View of IU Michael A. Carroll Track & Soccer Stadium from 1286 ft

I thought you might get a kick out of seeing an aerial view of the Indiana University Michael A. Carroll Track & Soccer Stadium, the venue where the USA Outdoor Track & Field Championships will be held beginning tomorrow. This image is courtesy of Google Earth. If you've never downloaded this program, I highly recommend that you do so. It's a blast!

[double-click on thumbnail
for full-size image]
IU Michael A Carroll Track and Soccer Stadium
1001 West New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5193
[for more information, visit the IUPUI website]

Slate Article "Explains" But Doesn't Offer Conclusions About the Accuracy of Electronic Timing

Daniel Engber, an associate editor and self-proclaimed "Explainer" at Slate, recently posted an article on their website that asks these questions:

Can we trust track & field records? How accurate are they? How accurate are the devices used to time these events?

He goes on to describe the minutia associated with electronic timing. But does he answer his own questions? I read the entire article several times to try and sort through the facts and to determine whether or not he answers the questions he poses in the article.

He suggests that the finish lines of track, due to their imprecise placement, are not even the true finish line – at least for determination of world records in the 100m and 200m dashes. Instead, he suggests that the real finish line is a virtual "thin slice of space" created by photo finish cameras right above the track's physical finish line. I can buy that.

He talks about how hand-timing is allowed in events longer than 800m and how "official times are often less precise" using this method. Make sense, too. Most longer races don't come down to photo finishes. I might add, however, that most top-quality meets are not hand-timed, not even for the longer events.

He then mentions light beams and how those are used for a "quicker and less accurate reading" than that of the photo finish system. He talks about how these "initial readings are often padded with some extra time so officials never have to adjust up—and take away a world record." His sources are Giles Norton of Lynx System Developers, Inc., and Imre Matrahazi and István Gyulai of IAAF, so I don't doubt the veracity of this statement. Besides, the "official" time always does seem to be lower than the initial time. Announcers on TV are always careful to suggest that we wait for the official times, which are inevitably lower than the initial times.

Finally he gives a quick lesson about how the speakers behind each runner are triggered by the starter's pistol, then – in turn – signal the clock in the photo finish system, and all within .001 seconds. I thought those speakers were so that the runners would all hear the gun at the same time, but I guess there is more to the speakers than just that.

He ends the article without summarizing his argument or offering any kind of conclusion. The last words in the article are yet another question posed by the author: "Next question?" What does he mean, "next question?" He hasn't even answered the questions he posed in the article!

I recall a 800m race I ran in high school which was a photo finish between myself and a runner from another school. His hand-timed time was faster than my hand-timed time (my time will remain a closely-guarded secret), and only one of us would go on to the finals, so I thought I was done for the weekend. It was so close a finish that there was a delay of some 5 minutes or so while the officials analyzed the digital images. In the end, I advanced to the finals while the other runner did not because I was ahead of him according to the images from the photo finish.

Hand times are accurate to within .2 seconds, the time it takes our fingers to react to the smoke from the starter's pistol. Photo finishes are much more accurate than that. They are accurate to within 1/1000th of a second. So, to draw some conclusions from my experience and the data from the incomplete Slate article, I would say that electronic times are accurate and can be trusted. Hand times are not as accurate and cannot be trusted as much, at least for record-keeping purposes or in close races. In fact, hand-timed times are usually designated as such in the record books. Hand-timed results are penalized in the IAAF world rankings calculations. Events from 50m to 200m are penalized .24 seconds for hand times. Events from 300m to 500m are penalized .14 seconds for hand times.

The IAAF website states that, "Statistics are an essential part of the sport of athletics, where the precise measure of performances and the recording of the same are fundamental criteria." Most international caliber meets have full electronic timing systems. It should be understood that the hand times from lower-level meets are not quite as accurate as the electronic times from higher-level meets. But, since track and field is all about the competition – not about the times – we shouldn't have to worry about this question anyway. Right? Next question?

Lights, Camera, Action!

Here's a fascinating glimpse into the world of television production as it relates to track and field coverage. This is a sample of the TV Production Outline for the ExxonMobil Bislett Games:

Production and Split of Disciplines:

• Unit 1 – Integration, Track and Presentation for Multilateral World Feed Total of 14 x Cameras.
• Unit 2 – Throws, Javelin (4 cameras, mixed with graphics).
• Unit 3 – Vertical Jump, Pole Vault & High Jump (6 cameras, mixed with graphics).
• Unit 4 – Horizontal Jump, Triple Jump (5 cameras, mixed with
graphics).

