Undue criticisms

Feb 09, 2011 Sports

---

By Edison Jefford
In an event where marginal differences in reaction times could decide who stands on the podium and who does not, very little scope is left for mistakes. The 100m race is not only unquestionably the most flawless in Track and Field, it is also the most controversial.
It therefore came at no surprise when question marks were raised over the 10.10 seconds that the 2010 Junior Sportsman of the Year, Chavez Ageday ran on Sunday at a Development Meet at the Police Sports Club Ground to win the 100m race rather comfortably.
There was much ‘on-the-ground’ criticism of the accuracy of Ageday’s time, most of which were levelled at the Athletics Association of Guyana (AAG) and its officials, namely timekeepers. It is clear, after being privy to those criticisms, that the issues must be placed in their right contexts to dismiss what can be called unnecessary and undue criticisms.
First, the laws of physics must be taken into consideration, more specifically, the speed of sound against the speed of light. It is a basic scientific fact that light travels much, much faster than any sound. To be more lucent, the speed of light is around 300,000,000 metres per second as opposed to sound, which is between 340 and 344 metres per second through air.
The relevance of the application of physics to the argument of whether or not the fast times at the Police Sports Club ground on Sunday are valid has to do with the fact that the starter used sound to start the races as opposed to the handgun that usually sparks. It must be stated that the meet was a Development Meet, meaning that it had no real significance other than athletes, coaches and clubs producing a competitive platform to assess the progress, or lack thereof, of their 2011 season programmes and training regimen.
Therefore, it was understandable when the AAG opted to use a whistle as the starting mechanism for races as opposed to the handgun. The simple explanation could be that the whistle was one of the cheaper options since the blank rounds for the handgun have a cost factor attached.
It would be unimaginable to even think that the association would incur a cost to purchase blank rounds for a starter’s handgun for a meet that has no real significance other than just maintaining the activity of local track and field as opposed to a major competition.
Of course, one can argue that athletes need accurate times to honestly assess their place in terms of training and that this is the age of technology and the archaic whistle-blown races are primary methods that undermines the purpose of the meet, which was development.
But in the context of the very structure of the meet with two of Guyana’s fastest athletes last year opting to compete in 400m, one could not have taken the Development Meet to the level where a particular writer in another section of the print media suggested.
It was the view of that writer that because the AAG hosted the Development Meet, it should have ensured that systems are in place to be able to submit its times to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). The judgment was logical since the AAG is affiliated to the IAAF, but in reality, it lacked any real substance based on the purpose of the meet.
Rupert Perry and Quincy Clarke both understood the purpose of the meet and competed over the 400m distance obviously to work on their endurance. They are not ideally quarter milers, so how can the AAG submit to the IAAF 400m times for two leading100m sprinters? The IAAF must be informed on the standard and purpose for the meet on Sunday.
Besides, apart from its standard events, the World Championships etc., there are only three meets that each affiliate member of the IAAF is mandated to host annually. Those are the meets that are given IAAF requisite professional management. For Guyana, those three meets are the National Youth Championships, the National Junior Championships and National Senior Championships of which times and performances must be submitted to the IAAF in a report.
Because a few athletes turned in unusual times, which, if you are an enthusiast of local athletics, you would know are off those athletes’ abilities, a group of timekeeping officials were wrongly brought into disrepute in another section of the print media.
Let us go back to the vast difference between the speed of light and the speed of sound. Criticism must be supported with facts, which sometimes, if not most times, include a clear understanding of the dynamics and variables relative to the particular issue, can lead to misinformation.
We do not know what the rates of wind were at the Police Sports Club Ground during the 100m race that Ageday ran 10.10 seconds on Sunday for instance; the reading of the wind speed would have given us an opportunity to calculate the amount of time the timekeepers had to react to the starter’s whistle. The sound of the starter’s whistle had to be communicated to the timekeepers of race through air over a 100m distance.
As established before, sound travels at between 340 and 344 metres per second. We only wanted to calculate for 100m, which meant that we would have gotten several split seconds. To get what would have been a more accurate time for Ageday in the race, we would have added those results from our calculations to 10.10 seconds. It’s a hypothetical framework here.
However, the point is that sound takes a longer time to travel as opposed to light that is almost an immediate result. Timekeepers look for the smoke from a handgun start that is ignited from spark that is also noticeable. Timekeepers’ reaction time to the handgun is faster than the whistle. They are human beings not machines therefore hand-timing is not a perfect process. To eradicate the mistakes of hand-timing, reaction clocks attached to the starting blocks of athletes have been the noted technology used in track and field since the sport was popularised.
Extraordinary times are not alien to local track and field; Junior Cornette, Keith Roberts, Rawle Greene and even Andre Blackman were all, at different intervals in the history of local track and field, given 10.00 seconds in the 100m race in their careers. It is a mystery unto today whether or not those leading sprinters in their prime ran that time. And what about the 20.8 seconds Perry ran last year? The fact is, as long as the electronic system is not being used, times will continue to be either extraordinarily fast or extraordinarily slow.
To plunge a group of dedicated timekeeping officials into controversy for the absence of modern technology is simply pointing a finger at the wrong offender. If there was a facility or facilities to accommodate electronic times, the AAG would not have had timekeeping problems. This is what the genesis of the problem is: Guyana is several decades behind with the construction of modern sport facilities. If fingers must be pointed, point them at the root of the problem!

---

---