose to break a sprint record by hundreths unlike say a high jump or pole vault increasing by a cm in a Bubka or Isinbayeva way. The reason is simple in that the brain cannot react that fast. It can't react faster than 0.1 secs and the whole false start methodology is based on this. You can be deemed to have a false start in a sprint if you go after the gun, specifically within 0.1 secs after the gun. The theory being that if you did react within 0.1 secs of the gun you cheated as you pre-empted the gun. Christie when he was DQ'd tried to claim his brain was able to react faster than 0.1 so the rule was unfair on him!

With this in mind it is very unlikely for Bolt to be able to control himself accordingly on the track when he is running so fast that he feels his body is about to explode with the stress its under and just shave a few hundreths off at a time, its just not possible. Try it on a stopwatch. Start it and see how close you can stop it to say 9.40secs. Try it again and see how close you can get to 9.35. You will vary wildly (too quick, too slow and some bang on after a bit of practice) and this is in a very controlled environment where you just have to focus on moving your thumb on a stopwatch.

DeVore wrote: »

I do wish they would banish the cloud over Jamaican sprinters and doping.

Is there a cloud? There is no substantiated evidence that Jamaican sprinters are doping more than those in other countries. They are tested as much if not more than athletes from other countries based on IAAF statistics and based on this don't have a larger than normal violation rate.

gerard65

I'd say the clock stopped for the guy on the outside lane who because of the stagger would'nt have run 100m.

thirtyfoot

ecoli wrote: »

I cant see these being accurate as 11.14 for his last 100? most likely because it is an odd distance race the electric timing was a bit off and 100m being slightly short with the 200m -300m being slightly long in terms of the bends? Most likely the splits were worked off the 400m marks which could allow for the discreprancies

I'd say they got their clocks wrong as the 300m would use the same staggers etc as the 400 all the way around. Unless they had the clock/beam on lane 1 and as Bolt wasn't lane 1 (I assume) he would fly past the beam well before he actually hit 100m, I'd say thats what happened.

What lane was he in, because you could work out what he covered at those splits given?

walshb

Tingle wrote: »

Is there a cloud? There is no substantiated evidence that Jamaican sprinters are doping more than those in other countries. They are tested as much if not more than athletes from other countries based on IAAF statistics and based on this don't have a larger than normal violation rate.

As far as I am aware the Jamaican authorities have NOT signed up to the same stringent world testing systems as many other countries. I don't have the time to get the specifics, but the Jamaican athletes are not under the same conditions as athletes from other countries who have signed up

That to me is suspect and not a level playing field. That said, I think Usain is just a freak of nature and a star in this sport, a star that is really needed.

BTW, Tingle, that 9.07 was for the first 100 metres, as has been clarified. I think
something went amiss with the timing. It's obvious looking at Bolt's running
and exertion that 9.07 was too fast a time

DeVore

Tingle, fair point, the CNS cant respond that fast. (Though to be fair, going through the line sideways, slapping your chest is not an optimal technique as far as I recall from my sprinting days )

I do think that Bolt is a freak of nature and is clean. He doesnt look like someone doping but then doping has become increasingly difficult to spot since the bulging yellow eyes of Ben Johnson.

As for anticipating the gun... I heard a while ago that that was now illegal. I dont want to sound like Grandpa Simpson here but I sprinted pretty seriously as a lad and many of us would hang around the starter coming up to our race and try and get his rhythm into our heads. Each starter was different and each had their own way of doing it.

It was accepted as far as I can recall and I would discuss it openly with coaches and anyone else.... did this change recently??

(I sprinted for Dublin against Liverpool ... is that event still going? I represented Ireland against Australia and ran an 11.01 in the finals of the All Ireland for a silver medal so we arent talking about school sports day ).

Did anyone else anticipate the starters gun??


Also, if it was shown that someone ran the first 100M in a time that was a record for the actual 100M... would it stand?? I presume not but cant think why not

DeV.

thirtyfoot

DeVore wrote: »

As for anticipating the gun... I heard a while ago that that was now illegal. I dont want to sound like Grandpa Simpson here but I sprinted pretty seriously as a lad and many of us would hang around the starter coming up to our race and try and get his rhythm into our heads. Each starter was different and each had their own way of doing it.

It was accepted as far as I can recall and I would discuss it openly with coaches and anyone else.... did this change recently??

(I sprinted for Dublin against Liverpool ... is that event still going? I represented Ireland against Australia and ran an 11.01 in the finals of the All Ireland for a silver medal so we arent talking about school sports day ).

Did anyone else anticipate the starters gun??


Also, if it was shown that someone ran the first 100M in a time that was a record for the actual 100M... would it stand?? I presume not but cant think why not

DeV.

The last question first. I don't think you can (as the Americans call it) double dip in a 200. In a mile, I think you can get a record and you definetly get a pb in the 1500 if you beat it on your way but I don't think it counts as a record/pb if you do it in a 200 or say a 200 PB in a 400.

On pre-empting the gun, yes, everyone would and did try preempt it. But, when you get along in ages and get to the stage where starting blocks have sensors then the false starts are not triggered by the eye of the marksman with the starter but with the false start equipment. If the sensor picks up a certain amount of pressure on the pad of the block before 0.100 secs, you are deemed as false starting. A clubmate of mine was DQd in a race in Switzerland on Sunday and he didn't even move out of the blocks. Its a tough call. So you will still get away with a 'quick' start but when there is full false start equipment, then you will get caught.

Before false start equipment came in, some crafty guys were so nifty in the blocks they could trigger other guys to move and false start when in the set position, some guys were legendery at it. I also know of one guy who farted in set position in an attempt to put/set others off, not sure of the rules on that one.

ecoli

walshb wrote: »

As far as I am aware the Jamaican authorities have NOT signed up to the same stringent world testing systems as many other countries. I don't have the time to get the specifics, but the Jamaican athletes are not under the same conditions as athletes from other countries who have signed up

That to me is suspect and not a level playing field. That said, I think Usain is just a freak of nature and a star in this sport, a star that is really needed.

BTW, Tingle, that 9.07 was for the first 100 metres, as has been clarified. I think
something went amiss with the timing. It's obvious looking at Bolt's running
and exertion that 9.07 was too fast a time

While the JAAA does not adopt a random drug testing outside competition periods the IAAF do and as such the Jamaicans do adhere to the same conditions. Also the fact the JAAA do not test has been well highlighted in the media and as such looking at the percentages of Jamaicans randomly tested by the IAAF it would appear that they are paying for the fact that their governing body dont adopt this. In the past 12 months 5 Jamaican sprinters have failed drugs test of which 4 were caught by the JAAA at national level rather than international level (though the reason for this were made clear and it seemed like a geniune mistake by the athletes). It would appear that these athletes should not be put under suspicision just because of a countries testing policies

TheRoadRunner

DeVore wrote: »

I sprinted for Dublin against Liverpool ... is that event still going?

Nope, not as far as I know, done away with at least 10 years if not more. I went over to Liverpool a few times myself. You use to get a patch or a badge as far as I remember. It was like an international cap

walshb

ecoli wrote: »

While the JAAA does not adopt a random drug testing outside competition periods the IAAF do and as such the Jamaicans do adhere to the same conditions. Also the fact the JAAA do not test has been well highlighted in the media and as such looking at the percentages of Jamaicans randomly tested by the IAAF it would appear that they are paying for the fact that their governing body dont adopt this. In the past 12 months 5 Jamaican sprinters have failed drugs test of which 4 were caught by the JAAA at national level rather than international level (though the reason for this were made clear and it seemed like a geniune mistake by the athletes). It would appear that these athletes should not be put under suspicision just because of a countries testing policies

We can dress it up any way we want; simply put, the Jamaicans are not playing the dope game as other countries are.

The whole, "seemed like a general mistake" is just more red herrings from
athletes and authorities. It's been like this for a long time.

"I missed the test, I forgot, I didn't know, I was spiked," blah blah blah.

Athletes should and are put under suspicion due to their country's policy.
It is only natural that they should be. If the U.S. were not adopting
the stringent testing procedures their athletes would be under suspicion, and
rightly so.

I assume Ireland are part of these testing procedures?

ecoli

walshb wrote: »

We can dress it up any way we want; simply put, the Jamaicans are not playing the dope game as other countries are.

The whole, "seemed like a general mistake" is just more red herrings from
athletes and authorities. It's been like this for a long time.

"I missed the test, I forgot, I didn't know, I was spiked," blah blah blah.

Athletes should and are put under suspicion due to their country's policy.
It is only natural that they should be. If the U.S. were not adopting
the stringent testing procedures their athletes would be under suspicion, and
rightly so.

I assume Ireland are part of these testing procedures?

Normally i would agree with you here but the fact that the banned substance came from a drink which was sold on the competition day has me a little more sympathetic.
There athletes are under suspicion constantly even in the last two months there have been world class athletes who have failed from the US.
Ireland adopts the same system as the UK but that does not make them anyway less accountable to the rules set down by the IAAF as many of the substances can last in the system for months at a time and therefore through random testing (which has been heavy handed in terms of the Jamaican athletes)
The reason for US adopting these stringent tests is because of the their history with athletes using banned substances so one could put more suspicion on the US who have a history in drug scandal. The fact of the matter is that these athletes are adhering to the rules set before them and as such should their performances should not be tainted without any sort of evidence

walshb

ecoli wrote: »

Normally i would agree with you here but the fact that the banned substance came from a drink which was sold on the competition day has me a little more sympathetic.

Exactly, another red herring, "came from a drink." Who proved this?

And if so, tough sh!t. The rules need to be harshly implemented and the
red herrings thrown out

Trackshark

Will we ever get an Irishman @ 100M we can chat about?

TrackFan123

walshb wrote: »

BTW, Tingle, that 9.07 was for the first 100 metres, as has been clarified. I think
something went amiss with the timing. It's obvious looking at Bolt's running
and exertion that 9.07 was too fast a time

Lol - 9.07 would be way too fast even if he had ran at 100% through the first 100

hurleronditch

Tingle wrote: »

You can't selectively choose to break a sprint record by hundreths unlike say a high jump or pole vault increasing by a cm in a Bubka or Isinbayeva way. The reason is simple in that the brain cannot react that fast. It can't react faster than 0.1 secs and the whole false start methodology is based on this.

With this in mind it is very unlikely for Bolt to be able to control himself accordingly on the track when he is running so fast that he feels his body is about to explode with the stress its under and just shave a few hundreths off at a time, its just not possible. Try it on a stopwatch. Start it and see how close you can stop it to say 9.40secs. Try it again and see how close you can get to 9.35. You will vary wildly (too quick, too slow and some bang on after a bit of practice) and this is in a very controlled environment where you just have to focus on moving your thumb on a stopwatch.

Im not saying its easy to call your time to hundreds of a second, but i dont think your exactly right in your reasoning.

Stopping the stopwatch at a random time is a very arbitrary example, which doesnt prove anything in this case. The human brain has no base to set itself against when running a stop watch. The relative thing is that Usain Bolt is running off a very solid base. he knows from training and past races what his best time is, most likely allowing for the additional adrenaline of competition and the grade of the track etc.

Say he knows that his absolute max max time is 9.45 at the moment, that is a very good base to work from. He knows no matter what he does he can not get lower than that. So he knows that running his guts out thats what he'll do, and he knows that turning off the taps 10m out will leave him within a tenth or whatever, or if he broke badly he can gas it all the way.

Ill put it this way, I bet padraig harrington knows that his 3 iron hit with no wind, on a flat surface will go exactly, say 230 yards. Now ask him to hit it 225 and i guarantee he'll hit it damn close. Now ask joe soap to go pace out 225 yards. he wont even get near it. Its not a fair example, just like the stopwatch.

But allow me to practice for 15 years every day stopping that stopwatch as close to a certain time, i guarantee you i'll get it damn close. or pacing out 225 yards. Its not ability, its education or nurture.

The human brain is an amazing thing, and can learn pretty much anything. I think Bolt (subconsciously, and its not limited to bolt. i bet paul hession or derval o rourke or david gillick can do similar, maybe to a lesser degree. Sportspeople just teach themselves to know exactly what their body is doing down to the minutae, and bolt is just one of the best at this. Im not saying he can put it on an exact number, but he knows where he is and what hes going to do in a pretty accurate ballpark.

thirtyfoot

hurleronditch wrote: »

Im not saying its easy to call your time to hundreds of a second, but i dont think your exactly right in your reasoning.

Stopping the stopwatch at a random time is a very arbitrary example, which doesnt prove anything in this case. The human brain has no base to set itself against when running a stop watch. The relative thing is that Usain Bolt is running off a very solid base. he knows from training and past races what his best time is, most likely allowing for the additional adrenaline of competition and the grade of the track etc.

Say he knows that his absolute max max time is 9.45 at the moment, that is a very good base to work from. He knows no matter what he does he can not get lower than that. So he knows that running his guts out thats what he'll do, and he knows that turning off the taps 10m out will leave him within a tenth or whatever, or if he broke badly he can gas it all the way.

Ill put it this way, I bet padraig harrington knows that his 3 iron hit with no wind, on a flat surface will go exactly, say 230 yards. Now ask him to hit it 225 and i guarantee he'll hit it damn close. Now ask joe soap to go pace out 225 yards. he wont even get near it. Its not a fair example, just like the stopwatch.

But allow me to practice for 15 years every day stopping that stopwatch as close to a certain time, i guarantee you i'll get it damn close. or pacing out 225 yards. Its not ability, its education or nurture.