Field Cameras shared – Total of 15 Cameras for Field Events.
29 Cameras in total in use for the World Feed.

• Camera Plan accessible at: Camera plan field - Camera plan track

• Feeds of all Cameras or Feeds can be made available if Rights Holders wish to have their own SNG. The Rights Holder can then cut and mix their own coverage.

If you're a budding director, or if you're just interested in learning about how complex the TV production of a track meet really is in the media age, click here to see all of the TV Production Outlines for all of the IAAF Golden League events in 2007. You can also check out some letters from the meet directors, get timetables, start lists, results, athlete bios, and more. You can even get access to free, live streaming radio coverage of all the meets!

Should Oscar Pistorius Run in the Olympics? Let Science Decide.

Fred has left a new comment on my post "A Challenge To My Readers and Myself": As long as you're bringing it up, what are your thoughts of a legless man competing in the Olympics?

The IAAF's argument is that Oscar Pistorius' carbon-fiber prosthetic legs give him an unnaturally long stride that gives him an unfair advantage over other athletes. Nick Davies, Communications Director for the IAAF says, "we've had feedback which has said... that the guy has a 3 or 4 meter stride."

Robert Gailey, an associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami Medical School who has studied amputee runners, insists that, "a prosthetic leg returns only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent, providing much more spring."

Pistorius' racing prosthetics have a much different appearance than ordinary prosthetics, even his own non-racing ones (watch video below). Does a different appearance necessarily mean that Pistorius' "Cheetahs" (as the prosthetic legs are called) provide an unfair advantage?



In the video, Davies says that, "in the end, the rule just has to be fair." I have a simple but effective solution that will determine whether or not allowing Pistorius to run with his Cheetah prosthetics is fair.

Let's test a group of Pistorius' likely competitors and determine the range of their heart rates immediately after a race. Then let's have them run again wearing some kind of special shoes with springs that offer a higher energy return than do their own legs. My theory is that the range of their heart rates will be lower with the springs than without.

Then let's test Pistorius. If his heart rate immediately after a race is within the same range as the other athletes' in races run without the shoe springs, that means he is working just as hard as they are. That would prove he doesn't have an unnatural advantage over other runners; therefore, fairness would dictate that he should be allowed to run. If his heart rate is closer to the range of the other athletes' in races run with springs, that means he does have an unfair advantage. If that's the case, don't let him run.

The Limits of Human Potential, Part 3

In The Limits of Human Potential, Part 2, I wrote that technological improvements, including that of track uniforms, would help make further reductions of the mile world record possible. Well, minutes later, some of those improvements are already here:

"VivoMetrics Inc. today announced the launch of VivoChampionTrainer™ with LifeShirt® technology, a revolutionary lightweight, compact, and non-invasive physiologic monitoring system. Specifically designed to monitor athletic performance during training and competition, the VivoChampionTrainer™ provides trainers and athletes with a competitive edge to increase training effectiveness, avoid overtraining and obtain an optimal state of physical competitiveness.

"Built upon VivoMetrics' original LifeShirt System, the VivoChampionTrainer™ has been modified for athletic training and provides real-time measurement of respiration, heart rate, activity, posture and skin temperature during and after activity -- whether a practice session or an actual competitive event. Trainers, coaches and managers are able to view laboratory-quality data as the athletes perform in "real-world" environments. This allows factors such as stress of competition or environmental factors such as heat on a playing field to be duplicated and evaluated for their effect on player performance.

"The original LifeShirt System, a full shirt garment with embedded sensors, was developed initially for use in pharmaceutical research. VivoMetrics modified the system by developing a lightweight chest strap for athletes, providing a greater range of motion and increased comfort. The VivoChampionTrainer™ sends physiologic data to a nearby computer and intuitive, easy-to-understand displays allow coaches, trainers and team physicians to quickly assess the health status of up to 25 athletes at the same time.

"Athletic trainers and coaches can use the VivoChampionTrainer™ with their athletes to establish the upward limits of an athlete's capacity, determine when to push an athlete and when to reduce intensity, decide whether or not to change the training plan in the short term, maximize an athlete's ability and performance over the course of a season, and prevent injuries and over-training syndrome by maintaining the athlete in an appropriate training range. Professional and elite athletes and their coaches and trainers across many sports are already incorporating the VivoChampionTrainer™ into their training programs to evaluate, monitor, improve and maintain performance levels."

So there it is. Within minute of my post, the future arrives. I'll keep exploring the web for evidence of the other tools that I listed that will allow for improvements in athletic performance, including training techniques, technology, the nutritional aspects of running, sports psychology and genetic "pockets." What's next, a super banana that will eliminate the need for immunizations?

The Limits of Human Potential, Part 2

Anonymous has left a new comment on my post "The Limits of Human Potential?":

Come now, sir. The point of the exercise is the challenge. I challenge you to prognosticate.

How about this? Surely the future world mile record will be hard pressed to beat even the current world 40 yard dash record times a factor of 44 (40 yards x 44 = 1,760 yards = 5,280 feet). So what is the current world 40 yard dash record?

And when will we get there? 2010? 2090?

Technically, I'm not required to respond to this challenge, since it wasn't posted in the comments to the original challenge post. Being an accommodating pundit, however, I will entertain the question:

The 40 yard dash is not a track and field event, but a tool used by collegiate and NFL scouts for recruiting purposes. A football player who has a time in the "40" that is over 4.6 seconds (hand-timed) is usually not considered for any of the "skill" positions: quarterback, running back, wide-receiver, and defensive back. Therefore, official records are not kept, since it is not an event. Still, the fastest time ever recorded electronically (hand-timed races, due to human reaction times, are usually 0.2 seconds lower than electronically-timed races) is a 4.21 that was run by Maurice Greene en route to a 100m time of 9.81 seconds. Let's use that time for our purposes here.

If we multiply 4.21 by 44, we come up with a time of 185.4, or 3:05.4. Can a human being ever run a time of 3:05.4 in the mile run? I'd say the chances of that are less than of the Pundit running a 4.4 "40" or a sub 4:00 mile, and neither one of those are ever gonna happen! Could it be done with genetic engineering? Possibly.

Okay, I don't like doing this because it's for posterity (and posterity usually makes dunces of critics and prognosticators) but I'm going to say a sub 4:00 mile is possible for women by 2057. Using that standard as a meter stick (women improving by at least another 12.56 seconds) men also should be able to improve by 12.56. That would put the world record for the mile at 3:30.57. I think a time like that would be possible by 2057. What will allow for these improvements? Better training techniques will be discovered (the Lydiard Method is 47 years old as of this writing), better technology (shoes, physiological monitors, uniforms, track surfaces) will be developed, the nutritional aspects of running will be further explored, psychology could be used to increase our threshold of pain, genetic "pockets" (such as those good folks in the Great Rift Valley in Kenya) will be discovered that are ideal for mile running.

After that? Genetic engineering would have to be explored to further improve times and I don't think the IAAF is prepared to deal with the thought of Übermensch. Right now, they can't even deal with the thought of a legless man competing in the Olympics.

The Limits of Human Potential?

Anonymous asks, "What do you believe is our fastest potential mile run, and when do you predict that we reach that potential?

I could give you an answer, but that would be pure speculation. Since the IAAF era began in 1912, the mile record has dropped by over 31 seconds. That's an average of about one second every three years. As of today, the record stands at 3:43.13 and has not been broken in 2885 days. This would seem to be a long time unless you realize that in the 95 years since the IAAF era began, there have been 4 even longer periods than this current one without a change in the mile world record: periods of 2960, 2962, 2964 and 3215 days. The longest stale period was the nearly 9 years between Gunder Hagg's 4:01.3 and Roger Bannister's inconceivable 3:59.4. Can the record drop another 31.27 records over the next century like it did this past century? That seems as impossible as Bannister's sub 4, doesn't it?

"Second question: are records often unofficially (or unknowingly) broken during training? Or do athletes save their best performances for sanctioned events?"

I've heard of it happening in cycling, but I'd have to imagine that the vast majority of athletes, including cyclists, would want to test themselves in competition against others, rather than languish in obscurity. Once before the 1972 Olympics Games in Munich, Oregon coach Bill Dellinger had the legendary Steve Prefontaine run a 3:59 mile all by himself in training, just "for sharpening." Pre, of course, was the exception to just about every rule and was incapable of languishing in obscurity. Most athletes would heed the advice of Thomas Gray, who said that, "full many a flower is born to blush unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air."

Doping in Track and Field Should Be Legal

Fred writes with this challenge:

"This one is multi-faceted: choose one, two or all three:

1. Pick an element of the sport you'd rather not write about, and write about it (political, cultural, long-term effects on the athletes' health, positive effects of doping, etc).

2. Write a T/F op-ed that is convincing but antithetical to your own beliefs.

3. Explain the relative lack of interest in T/F (and in other more European sports, like soccer and rugby) in the U.S.

Must be a long weekend. I'm feeling a bit contrarian today."

Okay, you rascal, I'm going to something that goes against my better judgement. I'm going to try writing that fictional op-ed you suggested.

[DISCLAIMER] THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS POST MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT EXPRESS THE OPINIONS OF FINISH LINE PUNDIT.[/DISCLAIMER]

Doping in Track and Field Should Be Legal. There, I said it. Either that, or a long list of current devices and aids that artificially improve a track and field athlete's performance should also be banned: starting blocks, synthetic track surfaces, fiberglass poles, pits, heart-rate monitors, electrolyte replacements drinks, running tights, Goretex, orthotics, legs, the list goes on and on.

Wait a minute. Did you say legs?

The IAAF's Competition Rules 2006-2007 repeatedly mention the concept of "unfair advantage to the athlete."

Doping is the use by or distribution to an athlete of certain substances which could have the effect of improving artificially the athlete's physical and/or mental condition and so augmenting his athletic performance.
In short, doping is normally aimed at (at least) six aspects that a competitor needs to surpass the limits of human capability. They are improvement in speed, strength, endurance, mental attitude, coordination and the relief of pain.
A "dope" or 'doping substance" thus is any drug or drug preparation which is used with the intention of modifying advantageously such human capability to perform.

Best Personal Websites of Track & Field Athletes

I searched the web for the best personal websites by current track & field athletes. Although the pickings are slim (I didn't include a few others because they haven't been updated in a couple of years), here are the best:

Amy Acuff, American High Jumper
Jolanda Ceplak, Slovenian Middle-Distance Runner
Stefan Holm, Swedish High Jumper
Khalid Khannouchi, Moroccan-American Distance Runner
Lornah Kiplagat, Kenyan-Dutch Distance Runner
Marla Runyan, American Distance Runner
Jeremy Wariner, American Sprinter

More than Just Chariots of Fire...

I just ran across a website called Running Movies that catalogs hundreds of movies about, or having something to do with, running. Categories include Biographical, Instructional, Documentary, Feature, Foreign, Specific Events and Olympics. It looks to me that the descriptions of the training movies are the webmaster's own writing. I wish more of the feature film reviews were his own work instead of stock descriptions we can find all over the internet. Still, since this person took the trouble to collect hundreds movies about running, consolidate them on a website and give us a chance to buy them, we should be thankful. I, for one, certainly didn't know that there are so many feature films about running. The only ones I could think of were "Chariots of Fire," "Gallipoli," "Running Brave" and the two Prefontaine movies "Prefontaine" and "Without Limits".

Other than just writing some more original reviews, there's certainly room for improvement on this site. Server-side scripting would be a great improvement over the static pages currently in place over there. This would allow a shopper to produce some dynamic pages that are customized for that shopper's own preferences. Sure not all of us can be amazon.com, but a professional e-store and a more user-friendly site search is certainly within reach for most webmasters nowadays. It's free, too, through an open-source PHP and MySQL CMS site like this one. Even a more-creative use of the aStore he's got set up on his front page (scroll to the bottom) is free and would be an improvement. Maybe that, along with some original reviews, are in the works. Until then, we can marvel at the time it took the webmaster to do all of that old-school coding of all of that html on all of those static pages! Better yet, I'll marvel at the large list of running movies that he has provided for us.

Speaking of "Chariots of Fire," here's a video on You Tube that shows a couple of geeks (unlike nerds, who are smart) doing dumb things in slo-mo to the theme song from "Chariots of Fire":

'Scuse me, did you say Track and Field RADIO?

Olympic high jumper Dwight Stones offers a perspective on Track & Field that few others can offer. So it's fitting that he should host his own internet radio talk/call-in show covering track and field.

Listen live on Wednesdays at 11 AM/PST on Voice America Sports, or listen to archived shows anytime:

Trackandfieldradio.com offers interviews with world-class track and field athletes including Steve Scott, Deena Kastor, Alan Webb, Suzy Favor Hamilton, Stacy Dragila, Maurice Green, Sarah Schwald, Bernard Lagat, Michael Johnson, Bob Kennedy, Jim Ryun, more. Hosted by Paul McMullen (a world-class athlete in his own right) the interviews are casual, chatty and full of insider knowledge offered up by both host and guests. The website hasn't been updated since January, and I'm not sure if it's still being updated, but it's still worth checking out just for the archives.

One In, One Out

According to CNN.com, "former Olympic 800 meters silver medallist Hezekiel Sepeng has been reinstated after serving a two-year doping ban, Athletics South Africa (ASA) said on Tuesday."

USAToday.com reports that Russian marathoner Lyubov Denisova has been banned for two years "because she tested positive for prostanozol and testosterone." Denisova's agent claims that she "made a mistake while buying vitamins on the Internet with a new computer early this year." Some mistake. That computer must have come loaded with Windows Vista.

Nike Running Shoe + Nike Watch + iPod = Music + Stats

If you haven't heard about the Flight+ ($129) by Nike, it's a watch that can compliment your iPod Nano while you're on the run. It's got volume and track controls that are easier to manipulate than the Nano's controls. The Flight+ is geared (no pun intended) toward women, while Aero+ is the more masculine version. There's also an ugly little economy version called an Amp+, retailing for $79. If you don't need to tell time or if you don't mind wearing the Amp+ and an Ironman, then I suppose this one's for you.

All three products work with the Nike+ shoes, which contain what a pc.com review calls a, "a very small 2.4-GHz transmitter that plugs into the iPod nano's dock connector and a small, flat sensor that you slip into your right shoe underneath the sock guard. The two pieces communicate wirelessly with each other; the sensor sends complex waveform data about your speed, which the iPod then translates into distance and other measurements."

The measurements include time, distance, distance remaining, pace per mile, calories burned, and more. You can even challenge up to 50 running buddies via e-mail with 4 different types of challenges: a distance race, the most miles, the fastest run, or a team goal. Who said running is a solitary pursuit? Not in the 21st century, it isn't.

For those holdouts who don't own an iPod (myself included) the Speed+ is available for $129.00. It's basically a Flight+ without the iPod controller. It comes with USB connection to upload to your computer all of the training information gathered by the Nike+ Shoe sensor. (All four products were supposed to be available on May 1, but I still haven't seen any of the models on Nike's Nike+ eStore. I will post a notice when these products become available.)

More information from gizmodo.com.

The Fuss Over the Osaka Track

The fuss over the new Osaka track surface has already begun in the build-up to the World Championships this summer, but is it much ado about nothing? Jeremy Wariner, wearing his customary wraparound sunglasses, ran a 44.02 in the 400m on the Osaka track this weekend, the fastest time in the world this year and the fastest ever in May, so there's probably something to it. What does that mean for the World Championships—a bunch of new world records? Not likely. Championship races are usually tactical. But the 400m should be a different story. A combination of factors points toward a record.

First, Wariner is running over 1 second faster than he was at the same time last year. Attribute that to his focus on racing the 200m this year. He set a PR last year of 20.19, so an improvement this year would mean a world-class time for 200m. Not only that, but he has improved his 400m time every year since 2002: he ran a 46.10 in '02, a 45.13 in '03, a 44.00 in '04, 43.93 in '05, a 43.62 in '06. Both Wariner and his coach commented about how fast the Osaka track is. That gives him a psychological boost. The curves on the Osaka track aren't tight. That's another advantage. So is that new springy-yet-hard surface that's so easy to grab with his Adidas spikes. He seems to be winning every race by 5 or more meters, so he doesn't have to worry about tactics. He's conscious this year of his tendency in the past to slow down at the end when he has the race wrapped up, so he should be able to avoid that pitfall. Everything is falling into place for Wariner, so the record should fall in Osaka.