Medals > Faster Times

"Lanceandrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Worth reading on the mindset/attitude of a Marathoner. But as I read

this

Quoted message said:

article...I kept waiting for some "full context" to be introduced on the
circumstancs that arguably lead to Baldini's Gold....as in the injustice

that

Quoted message said:

happend to De Lima?

"Arguably" is definitely to word to use. To be honest, I've not heard from
anybody who sincerely believes that De Lima was on course to win given the
way his lead was being reduced before the incident.

Quoted message said:

All this hoopla with no mention of the crime? How do you even write or

talk

Quoted message said:

about this imo "tainted" gold w/no mention of De Lima?

Well, I'd agree it odd not to mention it and that the incident has sadly
detracted from his win which was almost certainly deserved.

Tim

Lanceandrew said:

Worth reading on the mindset/attitude of a Marathoner. But as I read this
article...I kept waiting for some "full context" to be introduced on the
circumstancs that arguably lead to Baldini's Gold....as in the injustice that
happend to De Lima?

Baldini's victory was entirely legit. de Lima was unlucky, and that's too bad.
An absence of bad luck is part of almost any victory. You can speculate all
day what would have happened if de Lima hadn't been so unlucky, but at the end
of the day it doesn't amount to much, since Baldini and not de Lima won.

This is just the way things work. There are other people who arguably could
have run a sub 4 mile before Bannister, but didn't, arguably due to the fact
that Bannister had better resources at his disposal for a sub 4 attempt (and
Santee arguably had people actively hindering him).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Lanceandrew said:

Worth reading on the mindset/attitude of a Marathoner. But as I read this
article...I kept waiting for some "full context" to be introduced on the
circumstancs that arguably lead to Baldini's Gold....as in the injustice that
happend to De Lima?

Baldini's victory was entirely legit. de Lima was unlucky, and that's too bad.
An absence of bad luck is part of almost any victory. You can speculate all
day what would have happened if de Lima hadn't been so unlucky, but at the end
of the day it doesn't amount to much, since Baldini and not de Lima won.

It's also worth remembering that de Lima was awarded an "Olympic
Spirit" medal for continuing despite the attack.

Quoted message said:

Baldini's victory was entirely legit. de Lima was unlucky, and that's too bad.

___

"entirely"? since it was not an "even" playing field with 10% of the race to
go, one cannot say Baldini's victory is above speculation of "what migh have
been" had all the runners had an even playing field. "Entirely" suggest his
win was achieved with his competitors having the same "playing field" as he
had. Not the case.

Quoted message said:

An absence of bad luck is part of almost any victory.

You're basically saying "luck" is a contributor to almost every victory. That
can't be proven and it's not a universal truth. There are people that race and
take every precaution to not pull a muscle, have a cramp, not roll and ankle,
get ill, etc. It's not "luck" that enables them to complete a race (or win a
race) free of having an unforseen but natural set back of somekind strike them
in a race.

for example if your laces come untied in a race, that's not "bad luck". there
are types of laces and different techologies available to all participants to
reduce the chance of this happening to as close to zero as possible. you can
choose to ignore taking precautions of this happening to you if you like....but
if it hapenns...that's lack of preparation, not bad luck.

It's not Baldini's fault his victory is tainted. If you want to toss the term
"luck" around, it applied to him in the unfortunate sense. all we know as fact
is he did not have to contend with the obstacle his nearest opponent had to
contend and as a result benefited from having an "advantaged playing field"
over his opponent. to ignore or diminish this fact (as that article did)
reflects a "revisionist" sense of history and the factual record.

Lanceandrew said:

Quoted message said:

Baldini's victory was entirely legit. de Lima was unlucky, and that's too bad.

___

"entirely"? since it was not an "even" playing field with 10% of the race to
go, one cannot say Baldini's victory is above speculation of "what migh have
been" had all the runners had an even playing field.

How do you define an "even playing field" ? I don't believe such a thing
exists.

I notice that you snipped and didn't respond to my Roger Bannister example.
Why not ?

Did you respond to Tim's comments that de Lima was already getting caught
by Meb and Baldini ? You don't lose over a minute over a distance of 5k over
an intermittent distraction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An absence of bad luck is part of almost any victory.

You're basically saying "luck" is a contributor to almost every victory.

Well, it is. People who get struck by lightening, tripped at drink stations,
get stepped on and lose a shoe, etc etc generally do not win.

For example, Roger Bannister's teammates were working *for* his sub 4 minute
mile, not against it. He was running against competitors who also were
attempting to go sub 4. He was running at a time in history when the world
record was on the cusp of sub 4.

Quoted message said:

That can't be proven and it's not a universal truth. There are people that
race and take every precaution to not pull a muscle, have a cramp, not roll
and ankle, get ill, etc. It's not "luck" that enables them to complete a
race (or win a race) free of having an unforseen but natural set back of
somekind strike them in a race.

Yes, in other words, an absence of bad luck.

Quoted message said:

for example if your laces come untied in a race, that's not "bad luck".

What if you get stepped on and lose a shoe ? This actually happened to one of
my teammates. If the race is chip-scored, you can't just leave your shoe at
the starting line either.

Quoted message said:

It's not Baldini's fault his victory is tainted.

Because his victory isn't tainted.

Quoted message said:

If you want to toss the term "luck" around, it applied to him in the
unfortunate sense. all we know as fact is he did not have to contend with
the obstacle his nearest opponent had to contend and as a result benefited
from having an "advantaged playing field" over his opponent. to ignore or
diminish this fact (as that article did) reflects a "revisionist" sense of
history and the factual record.

Nonsense. The fact is that the condensed version of history doesn't have
enough room for the people who almost made it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An absence of bad luck is part of almost any victory.

You're basically saying "luck" is a contributor to almost every victory.

Well, it is. People who get struck by lightening, tripped at drink

stations,

Quoted message said:

get stepped on and lose a shoe, etc etc generally do not win.

Murphy's law applies most strongly to things that have to go almost
perfectly to be considered successful or to win, like races. To do your
best race or to PR is out of your control. Luck is when everything comes
together at once, and that doesn't happen every time. Experience,
preparation and careful choice of race can help a great deal, as evidenced
by Phil M.'s recent BQ. This puts the odds of having good luck in your
favor.

-Tony

How do you define an "even playing field" ? I don't believe such a thing
exists.
___

fact: with apprx. 10% of the race to go the leader was faced with an obstacle
his nearest challengers were not subjected to. that's an uneven playing field.

no one can discern or measure how such an obstacle impacts a runner. there are
runners who move on such a mental focus and plane that such an obstacle might
break their whole pyschology to a degree where they can't continue the event at
all.

there are runners that "work up" physically to a rhythm or mentally to a focus,
over the course of time and or distance. once that momentum (physical,
psychological, whatever) is broken/disrupted by the runner being tackled by a
spectator, whose to say how adversely that runner is impacted? Absolutely no
one. It's not your place to measure the impact of such an obstacle for another
individual. Your place is only to allow for the possibility that a runner
might take 1 hour or 20 miles or whatever....to get into their optimal running
mode.

Tim's comments? The problem w/that donovan (and tim) is that it suggest you
have a crystal ball. i don't care how fast or over what distance de Lima was
losing his lead. that's not the issue. it's not a fact to say "at his pace
he would have been caught in the next 1/2 mile", etc. Again, speculation.
It does not matter if that speculation seem 99.9% valid.

An athlete has to be allowed that 1 chance in a million to "play out their
effort". de Lima was denied this by facing an obstacle his opponents did not
have to face.

in sports you can't say what "would have happend" any way...etc. and then turn
a blind eye and or diminish the fact the leader of the race with 10% of the
race left was faced with an obstacle no other runners had to contend with.

you can't employ theoretical models based on probability and statistics....and
ignore the fact that the playing field in the final stage was not even for one
of the contenders.

the odds of the RedSox winning the series against the Yankees were literally
over 100-1. it had never been done before in over 100 years of the sport.
guess what...in sports...sometimes....on occassion...athletes faced with odds
leveraged against them...manage to rise to the occassion, the challenge at the
last minute.

Had all the runners had an even playing field...who's to say de Lima could not
have survived some way some how? Your statistical models? Go make that
argument to the Boston Redsox.

It's unfortunate the Marathon could not be free of tainting by some wing nut.
But the fact, not the theory, not the speculation, not the probability, the
fact is it was. The leader at the time with approx. 10% of the race to go was
tackled.

Baldini is as much of a victim as de Lima and it's unfortunate that his win is
tainted, but it is. The historical records should all have an asterisk
giving some context to the historical record for accuracy's sake. I just found
it amusing that this article I posted has so quickly employed "revisionist
history" and erasing the factual record only months after the event. Usually
it takes decades to "blurr" the truths and deny the facts.

You know the story of Dorando Pietri right donovan? While Baldini's win does
not rise to this level of absurdity....it still falls within the category of
spectator interference impacting the medal standings (possibly). We're all
deprived of knowing if de Lima would have won gold, or silver...he might have
won silver...but he had an uneven playing field to contend with as opposed to
his challengers that ultimately took gold and silver.

Lanceandrew said:

How do you define an "even playing field" ? I don't believe such a thing
exists.
___

fact: with apprx. 10% of the race to go the leader was faced with an obstacle
his nearest challengers were not subjected to. that's an uneven playing
field.

The playing field is arguably always (or at least very often) uneven. You
still haven't addressed my comments about Roger Bannisters sub 4. Do you feel
that Roger Bannisters sub 4 minute mile was "tainted" by his use of pacers,
which his rivals didn't have access to ?

Not all runners have access to the same resources, same coaches, etc. The
playing field is never "level", despite your wishes.

Quoted message said:

no one can discern or measure how such an obstacle impacts a runner. there

If the guy is truly an olympic champion, a brief intermittent distraction
should not cost him 12 seconds per mile.

Brief, intermittent distractions are part of the game. Sure, the form of the
distraction is more likely to be getting bumped in a pack, getting stepped
on or kicked or whatever. Sure, the particular form of the distraction was
unusual. But still, I simply don't believe that getting bumped cost him 12
seconds a mile. Runners get bumped all the time, and the data on this
overwhelmingly suggests that they lose a few seconds but keep running.

Now you could argue that de Lima might have done something miraculous. The
Spanish runner (Julio Rey I think) who got tripped and DNFd the NY marathon
could have also pulled off a miracle and won. Maybe it's 1 in a million, but
you don't have a crystal ball. So by your argument, Martin Lel's win of the
NY Marathon is in fact "tainted", less legitimate, because the "playing field"
was not "level".

In fact if just one runner in the field is unfairly taken out of the race,
then in your book, the winner's victory is "tainted". I put it to you that
there are probably very few winners who would pass this stringent a test of
legitimacy.

Quoted message said:

An athlete has to be allowed that 1 chance in a million to "play out their
effort".

Yeah, but we live in the real world. In the real world, people like Bannister
and Lel win. In some cases (especially Bannister) there is really very little
besides dumb luck separating the ones who make the history books and the ones
who don't.

Quoted message said:

de Lima was denied this by facing an obstacle his opponents did not
have to face.

John Landy. Julio Rey. Wes Santee. Paavo Nurmi. Etc etc. Those are the ones
I've heard of. There are no doubt more still who none of us will ever hear
of. That's just the way it is.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

The playing field is arguably always (or at least very often) uneven

_
no donovan. we're talking about once the gun starts, not every detail leading
up the the event. in effort to diminish the clear fact that Gold and Silver
medalist were advantaged by an uneven playing field...one of their opponents
faced in the event at the final stage, you're now trying to "expand" the
issue/point to cover things leading up to the event.

no one expects everyone to have equal resources leading up to an event.
doesn't salazar and some of those Nike runners...don't they sleep in O2
chambers or something like that?....I'm not talking resources and you know
that. everyone expects an even playing field once in the event.

you've voiced an opinion on what you've chosen to call an "intermittent
distraction". Shame on you donovan. Honestly, shame on you. I see in your
language for arguments sake you're now trying to diminish the facts of the
matter. Your language itself is now characterizing what happend to de Lima as
"getting bumped" and you're equating and speaking in the context of "getting
bumped", "intermittent distraction".

What's this look like to you Donovan?
http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/articles/2004/08/30/1093717866960.html

Is that "getting bumped" or being completely tacked? Is this "part of the
game" Donovan? Re-read your post Donovan and note all the times you
characterize and express opinion on this singular event as De Lima "getting
bumped". You literally speak and refer to De Lima in your argument as "he was
bumped". You also _assume_ once a runner has a "intermittent distraction"
they should be able to resume/recover as if it never happend at all. This
Donovan is not recognizing/allowing/accepting some runners require time and
distance to get into their optimal running mode/zone. You seem to not want to
acknowledge some marathoners might take 1 hour, or 20 miles....to build up to a
point/zone/optimal running mode. You in all your running wisdom have no idea
how this impacts a runner, in the lead, at this stage in the race. You don't
know their head, the time and distance it takes them to get into their optimal
mode/zone....and you can't impose your opinion on how recovering from such an
incident. i am sure there are some professional world class runners that would
have completely stopped running in whole.

"intermittent distraction", "getting bumped"? your chosen words that are
clearly inconsistent with the facts. But that's what it seems as if you're
trying to "blurr" for agruments sake. his is revisionist history, your
personal opinion..and since you've no experience at racing a marathon
yourself...i find it most amusing to read you declare the impact of being
tackled at mile 23 while leading in a race (as if you know what it feels like).
you're smarter than that. and you also can't place this in the context of
routine "mixing it up/elbowing", etc...with peers/competitors in a race...this
is/was crazier than mary decker slaney/zola budd was.

we'll never know if de Lima would have got Gold...or Silver because a wing nut
tainted the medalist' victory (all three of them).

(Lanceandrew) said:

fact: with apprx. 10% of the race to go the leader was faced with an obstacle
his nearest challengers were not subjected to.

True! He was already toast at 15% out, they weren't.

Lanceandrew said:

no donovan. we're talking about once the gun starts, not every detail
leading up the the event.

I don't understand the distinciton -- but in one of the cases I enumerated --
Julio Rey -- he was tripped *during the actual event*.

You haven't addressed this -- was Martin Lel's victory "tainted" ?

Quoted message said:

you've voiced an opinion on what you've chosen to call an "intermittent
distraction".

Well, it was.

Quoted message said:

Shame on you donovan. Honestly, shame on you. I see in your
language for arguments sake you're now trying to diminish the facts of the
matter. Your language itself is now characterizing what happend to de Lima
as "getting bumped" and you're equating and speaking in the context of
"getting bumped", "intermittent distraction".

Alan Webb was stepped on -- with *spike* shoes during a track meet. Do you
have any idea how sharp those spikes are ? I own a pair of spikes. Trust me,
you really don't want to get stepped on with those things. The "bumps" are
pretty violent too at times. Webb was "bumped" hard enough that he moved out a
couple of lanes. The jostling that goes on at these things is no picnic.

So maybe El G's olympic gold medal was tainted too.

Quoted message said:

"intermittent distraction", "getting bumped"? your chosen words that are
clearly inconsistent with the facts.

It's a hell of a lot better than getting tripped over and DNFing like Rey was
at the NY marathon.

