I'll have to watch thatNot often that the 100m is overshadowed as an event, but that high jump final...
I suppose anything after Usain Bolt could be considered weak.Weak era in mens 100m?
She is standing between two lines that could easily be an exchange zone so its not a dead giveaway:It's not really even being ahead of the others. It's standing right plum outside the exchange zone markings that should have been a dead give away.
And if you are going to plead inexperience on her behalf, the more relevant questions would be how many 2nd legs of the 4x400 relay has she ran in her life and if the track markings in the relays she ran were any different to the ones used in the Olympics so that she genuinely did not know where the exchange zone was.
Also, I don't know the exact rules (that is who is responsible for athletes lining up correctly), but it seems to me that being ok with the athletes ignoring the markings if an official does not tell them about it, is a wrong way to go about it.
Edit: ok, it seems that it as the responsibility of an official, Doesn't feel right that there is literally nothing to lose from standing outside the exchange zone if the worst thing that can happen is being told to back up, but whatever.
So you are saying that they are cheaters, and you didn't look at the photo?Every other team was lined up in the correct place, and I don't personally buy that they didn't realise they were lined up somewhere different from the rest of the teams. Therefore I feel there was a deliberate ploy to maximise the distance ran by the men which meant they saw no issue in that they were lined up differently, but they made a mess of where they actually needed to be in order to execute that plan.
I'm finding it difficult to understand that I am the only one who thinks that this was an officiating error. It doesn't matter if she is trying to cheat or confused about the zones, the official should inform her.Then take them all out lol
The post you linked was a twitter post which showed all of the other teams lined up where they should be and Irby standing about 15-20 yards down the track.So you are saying that they are cheaters, and you didn't look at the photo?
3 other teams lined up incorrectly.
The were other heats.The post you linked was a twitter post which showed all of the other teams lined up where they should be and Irby standing about 15-20 yards down the track.
The blue 'hooks' mark the changeover zone.She is standing between two lines that could easily be an exchange zone so its not a dead giveaway:
I don't know how many 4x4 s she has done, nor do I know how standard the markings on the track are for Olympics vs diamond league, NCAA, etc. A really quick google of a few other track doesn't show as many lines though.
Again, is she ignoring the markings or confused as to which markings are the correct ones.
I don't understand your edit. There is nothing to lose by standing outside of an exchange zone before the race even starts? It is somehow wrong for an official to say 'hey you're not in the zone"?
So you are saying that the official informed her of her error/cheating?The blue 'hooks' mark the changeover zone.
She standing right after the end of the zone.
It's a giveaway because those are IAAF standard markings
And yes, there is nothing to lose as even breaking the takeover rule is now not enough for a DQ as long as one can cast sufficient doubt over what was told to the athlete. I don't like the cheating opportunities this opens up.
You asked me to look at the photo, which I did, and when I came to my conclusion from it, you accused me of not looking at the photo, which is why I said what I did there. I wasn't sure if you'd linked me to the right photo, because what I saw in the photo you linked was 7 teams standing where they should and the Americans standing several yards down the track, which I thought undermined the argument that it was a totally innocent mistake.The were other heats.
I'm feeling like you are being disingenuous in this discussion.
EDIT: based on roundabout's post/track map I feel like she should have more easily recognized her mistake (being ahead of the others should have also clued her in), that doesn't really change my assertion that an offical should have informed her.
The photo was to show the lines on the track (in one exchange, in one heat).You asked me to look at the photo, which I did, and when I came to my conclusion from it, you accused me of not looking at the photo, which is why I said what I did there. I wasn't sure if you'd linked me to the right photo, because what I saw in the photo you linked was 7 teams standing where they should and the Americans standing several yards down the track, which I thought undermined the argument that it was a totally innocent mistake.
I can see what roundabout is getting at, though. It puts the onus on the organisers to tell the athletes what they should already know, and removes all responsibility for their thought process from the athletes, because unless the organisers hold their hands the athletes can just appeal and get reinstated claiming an innocent mistake. Again, not the Americans' fault, but the precedent is concerning.
I mean 'opportunities to cheat' in the sense that instead of using a clear and objective measure (blue 'hooks' on the track) of where the takeover zone is it becomes a case of 'he-said-she-said' guesswork/one side word against the other side's over who was told what and when. And that's where for me there are opportunities to possibly break/abuse the rules.So you are saying that the official informed her of her error/cheating?
Thanks for the track map!
To be clear (again), I am by no means saying that she was correct (error/cheating...), but my contention is that an official didn't tell her to move back (nor did one claim to in the appeal (based on what Lewis J said). I don't see it opening opportunities to cheat because if an official would have told her that she was out of the zone, they lose the appeal.