Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2021 Outdoors

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ursus
    replied
    Lucky's right, definitely some post OG lethargy. On track and forum alike.

    Comes to something when Crouser throws 22.67 and I think that's a bit pants. I almost fainted when I saw he'd posted a 21.98 opener. Bloke has set some standards!

    Dull javelin stat of the day - from 15 comps (ignoring OG qualifying) Vetter's seasonal average is 89.67. That average is further than any other thrower has managed even once this year (Krukowski is 2nd in rankings at 89.55) and would have won the OG by over 2m. Quite astounding numbers, one day we'll find out what really happened in Tokyo. Bit of a return to form in last couple of weeks with an 88.54 and a 89.60. Would be great to see him back over 90 in Zurich.

    Leave a comment:


  • alfie
    replied
    Well I quite enjoyed the first day at Zurich - although not sure mixed long jumping turns or 560 metre tracks are going to be the way of the future 😄

    That women's HJ was a ripper - once again those three gave us a wonderful contest ! If they keep pushing each other like this , I wonder could one of them possibly get up to threaten that long standing 2.09 ?

    On the down side , Niyonsaba threatens to turn the long distance event into something like the 800 of recent years. I appreciate there are complicated issues ; but I still feel for a generation of 800 metre runners who must have felt their world aspirations were essentially limited to running for 4th place...

    Onto the main track tonight !

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckySpikes
    commented on 's reply
    Yes, really enjoyed the High Jump!

    I sense a bit of post-Olympic lethargy here on the forum though!

  • SprintRelayFan
    replied
    Also Niyonsaba becomes 5000 champion…

    Leave a comment:


  • SprintRelayFan
    commented on 's reply
    She’s awesome.

  • philipo
    replied
    great HJ competition in Zurich may have been noticed by some fans here. 2.05 by the Russian OG Champion aptly demonstrates how mental toughness is so essential in Track and Field.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul
    replied
    Yet another great win from Jemma Reekie yesterday.
    She has of course drifted off the top of the world rankings due to missing the Olympic podium, but she has had an awesome season, and the future looks very bright.
    In fact she has lots of very nice achievable targets for next year (such as the British record). In an odd kind of way, things are set up even better for her than for, ahem, Aunty Keely (whose targets appear to be (a) world record; (b) handing Mu her ass -- neither of which are impossible for her, but only because she is so ridiculously talented - they are certainly quite a tall order). We'll see.

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckySpikes
    replied
    Originally posted by Laps View Post

    I think that this is the relevant document Lucky :-

    https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/us...a_ASA_IAAF.pdf

    You would probably need to read much of this document (life's too short) to fully understand the CAS decision. But Para 624 helps on the particular point you mention.
    Thanks!

    OK, so having read paras 623 to 626 it seems that WA can go ahead and change the DSD regulations without consulting CAS. The role of CAS would only be to hear any appeals against those changes should they arise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Laps
    replied
    Originally posted by LuckySpikes View Post
    @hemlock,

    Yes, while it may seem obvious to any observer that they're greatly advantaged by their "unusual biology", gathering enough data for those extra events might be an issue.

    I'm wondering if WA can go unilateral on this - just declare a change in the regulations and wait for an athlete to appeal to CAS? Or, do they HAVE to go through CAS now to get the regulations changed? I guess it might say in the ruling that CAS made a couple of years ago. Sometime, I might try and dig that out ...
    I think that this is the relevant document Lucky :-

    https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/us...a_ASA_IAAF.pdf

    You would probably need to read much of this document (life's too short) to fully understand the CAS decision. But Para 624 helps on the particular point you mention.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjimbojames
    commented on 's reply
    Jenny Meadows/Trevor Painter’s child - unofficial​​​, of course!

  • jjimbojames
    commented on 's reply
    But WA have always said all events - they were limited to the events they had evidence in by CAS…so now they’ll have evidence (not as much, but very stark) expanding that range. There doesn’t seem to be evidence for field events - so it’s on CAS whether they jump to include all or stick with bit by bit

  • Afrothletics
    commented on 's reply
    I disagree. It would be unfair to keep moving the goalposts for these women to the point where there are no events left for them to compete in. They graciously followed the rules set by the IAAF and stepped down from 400 / up from 800 into events that the IAAF did not include in their "advantaged events" list, so to change it again now because they have successfully done what they were asked to do by the IAAF would be wrong.

  • LuckySpikes
    replied
    @hemlock,

    Yes, while it may seem obvious to any observer that they're greatly advantaged by their "unusual biology", gathering enough data for those extra events might be an issue.

    I'm wondering if WA can go unilateral on this - just declare a change in the regulations and wait for an athlete to appeal to CAS? Or, do they HAVE to go through CAS now to get the regulations changed? I guess it might say in the ruling that CAS made a couple of years ago. Sometime, I might try and dig that out ...

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckySpikes
    commented on 's reply
    Why "Aunty Keely"?

  • hemlock
    commented on 's reply
    What has to happen in order for WA to add more events to the list DSD athletes cannot participate in? They have to somehow `prove' that the high testosterone is an unfair advantage, right? But how do they prove that?
Working...
X