Quoted message said:

But that's what it seems as if you're
trying to "blurr" for agruments sake. his is revisionist history, your
personal opinion..and since you've no experience at racing a marathon
yourself...i find it most amusing to read you declare the impact of being
tackled at mile 23 while leading in a race (as if you know what it feels

Irrelevant, and not responsive to my argument.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

Irrelevant, and not responsive to my argument.

_

d. the thread is defined and i've been trying to stay on topic, you've been
trying to lure me into other incidents (between contestants) which don't
analogize to this de Lima incident. ah dononvan you're no fun. nevermind the
caption of the photo uses the word "tackle"... i was looking forward to seeing
you explain how that photo represented all the things you said ( "a
intermittent distraction", "simple bumping" and was "part of the game"😉.

start a thread on opinions on these other incidents or elbowing/scrapping in
racing and i'll chime in...

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lanceandrew said:

How do you define an "even playing field" ? I don't believe such a thing
exists.
___

fact: with apprx. 10% of the race to go the leader was faced with an
obstacle
his nearest challengers were not subjected to. that's an uneven playing
field.

The playing field is arguably always (or at least very often) uneven. You
still haven't addressed my comments about Roger Bannisters sub 4. Do you
feel
that Roger Bannisters sub 4 minute mile was "tainted" by his use of
pacers,
which his rivals didn't have access to ?

Not all runners have access to the same resources, same coaches, etc. The
playing field is never "level", despite your wishes.

Quoted message said:

no one can discern or measure how such an obstacle impacts a runner.
there

If the guy is truly an olympic champion, a brief intermittent distraction
should not cost him 12 seconds per mile.

Brief, intermittent distractions are part of the game. Sure, the form of
the
distraction is more likely to be getting bumped in a pack, getting stepped
on or kicked or whatever. Sure, the particular form of the distraction was
unusual. But still, I simply don't believe that getting bumped cost him 12
seconds a mile. Runners get bumped all the time, and the data on this
overwhelmingly suggests that they lose a few seconds but keep running.

There is getting bumped by a competitor and getting mugged by
someone running onto the course. Sorry, this is more than a "distraction".
I do not think that de Lima would have won, but it certainly created a
bizarre situation.
It is amazing what can mess you up in a marathon. I remember
running along and feeling fine in Austin one year but really had to go to
the bathroom. There was a portalet at the halfway and no line so I stopped
to relieve myself. Never got the rhythm back again.

I am not sure luck played a role in Bannister's being the first 4 min
mile. He planned the race with the other men. Santee and Landy could have
also planned such a race. Maybe they took the approach that it should be
done in a "legit" race. Remember there was talk of not allowing Bannister's
record to count since he had pacesetters who were not trying to win. The
only luck in Bannister's attempt was that it stopped raining and that the
meet was not postponed.
Santee chose to stay at KU; he could have left to pursue the record.

Quoted message said:

Now you could argue that de Lima might have done something miraculous. The
Spanish runner (Julio Rey I think) who got tripped and DNFd the NY
marathon
could have also pulled off a miracle and won. Maybe it's 1 in a million,
but
you don't have a crystal ball. So by your argument, Martin Lel's win of
the
NY Marathon is in fact "tainted", less legitimate, because the "playing
field"
was not "level".

In fact if just one runner in the field is unfairly taken out of the race,
then in your book, the winner's victory is "tainted". I put it to you that
there are probably very few winners who would pass this stringent a test
of
legitimacy.

Quoted message said:

An athlete has to be allowed that 1 chance in a million to "play out
their
effort".

Yeah, but we live in the real world. In the real world, people like
Bannister
and Lel win. In some cases (especially Bannister) there is really very
little
besides dumb luck separating the ones who make the history books and the
ones
who don't.

I think attributing Bannister to "dumb luck" demeans his
accomplishment. To me luck means that we all have the same chance and the
luck of the draw. Playing the lottery involves luck; training does not.
However, I will grant that being born to the right parents helps and to some
extent the right time. Nothing one can do about that.
Being mugged on a course is not bad luck; would you tell Monica Seles
that she was just unlucky that a guy was stalker her and chose to stab her
in the back? There is no luck there; someone committed a crime.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

de Lima was denied this by facing an obstacle his opponents did not
have to face.

John Landy. Julio Rey. Wes Santee. Paavo Nurmi. Etc etc. Those are the
ones
I've heard of. There are no doubt more still who none of us will ever hear
of. That's just the way it is.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sam said:

I think attributing Bannister to "dumb luck" demeans his
accomplishment. To me luck means that we all have the same chance and the
luck of the draw. Playing the lottery involves luck; training does not.
However, I will grant that being born to the right parents helps and to some
extent the right time. Nothing one can do about that.
Being mugged on a course is not bad luck; would you tell Monica Seles
that she was just unlucky that a guy was stalker her and chose to stab her
in the back? There is no luck there; someone committed a crime.

Luck comprises all of the factors out of your control, or at least not
reasonably in control. It was indeed bad luck for Seles that that idiot
fixated on her instead of someone else. The fact that the guy was a nut
job and/or criminal doesn't change that fact.

Here are some examples of luck in sports:

*You run better in the cold, but it ends up being unseasonably hot on
race day.

*You--or your top competitor--happens to get sick just before the
competition because you happened to walk through an area where there was
an airborn virus.

*Despite having new tubes and tires, and having them inflated to the
proper pressure, you get a flat during the sprint finish of a cycling
race.

*Your opponent gets rear-ended on the way to the competition, is
somewhat sore and distracted, and can't compete up to her usual level.

*Your team loses the coin toss in overtime.

*The pool assignments in your fencing competition are assigned randomly,
and you end up in a difficult--or easy--pool due to the luck of the draw.

*One of the top competitors has to go to a wedding and doesn't show up.

*The official assigned to your contest is unfamiliar with a fairly
obscure rule, which turns out to be key in the pivotal call in the game.

*The official assigned to your contest was up all night arguing with his
wife and misses three key calls, all against your team.

*A divot kicked up accidentally in the first quarter of the game is
still there in the fourth quarter. Your team fumbles, but the ball hits
the divot and bounces right into a teammate's hands, who then runs and
scores the winning touchdown. Without the divot there, the ball would
have bounced into your opponent's hands.

*A sure home-run ball hits a bird and drops onto the field of play,
limiting the hitter to a single. (Yes, this sort of thing DOES happen.)

The list goes on. . . .

Now, as to Roger Bannister being the first to break 4:00. There's
probably not very much luck involved there, although there could be
*some*. For example, if he'd gotten sick, or the conditions had been
bad, around the time of the meet where he broke the record, it's
conceivable that someone else could have broken 4:00 before he did.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Injustice? Crime? You're ranting like any of this matters.

Sam said:

Quoted message said:

I am not sure luck played a role in Bannister's being the first 4 min
mile. He planned the race with the other men. Santee and Landy could have
also planned such a race.

But the point is that they would have had to find others who were interested
in such an attempt and able to pull it off. Bannister had the right training
environment for such an attempt, Landy and Santee didn't.

Quoted message said:

I think attributing Bannister to "dumb luck" demeans his
accomplishment.

I'm not saying that was the primary factor, only one of them. And also that
the playing field is never truly "level". I'm not whining about the fact that
it's this way, just pointing out that this is how the world works.

Quoted message said:

To me luck means that we all have the same chance and the
luck of the draw. Playing the lottery involves luck; training does not.
However, I will grant that being born to the right parents helps and to some
extent the right time. Nothing one can do about that.

Exactly. Being born at the right time is a major factor -- people born later
could run half a dozen 4 minute miles without getting the same recognition.
For example, John Walker, first sub 3:50 miler is not as well known as
Bannister, but sub 3:50 is a huge achievement.

Quoted message said:

Being mugged on a course is not bad luck; would you tell Monica Seles
that she was just unlucky that a guy was stalker her and chose to stab her
in the back? There is no luck there; someone committed a crime.

It's both. Someone committed a crime, and they were unlucky to have been the
victims.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Of course you must remember, Sam's a moron.

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lanceandrew said:

How do you define an "even playing field" ? I don't believe such a thing
exists.
___

fact: with apprx. 10% of the race to go the leader was faced with an
obstacle
his nearest challengers were not subjected to. that's an uneven playing
field.

The playing field is arguably always (or at least very often) uneven. You
still haven't addressed my comments about Roger Bannisters sub 4. Do you
feel
that Roger Bannisters sub 4 minute mile was "tainted" by his use of
pacers,
which his rivals didn't have access to ?

Not all runners have access to the same resources, same coaches, etc. The
playing field is never "level", despite your wishes.

Quoted message said:

no one can discern or measure how such an obstacle impacts a runner.
there

If the guy is truly an olympic champion, a brief intermittent distraction
should not cost him 12 seconds per mile.

Brief, intermittent distractions are part of the game. Sure, the form of
the
distraction is more likely to be getting bumped in a pack, getting stepped
on or kicked or whatever. Sure, the particular form of the distraction was
unusual. But still, I simply don't believe that getting bumped cost him 12
seconds a mile. Runners get bumped all the time, and the data on this
overwhelmingly suggests that they lose a few seconds but keep running.

There is getting bumped by a competitor and getting mugged by
someone running onto the course. Sorry, this is more than a "distraction".
I do not think that de Lima would have won, but it certainly created a
bizarre situation.
It is amazing what can mess you up in a marathon. I remember
running along and feeling fine in Austin one year but really had to go to
the bathroom. There was a portalet at the halfway and no line so I stopped
to relieve myself. Never got the rhythm back again.

I am not sure luck played a role in Bannister's being the first 4 min
mile. He planned the race with the other men. Santee and Landy could have
also planned such a race. Maybe they took the approach that it should be
done in a "legit" race. Remember there was talk of not allowing Bannister's
record to count since he had pacesetters who were not trying to win. The
only luck in Bannister's attempt was that it stopped raining and that the
meet was not postponed.
Santee chose to stay at KU; he could have left to pursue the record.

Quoted message said:

Now you could argue that de Lima might have done something miraculous. The
Spanish runner (Julio Rey I think) who got tripped and DNFd the NY
marathon
could have also pulled off a miracle and won. Maybe it's 1 in a million,
but
you don't have a crystal ball. So by your argument, Martin Lel's win of
the
NY Marathon is in fact "tainted", less legitimate, because the "playing
field"
was not "level".

In fact if just one runner in the field is unfairly taken out of the race,
then in your book, the winner's victory is "tainted". I put it to you that
there are probably very few winners who would pass this stringent a test
of
legitimacy.

Quoted message said:

An athlete has to be allowed that 1 chance in a million to "play out
their
effort".

Yeah, but we live in the real world. In the real world, people like
Bannister
and Lel win. In some cases (especially Bannister) there is really very
little
besides dumb luck separating the ones who make the history books and the
ones
who don't.

I think attributing Bannister to "dumb luck" demeans his
accomplishment. To me luck means that we all have the same chance and the
luck of the draw. Playing the lottery involves luck; training does not.
However, I will grant that being born to the right parents helps and to some
extent the right time. Nothing one can do about that.
Being mugged on a course is not bad luck; would you tell Monica Seles
that she was just unlucky that a guy was stalker her and chose to stab her
in the back? There is no luck there; someone committed a crime.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

de Lima was denied this by facing an obstacle his opponents did not
have to face.

John Landy. Julio Rey. Wes Santee. Paavo Nurmi. Etc etc. Those are the
ones
I've heard of. There are no doubt more still who none of us will ever hear
of. That's just the way it is.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/