Was Drummond ripped off in his QF disqualification?
Here’s something I posted in response to some ignorant twat who was having a go at Drummond on a mailing list. I’m amazed that no-one has raised it!
C’mon, RT, you didn’t even see the race unfold yet you feel somehow qualified to pass judgement.
There are two major factors that no-one has touched on that led to this.
The first is the IAAF’s practice of allowing 3rd world novice athletes into world championship races. We are talking 11 and 12 second MALE recreational athletes here that are only there because they know someone that got them an overseas holiday. They are way out of their depth and are shaking in their blocks and causing false starts. It was a crazy practice to allow these guys into this level of meet BEFORE the new false start rule, but now, it is insane. Watching the 100m heats, you could see that farce unfolding. By the male QFs, the jumpiness had become contagious. Something terrible was going to happen. The officials’ nerves had gone.
This is of course assuming that the officials were particularly competent in the first place. They were actually walking up to athletes in the on your marks position and fiddling with their blocks. They were running behind athletes milliseconds before they went into the set position. I have never seen anything like it. This was all contributing to the powder keg that was about to explode.
Not only that, the starter was holding the athletes for an inordinate amount of time in the on your mark position. I don’t know if you understand how this feels for an athlete? You can only control your twitch for so long.
If you saw the women’s final, Gail Devers was furious at this. She raised her hand only for it to happen again. This favoured Kelli White over explosive athletes like Devers and Sturrup. It was horrendous.
Anyway, getting back to Drummond. Here was a guy in the shape of his life with a damn good chance to medal. If you had watched the coverage unfold, it would be impossible to not get caught up in the drama and emotion. No-one could not feel for him. Given the situation, I believe that he behaved well. He did remain polite in probably the most emotional moment of his life. He was a victim of circumstance and did not deserve what happened to him. It was one of the most rivetting moments in sport that I have witnessed.
Drummond is not to blame. He is the victim.
Have to agree with your comments dcw, I thought he showed some courage to not take that BS lying down, when clearly by his standards he’d reacted pretty poorly…
Further to the first point, I mean, c’mon. How would you like to be a serious athlete at home that missed out on a world champs A qualifier by 1/100 second and then watch this crap on your screen. What are they hoping to achieve?
As much as I don’t like Jon Drummond for being a Ego-centric ALL pro-USA die Canada Track & Field athlete, he did not deserve that. I am not for this new start rule either.
I stayed up for the long haul as well last night & couldnt believe the drama unfold. This was bound to happen sooner or later with the new start rules. The officials could only rely on the computer data presented to them & their interpretation of the rule book, so its not their fault either. However they should have handled the situation better. Let them run, record a time, & settle the disputes off the track.
Whats to say this wont happen again at this meet. As someone posted elsewhere what happens if all 8 react before the gun in the finals?
Good on Drummond. Maybe theyll consult the athletes before making another dumb rule change. Anyway thats my 2 cents worth.
llenny
It seems to me the starter is looking at the monitor instead of the runners … by this I mean the false start equipment is given more and more value in decisionmaking on the start line. What happened to good old “gaming eye”? Eysterday is a good example where an old fashioned start system would have prevented the disastrous outcome. The sensors in the block should only be used as a secondary means for the starter to help him/her stick or abandon his actions BUT still maintain full controll over the situation and if he/she decides … f*k the sensors. This would ofcourse mean we need good starters in the first place.
In Paris, when the runners goes into the blocks they ususally get called up again, we saw this more than often yesterday and the day before. Why … i would say somebody, on some lane, is not getting the correct pressure to the blocks and the sensors goes crazy … the starter calls the runners up for a new try … nobody is penalized. But when the same thing occures in the set position … some runner(s) on some lane is getting their dreams crushed big time.
How was JD unfairly treated?
I can’t understand this … I appreciate his situation, his shape and prep, the pressure, etc. - He broke a rule and was disqualified - EOF.
The problem is the rule.
If the rule is unfair.
Then everyone is being treated unfairly.
But sorry - rules are rules.
You can’t just say as the rule is being implemented that - oh because the rule is unfair in this case we won’t implement it.
I felt very sorry for JD when it happened.
I think JD would have more respect and sympathy if he had left the track rather than the way he acted and disrupted the remaining athletes.
That is where he fell in my estimation.
But damn it - athletics needs to fix itself really soon - these kind of false starting debacles are ruining the image of the sport, creating an image of a badly run and unfair sport, with a mass of idiots running the sport, with no one strong figure in charge fit to take charge and fix the problems as they arise… actually - kinda sounds like what Charlie was saying all those years ago …
I think no23 is right … it was unfair for the other runners, especially when JD kind of wanted the crowd to decide if he should be allowed to run. But I still can’t understand how two people can get the blamed for one false start? Now certainly one of them is treated unfairly.
“rules are rules”
Dont be so dry! Sprinting is not mathematics nor is it even economics.
But Thor - what is the alternative?
Genuinely - you have to have some rules and apply them to everyone.
No?
You can’t run a meet otherwise.
I don’t regard it as ‘dry’ - The rules may be wrong - but that’s not the point.
The place to change the rules is NOT ON THE TRACK.
Change the rules elsewhere - but while the rules are in place - obey them.
Don’t you agree?
Hi Lorien,
I think the reason both were removed was that BOTH their reaction times were too fast.
Yes! Just read about the rule. What a dumbass rule!
Word Championship final scenario: Lane 8 jumps the gun and we have a second try. Lane 4 jumps the guy and drags everyone with him exept the poor fellow in lane 8 who mangaed to fall asleep in the blocks. Now he’s not so poor anymore, he’s in fact lucky … he’s the new word champion! Jippiayey!
I think it was Dazed who said - just go after the gun …
Rules must be there - as a guide ,not to live by. Why is the human-factor(the starter) involved at all if not to have the final word? (Though ofcourse ,it is cheaper than a fully-fledged electronic system.)
Sorry Thor, I disagree,
Make the rule and stick by them.
If they don’t work, fix them later.
They weren’t changed for the likes of Linford (and nor should they have been) so why change them just yesterday.
To repeat what I said earlier:
The place to change the rules is NOT ON THE TRACK in the heat of competition.
Change the rules elsewhere - but while the rules are in place - obey them.
Re:
Thor: “Why is the human-factor(the starter) involved at all if not to have the final word?”
Of course Thor that was the other problem - 10 or 15 idiots all looking at each other waiting for someone else to make a decision either one way or the other …
No one in charge…
All Indians and no Chiefs.
I general (not the case with JD this time) the computers should be there to help in decision making, not to dictate decisions themselves. Don’t get me wrong, we still need them for timing, measurement etc. But to decide for us if some performance is legit or not … I don’t know? To have a machine saying what’s humanly possible or not sounds kind of scary. If you implement a rule like the reaction time rule … why not stick to absolute numbers (the reaction time being 0) everything over is legal, everything under is illegal, despite the research saying it’s not HUMANLY possible to react faster than xxx/ms?
“The place to change the rules is NOT ON THE TRACK in the heat of competition.
Change the rules elsewhere - but while the rules are in place - obey them.”
To change the rules in the heat of competition ,on the fly ,as this unprecedented situation warranted would be an act of human courage, heartwarming. This is not to be expected ofcourse.
Human sport = human decision making.
i posted in another thread to ur argument, no23…
did he really break the rule? in every other sport, there seems to be a human adjudicator, judging from the information he gets from computers and other humans, whether or not the rules have been broken.
rules are rules yes.
BUT the rules arent that black and white. They ARE open to interpretation. We are talking early reaction time, and pressure on the blocks. two different things. which changes the ball game totally.
should he be alllowed to run? probably not.
did he do the right thing by not bowing down and just walking out? HELL yes.
would we be even having this discussion if he had just copped it sweet? hell no.
he was d/q, but hopefully (thin hope), his d/q will mean something and be for the betterment of the sport
i like drummond