The human brain is an amazing thing, and can learn pretty much anything. I think Bolt (subconsciously, and its not limited to bolt. i bet paul hession or derval o rourke or david gillick can do similar, maybe to a lesser degree. Sportspeople just teach themselves to know exactly what their body is doing down to the minutae, and bolt is just one of the best at this. Im not saying he can put it on an exact number, but he knows where he is and what hes going to do in a pretty accurate ballpark.

So how do you explain the CNS theory, the whole 0.100 secs? Yes, an athlete may have a sense but when you are maxed out you can't run within 0.05 of your best. Ballpark won't work here, we are talking hundreths of a seconds. Is your theory based on science or just a hunch?

The fact you use a golf reference in your point would have me disagreeing with you even if I did agree with you:D

hurleronditch

Tingle wrote: »

So how do you explain the CNS theory, the whole 0.100 secs? Yes, an athlete may have a sense but when you are maxed out you can't run within 0.05 of your best. Ballpark won't work here, we are talking hundreths of a seconds. Is your theory based on science or just a hunch?

The fact you use a golf reference in your point would have me disagreeing with you even if I did agree with you:D

Is the CNS theory a proven scientific theory (ie journal published studies) or is it just something that the sprint community believe in?

Well if Bolt is at 80 metres (i do realise thats hes probably decellerating at this stage) knowing hes running the lights out, i dont think its 'that' difficult for him to lay off instead of pushing it through the end. if you can think of doing your celebration as you hit 80 metres in the olympic 100 final, i think turning off the taps for 10/20/30 metres is manageable too.

I understand that golf probably isnt the most popular sport in the ATR, but i think the point is very valid in this case. Highly trained and practiced professionals know their mechanisms inside out. its not comparable to a randomer with a stop watch or in a field.

I dont think he can do a hundreth on command, i do think he can do tenths on command

ecoli

walshb wrote: »

Exactly, another red herring, "came from a drink." Who proved this?

And if so, tough sh!t. The rules need to be harshly implemented and the
red herrings thrown out

The JAAA and the IAAF confirmed this and despite this the athletes were still given bans so they were implemented by the governing bodies of the sport who ultimately have the official say on the matter however these bans were only 3 months taking factors into account

thirtyfoot

hurleronditch wrote: »

Is the CNS theory a proven scientific theory (ie journal published studies) or is it just something that the sprint community believe in?

Well if Bolt is at 80 metres (i do realise thats hes probably decellerating at this stage) knowing hes running the lights out, i dont think its 'that' difficult for him to lay off instead of pushing it through the end. if you can think of doing your celebration as you hit 80 metres in the olympic 100 final, i think turning off the taps for 10/20/30 metres is manageable too.

I understand that golf probably isnt the most popular sport in the ATR, but i think the point is very valid in this case. Highly trained and practiced professionals know their mechanisms inside out. its not comparable to a randomer with a stop watch or in a field.

I dont think he can do a hundreth on command, i do think he can do tenths on command

Yes, I am sure practice will mean you can be more precise but what athlete actually parctices over a 10-15 year period to run specific times? In training they will be told for a 150, do 15.5 or 15.6 but they don't specifically train for this and the goal of the session will not be to run 15.5 exactly but run a time close to it while maintaining correct form, technique etc. A golfer will train/practice for both distance and accuracy so yes they may be able to be more precise and need to be precise as its a key part of the game. A sprinter just needs to get there as fast as possible. They will practice over a 10-15 year on getting as good a reaction time as possible and are probably the best in the world at reaction times and yet none can go sub 0.100.

I'm not saying Bolt didn't hold back in Beijing, I am saying he can't pick and choose the exact times he runs. Too mant factors. Bolt would need to make the following decisions in probably the 8 seconds it takes him to get to 80m:

• This track is harder than my normal track and so I need to adjust for that
• I am aware that we are at a higher altitude than I train so I must adjust for that
• Its is pretty humid here, I reckon 92%, more than Jamaica, adjust for that
• Feels like a +1.2m/s wind, take that into account

So all of these are factors that can cause differences of 0.01-0.10secs (a guess) so Usain will be calculating all these in his head, as well as being under massive stress and maxed out with a heart rate close to about 300bpm and will be deciding to run maybe 9.52 today when on his inside Tyson Gay will zip past and take the Gold as he was just focusing on getting from a to b as quick as possible:D

As regards the science, the IAAF use it so that adds validity and also here is a literature review I found with a quick google.

http://biology.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm

TheRoadRunner

Tingle wrote: »

As regards the science, the IAAF use it so that adds validity and also here is a literature review I found with a quick google.
http://biology.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm

that doesn't seem to be peer reviewed !