I searched and couldn't find this posted, but I could have missed it.
Anyways, its pretty interesting because the official basically says Cavic touched first, but didn't "push" and slid, while Phelps pushed with force, etc etc. (He talks about this right at halfway through the video)
www.swimchampions.com/.../
Personally I think you have to live with however the time system works as long as it is functional. If it was functional and Cavic didn't press hard enough, its tough luck.
The only alternative is to just present a "tie" when you are within the margin of error of the equipment.
Parents
Former Member
Maybe new Olympic tie breaking rule is in order?
Any swims within .01 require an immediate re-do of the race. No warm down.
Just get up on the blocks and do a swim off. First one to the finish regardless of time is the winner.
That would settle everything.
Yeah I'll get Matt Biondi and Anthony Nesty on the line!
Problem is where does it end? Why stop at .01?
Those that assert (somehow with confidence) that Cavic touched first are in effect claiming a .02 discrepancy between when they believe Cavic finished and what the touch pads registered.
Timing systems are not infallible. The problems with Seiko in Fukuoka in 2001 demonstrated this. However then the problems were obvious and indisputable. In this case all parties seem to agree that the pads functioned as intended. But people are speculating about a scenario where the pads don't pick up touches and insufficient force being applied. Problem is we haven't been shown any evidence that this occurred in the first place. Not that it could not have transpired that way but we haven't seen any proof that it did.
I understand the speculation given how far Cavic had been ahead, how the race appeared live in real time from over the pool, and the gravity of the 8th gold medal. Those unique circumstances make it different than any other previous finish that came down to one hundredth of a second. The extra scrutiny was inevitable. But whatever the hypotheticals and limitations of the timing system I will trust it more than all the subjective theories and suppositions. It doesn't have bias. I believe that before one asserts that the official result was merely a product of the system's limitations they should support this view with evidence to confirm it.
Reply
Former Member
Maybe new Olympic tie breaking rule is in order?
Any swims within .01 require an immediate re-do of the race. No warm down.
Just get up on the blocks and do a swim off. First one to the finish regardless of time is the winner.
That would settle everything.
Yeah I'll get Matt Biondi and Anthony Nesty on the line!
Problem is where does it end? Why stop at .01?
Those that assert (somehow with confidence) that Cavic touched first are in effect claiming a .02 discrepancy between when they believe Cavic finished and what the touch pads registered.
Timing systems are not infallible. The problems with Seiko in Fukuoka in 2001 demonstrated this. However then the problems were obvious and indisputable. In this case all parties seem to agree that the pads functioned as intended. But people are speculating about a scenario where the pads don't pick up touches and insufficient force being applied. Problem is we haven't been shown any evidence that this occurred in the first place. Not that it could not have transpired that way but we haven't seen any proof that it did.
I understand the speculation given how far Cavic had been ahead, how the race appeared live in real time from over the pool, and the gravity of the 8th gold medal. Those unique circumstances make it different than any other previous finish that came down to one hundredth of a second. The extra scrutiny was inevitable. But whatever the hypotheticals and limitations of the timing system I will trust it more than all the subjective theories and suppositions. It doesn't have bias. I believe that before one asserts that the official result was merely a product of the system's limitations they should support this view with evidence to confirm it.
