Men's 200 Meters...

Men's 200 Meters...

Post by Stephen Jaro » Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:00:00


Those of you who saw it: What the heck happened? How did the two americans -
among the favorites- finish *last*?

And why were the times for everyone so slow?

 
 
 

Men's 200 Meters...

Post by Frank Downe » Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>Those of you who saw it: What the heck happened? How did the two
americans -
>among the favorites- finish *last*?

Evidently, Capel thought he had false-started, and started to stop running.
But they didn't call a false start. Oops.

I, of course, haven't seen it yet--thank you NBC--but that's what
I read. *How* did Boldon not win this thing???? Interesting......

Frank

 
 
 

Men's 200 Meters...

Post by Mike » Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> Those of you who saw it: What the heck happened? How did the two
americans -
> among the favorites- finish *last*?

> And why were the times for everyone so slow?

The Aussies have sensibly resisted the urge to produce a 'fast track' for
sprinters, and produced one that, while resulting in no records for the
sprinters, isn't making the long distance runners unhappy either. The
weather isn't particularly conducive to record sprints either, so I've
heard. And as for the poor times by the Yanks - I've heard that they weren't
that favoured, anyway, and none of the field were exactly no-hopers. The two
Brits have been improving steadily, the Carribeans have also been described
as the favourites, and the Greeks seem to have discovered a couple of sprint
stars in Kenteris and Thanou (silver in the women's 100m) (is Greece
investing more money in its athletes now as they have a home Olympics coming
up?).

Then there's psychology. The Americans either weren't ready, or were so put
out when they realised they weren't going to win that they didn't push as
hard at the end as they could have done - dropping them down to last.
Anyway, they'll have plenty of time to think that one over.

 
 
 

Men's 200 Meters...

Post by Bruce Scott T » Sun, 01 Oct 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

>The Aussies have sensibly resisted the urge to produce a 'fast track' for
>sprinters, and produced one that, while resulting in no records for the
>sprinters, isn't making the long distance runners unhappy either.

I am glad about this.  The Atlanta track was actually harmful to the
distance runners.

Quote:
>The
>weather isn't particularly conducive to record sprints either, so I've
>heard. And as for the poor times by the Yanks - I've heard that they weren't
>that favoured, anyway, and none of the field were exactly no-hopers.

This of course neglects the injury induced dropouts of the two clear
favourites in the US trials: Greene and Johnson.

Quote:
>Then there's psychology. The Americans either weren't ready, or were so put
>out when they realised they weren't going to win that they didn't push as
>hard at the end as they could have done - dropping them down to last.
>Anyway, they'll have plenty of time to think that one over.

No, simply inexperience.  The guys in there for us were second stringers
without the big time track record.

--
cu,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence:  http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/