Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 115
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #81
    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    Now the next big question is, what sort of improvement will we see after a full year or two of focusing on the 200m? Sub-22? Sub-21? Current PB is 22.89.
    If she had sub-21 potential, wouldn't she focus on 200 to begin with?
    Do you think she could have gone mid-46s if she had continued to train for 400?
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Goldsmith
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    If she ran a sub-21, that would only lead to the 200 being added to the restricted list.
    Quoted for truth. Probably, sub 21.7 would be adequate to get the IAAF moving. There won't be another 10-year circus, though I think the last one increased interest in women's track.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #83
    Quote Originally Posted by TN1965 View Post
    If she had sub-21 potential, wouldn't she focus on 200 to begin with?
    Bolt had sub-9.6 potential in the 100m, but trained for a decade before focusing on the event. Warholm had sub-47 potential in the 400m hurdles, but first spent several years training in other events. Seyni has been training for less than 3 years.
    Last edited by 18.99s; 09-20-2019 at 12:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #84
    I think Seyni is very likely much more a 400/800 type and she'll be hard pressed to go much better than 22.3. I'd look for her in the 1500 before long.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,062
    Quote Originally Posted by trackCanuck View Post
    I think Seyni is very likely much more a 400/800 type and she'll be hard pressed to go much better than 22.3. I'd look for her in the 1500 before long.
    1500 is a restricted event. If she wants to move up, she'd need to go all the way to the 5000, if we're talking championship events.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    1500 is a restricted event. If she wants to move up, she'd need to go all the way to the 5000, if we're talking championship events.
    You're right, maybe she could break the mile record. Or is that officially restricted as well? And then there's the steeplechase, it's a bit shorter than the 5000. What woman with low 48 one lap potential ever tried the steeplechase? What if she has sub 4 minute 1500 ability?
    Last edited by trackCanuck; 09-20-2019 at 02:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,371
    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    The inhibitors are not required for distances below 400m.
    They will be if a sub-21, literally out of nowhere, is posted. Every distance--even the field events--will be called into question.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #88
    Quote Originally Posted by trackCanuck View Post
    You're right, maybe she could break the mile record. Or is that officially restricted as well?
    The mile is included.

    https://www.iaaf.org/news/press-rele...ligibility-reg
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #89
    Quote Originally Posted by El Toro View Post
    Well, I still continue to think that it's ridiculous to have mile banned but not the 200m. CAS itself says that they can't see a clear advantage for these women at 1500 and suggested dropping that part of the ban, leaving only 400-800-400hs...
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasuke View Post
    Well, I still continue to think that it's ridiculous to have mile banned but not the 200m.
    It's ridiculous to not apply the restriction to all events, but the CAS tied the IAAF's hands by requiring actual data for every event.
    CAS itself says that they can't see a clear advantage for these women at 1500 and suggested dropping that part of the ban, leaving only 400-800-400hs...
    But there was still enough data for the 1500m to convince the CAS not to force the IAAF remove the 1500m/mile from the restrictions. Whereas the data for the 200m was weaker or nonexistent.

    The confusing part was finding evidence of advantages in the pole vault and hammer throw but not implementing the restrictions there. That might be a lawyer-advised strategy, aimed at winning the key battle first before taking on additional battles that would have erupted from restricting the pole vault and hammer throw. Then once the precedent is established and upheld for the initial range of events, they can gradually move to restrict other events.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •