2012 Sprinter Byes are Nonsense says British Hurdler

Qualifying changes to the 100m at the London Olympics have been labelled as "outrageous" by a top British athlete.

For the first time at an Olympics, byes are to be given to the world's top 100 sprinters - such as Usain Bolt.

The triple Olympic champion will run in only three rounds, while non-qualified sprinters will have to run four.

"Every athlete I've spoken to says it's nonsense," said hurdler Andy Turner. "It's pretty much hanging medals around people's necks before they've started."

Announced on Tuesday for the London Games and already approved for the World Championships in Daegu later this year, the new arrangement is designed to make the sport more dynamic and time sensitive.

One round of the 200m has been shelved completely for all runners - male and female - and only sprinters without a qualifying standard would go through four rounds of the 100m.

But European and Commonwealth 110m hurdles champion Turner, who found out about the change on Twitter, believes it goes against everything the Olympics stands for, even though it does not affect his discipline.

"I just think it's outrageous," he told BBC Sport. "The Olympics is about giving people a chance to go to a major championships on a level playing field.

Full Story : BBC Sport - Click Here

I think it's silly really, but if you read carefully it's not as bad as it seems

"only sprinters without a qualifying standard would go through four rounds of the 100m"

so it won't really make a difference to the potential medalists as they all have a qualifying time anyway. However, what it does do is
1) Deprive the lesser athletes of a chance to line up against the big guns, which is a real shame as it would be the high point of their career for some.
2) Deprive the public of seeing decent sprinters in round 1.

The only pro seems to be that it avoids tiring the athletes too much, thus for instance making it easier for them to double up 100-200. Given that Bolt managed to set two big new world records the last time he doubled up at a major championship, I'm not sure this outweighs the cons...

Brilliant idea, we get the chance to see more newcomers trying to make a name for themselves and who knows what they might do under these extreme circumstances...a good sound judgment as far as I am concerned.

flashcoach wrote:Brilliant idea, we get the chance to see more newcomers trying to make a name for themselves and who knows what they might do under these extreme circumstances...a good sound judgment as far as I am concerned.

Thanks for your comments on the closed thread, flash...We don't see eye to eye on a few things, but it's pretty obvious that some posters feel they can make unsavoury comments, and expect them to remain unchallenged....

Posts that are confrontational shoudl be challenged, or removed by the mods....

I agree with the changes. In tennis events, outside of the majors, players who're seeded don't play in the first round. I think it's a good idea to implement that procedure in athletics. I really don't see how Andy Turner thinks that it's the equivalent of "hanging medals around people's necks before they've started." Surely, it makes little difference to Bolt and gay if they're running against athletes from Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands, and Samoa in the first round as to whether they're going to take home the gold and silver in the 100 and 200 metres....

Personally, I've always liked to watch through the first round of either the men or women's 100m as it helped build up anticipation nicely and served as an introduction with a first glimpse into athlete's form. On a more practical note, though, many sprinters liked running that first round so that they could ease into the action and slip more smoothly through the gears. Simply, some people need more races than others to hit top gear. Further, athletes go into a World champs or an Olympics on the back of that last 'polish-up' phase of their preparations and most haven't raced for about two weeks or even more, so a little race-rusty. So I'm not quite convinced that the new rule will facilitate faster times in a 100m final.

shivfan

Sure they do that in Tennis, but NOT in the majors as you say! Surely the Olympics are the highlight of Athletics so should be considered alongside the majors in Tennis.

To be honest having had a re-think I'm not totally against this idea, but I think it's unnecessary. I've never heard an athlete complain about too many rounds, in the way (to keep the analogy) that Tennis players complained about too many matches, which led to the Masters finals changing to best of three sets.

Out of interest (and please don't take this in a provocative manner, it's not meant to be so), why do you consider this a good idea? Do you really think it will help athletes run faster in the final?