 pete s
|
Posted: 28 March 2008, 2:17 PM
Ah, so there ARE benefits in having children! If any of you elites out there want a valid reason for a late run, then we'd be happy to rent a 6 year old for a fee (renters must comply with rules - have the child for a WHOLE day, must provide entertainment, refreshments and safety measures (eyes in back of head needed))!
And on a slightly serious note, the issue of Thomas's run time has nothing to do with him now - the issue was decided by the organisers when he applied for a late start. I'm sure Thomas had very valid reasons for a late start, but even if he didn't, competitors in all fields of sport will always stretch the boundaries to get an advantage (again, I'm not saying Thomas did here). Ian Ferguson did it with their kayak pods, Team NZ did it with their fancy keel, Steve Gurney did it with his various eccentric inventions. I know when I raced motorbikes years ago, we found ways of getting a few extra hp out of an engine whilst "complying" with production rules - eg skimming cylinder heads for greater compression ratios. This is why all sports need rules and ways of upholding them that is fair to all....
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 29 March 2008, 1:30 AM
It staggers me that people can see no problem with the protest system as it stands.
We can have two of our major classics of recent times have outright wrong, and very dubious first controls, seeing time loss of up to 6 minutes for our very best competitors.....and both results stand!!!
I'm glad I don't train specifically for o at the moment because if I did I would be pissed off.
|
|
Paul I
|
Posted: 29 March 2008, 2:32 AM
Organisers and athletes are rightly hessitant to get a major comp completely invalidated, so we could return to the argument of voiding the wrong control (if it's proven to be wrong and very troublesome to sufficient nos. of runners). This might not fit in a perfect world but I still think it's a fairer option than leaving the effected results stand or canning the whole race whom people may have been peaking for. Surely the only real complaints would be from those who stumbled on the control quickly by luck or were helped by seeing someone leaving the control etc.
|
|
SJ
|
Posted: 29 March 2008, 4:48 AM
Taking one control out of a race is no more fair than letting the results stand. You just can't know what effect a dodgy control has on the complete race of a competitor and if you look at splits from such races it is clear that this method does not work. For example, take a look at Dave Shep's splits from the race at Weiti, removing the control he thought was problematic would still have done nothing for his race.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 29 March 2008, 9:05 AM
Jamie I wonder if you are directing your concerns at the wrong target. I sense that you feel course standards are slipping, and you are saying that the problem is with the protest mechanism. The mechanism has been shown to work perfectly well for the sprint start issue. I have no doubt that, had it been used for a dubious control, three independant jurors would have thoroughly considered whether the unfairness warranted a no-result.
No-one wanted to protest, so the result stands. Taking splits out is full of fish-hooks and has been rejected by IOF. If you feel the prevailing standards are not good enough (and our expectations are relative not absolute) then that's a different topic. Shouldn't you be talking to the Technical Director?
|
|
ML
|
Posted: 29 March 2008, 10:48 AM
Simon, Toms out of start group start time was obvious when the start list became available at the beginning of the week, why didnt you complain about it then, when something could have been done about it before the race started? I noticed it but deceided it was none of my business.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 29 March 2008, 10:54 AM
I hadn't picked up on it prior to the race. Should have but didn't.
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 29 March 2008, 3:32 PM
I noticed it and thought it was a typo
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions