i was hoping for the coin flip...
OT: US women's sprinter spurns runoff, concedes spot on team
I believe in Harvey Dent...
Vegas had "tails" at 5-1?
tails never fails bro...duh
I agree this seems very childish to me. I can understand her frustration being named the third place finisher, doing a victory lap, celebrating, etc. she also found out via reporters which was probably very uncomfortable and awkward. That said, how can she argue with the finish? She was tied for third. Just run the race again and figure it out. Apparently she is "overwhelmed" by emotions and doesn't think it's fair. Well, life's not always fair. Run it and beat Felix and prove it. I have some sympathy for her, but I'd have more if age would just race for the tiebreaker. This is so silly.
Even more than that, I don't understand why someone would give up their Olympic dreams just to throw a fit. Ridiculous.
Duncan Meyer thinks poorly of her.
I choose not to run!
Reminds me of a spoiled child spurning a fair compromise after not getting her way completely. Like she wants to get a reaction from people.
I think the appropriate response is apathy towards her.
The coach of the US Olympic Track team said she didn't have a committable offer to join the team anyway.
well im a big allyson felix fan (we're both PK's). plus I just love everything about her, so im glad she's getting to run.
Not trying to thread jack, also Olympics related, but not sure if thread worthy. Michigan is sending 16 athletes to the Olympics this year.
That number isn't final, it's already up to 19 and I don't think final rosters have been announced across the board.
Nobody will remember her in a week, anyway.
A) How bad does NBC Sports hate this runner right now?
B) She obviously is preparing legal action over this fiasco. If she wasn't, and wasn't confident in her ability to win the run off, why not take the coin flip and take the 50-50 shot?
Methinks she intends to take somebody - anybody - to court for this.
Doesn't have the option for the coin flip -- if one of the two wants to run, they have to run. I think you may be right, though -- added to that is the fact that she got her PR in that first race, and Allyson Felix can and has run faster. I think she realizes her odds of winning are pretty low, so why not make a big deal of it and save it for a fight later. Still, giving up doesn't seem like a good way to help you say you should have won.
People are dumb.
Her childishness and stubbornness really seems to be aimed at the other woman who will be awarded the third spot. She is causing the third-place winner to not feel good about the way she won--to not feel like a "winner" at all... hopefully she just ignores it and moves on... and hopefully the cry-baby realizes her immaturity for the situation and grows from this self-knowledge.
On a side note-- This situation makes me think about NFL & NCAA video reviews which, if applied to this situation, would still award her third place because the finish-line replay evidence is "inconclusive," not overturnable.
I don't want her competing in the Olympics for my country if that is the way she handled the situation, so it looks like it all worked out in the end.
Maybe she is slightly injured, or something, and knows that she wouldn't be able to win.
As with many things, we rarely know the full story. If I were in her shoes, I'm not really sure what I would do because...er...well, I'm not in her shoes. Or something like that.
She is either letting her emotions get in the way or afraid of failure.
I much rather have an athelete who will not conceed anything and who puts it first on the field representing the good old USA.
Running vertical on the screen is fairly obviously in line with both torso, which is what they judge by (not the head).
I never realized they judged based on the torso until this incident. I always thought it was the head. I guess it makes sense though because guys like Alvin Bailey would have a distinct advantage.
Both runners still have to compete in the 200 m. Tarmoh may feel that she'd be better off preparing for the 200 without having to adjust her training to accomodate the unexpected 100 m race. A lot of very careful preparation goes into sprinting at that high a level, so it's no small thing to throw a race into your training regimen. Also, she's the lesser accomplished of the two, and she may feel like she's already taken her best shot to make the team for the 100...I admit that this is a "best case scenario" way of looking at the situation, and it does seem like she just can't get over the fact that she thought she'd made it only to see that proven untrue.
EDIT: Bobby Kersee, coach for both runners, pushed hard for the tie-breaker not to be run until after the 200 m final.
For the record, the 200 is over, it was on Saturday. The whole meet is over.
But the first point still is valid, they both have regulated training regimen and to just drop a competitive 100 in the middle of their schedules (or when they're supposed to be resting) is not ideal.
However, I tend to think it's mostly to your second point. She gave it her best shot, she got a great start and Felix got a bad one in the first 100 final, she does not have the experience that Felix has to keep doing all these races, and she probably would've lost by a significant margin in a head to head.
FWIW Tim Layden at Sports Illustrated had an interesting article this weekend that went into depth on how the times in the race were determined.
I think the article is worth reading because it certainly makes the issue seem a lot more complicated than some of the posters here seem to be doing while judging Tarmoh. For instance, if the time is supposed to be when the runner's torso crosses the line, where exactly does the torso start? When races are measured down to the millisecond, finding the start of the torso down to the fraction of an inch matters. Also, the initial timer measured Tarmoh ahead of Felix by one millisecond, which is why she was originally listed as 3rd place. Why did they make the decision to change the time?
I don't know if Tarmoh is definitely right. After all, where *exactly* does the torso start? But after seeing a few "It was a tie a runoff is fair what a baby" posts, I just felt the need to point out that she might actually have a case here. The first timer did measure her ahead, and if the offiicials didn't have good reason to change it, she might have a reason for appeal. But her grounds for appeal would be weakened if she agreed to this race. So I don't thinks she's being irrational for holding off.
Even if she does have an argument, she could still run the race to prove herself without a doubt the better runner. Who wants someone who quits in the face of adversity to run for them in the Olympics?
It's not quite so simple as to say that the winner of the run-off would be the better runner. The training that goes into these races is immense, and the athletes work very hard to be in peak shape at a very specific time. The fact that one of them may, say, recover faster than the other is not necessarily proof that she's the better sprinter.
I suppose you could argue that, but it seems that the most prudent thing to do would be to find out whether or not you could win, rather than give up. If the other runner recovered faster than you for whatever reason, at least you went down trying.
If she thinks she already won once, why should she have to prove it again? Especially if multiple things could go wrong despite her being (in her opinion) the better runner.
The alternative is not participating and not going to the Olympics. You would think that this would be a clear choice.
""So I told my co-worker 'so what if Smoker didn't clock the ball in time?' All Michigan has to do to win is stop them on the next play."
I can understand how this quickly gets emotional.
I can imagine myself not doing it, though, if I thought that I had a better chance of making it to the Olympics by keeping my schedule for the 200 m than I did by interrupting my schedule to run the 100 m tie-breaker. As I said above, though, that's a "best case" version of what her decision-making seems to be based on.
Sorry if posted elsewhere, but the 200 has already been run. This is her shot (although she still might be on the 4x100 relay).
the second one here...
And the first one, mmmm mmmm that bronze be so tasty...
Edit (I realize this adds absolutely nothing to thread and conversation, but - it's Monday, and I'm about to leave work, and a lil spacy right now)
It sounds to me that the official initially judged it the way he normally does but wasn't sure he should advance someone to the olympics when he's interpolating the point at which the torso crossed the line. I can see both sides of the argument.
I also agree that commenters on here aren't considering everything. This isn't some backyard race where the winner is first one to touch the tree and a do-over in case of a tie is perfectly reasonable. There are a lot of things that could happen in one more race, not the least of which is an injury, which would be bad for either runner, Felix loses her shot at gold in the 200 and Tarmoh loses any shot at competing in the Olympics.
Luckily, in all likelihood both will compete in the Olympics. Felix will at least have the 200, and if Tarmoh doesn't win an appeal, she's still almost assured to run in the 4x100 relay, even if it's just in the prelims.
I was actually a little surprised Felix didn't pull out for this exact reason -- she might be on the 4x100, the 4x400, and is running the 200m. I guess the shot at four medals is pretty tempting, though.
Not directed at anyone specifically, but just a note: If you're saying she's childish for saying they originally said she won, then took it back later, etc. and are one of the folks who still claim Fitz's TD in the OSU game should have counted, you're contradicting yourself.
Figured I'd try to tie this in to Michigan sports somehow.
The difference is we didn't quit when they took away our TD
True, I was just referring to that specific reason, and the fact that some folks are saying the "They told me I won, then changed their minds without irrefutable proof" is childish, while some of them probably go around saying, "We actually won by more, but they took away our touchdown without irrefutable evidence."
Offer Fitz a chance at a re-do either.
I would've run the tiebreaker. Here is a pointer on how to win:
What's lost in this controversy is that neither one of them won the race. They both finished well behind the runner-up. In this case, third place isn't much to brag about when you finish that far behind.
...because it's 3rd place it does feel a bit overlydramatic.
And as a bit of a tangent, does anybody else sense that this dispute might be foreshadowing some of the controversey when the 4 team playoff gets here and suddenly we have a tie for fourth place?
Settle it on the field? If only!
IIRC, finishing first, second, or third doesn't matter once you get to the Olympics. The difference between third and fourth, though, is the difference between knowing that you'll complete in the Olympics and being an alternate. That's a much bigger difference to me.
It's a difference between going to the Olympics and stay home. All you need to do is qualify at top 3 and then worry about medaling at the Olympics. Time trials are the most pressure packed event for athletes.
But I doubt we'll have another undefeated power league champion like the Auburn team in 2004 that was denied its rightful shot. Or one-loss USC in 2003 not deciding it on the field while in favor of the one-loss LSU/one-loss Oklahoma Natl Championship Game.
The fifth team will be bitching about an effective "at-large".
She shouldn't be a whiner, and she should just participate in the runoff.
Had she been on top of her game then she should have finished 1st or 2nd and not had to worry about this.
But, since she was squeaking in for an Olympic berth at 3rd place she can't complain, since it was so close and it's the last spot that qualifies.
Hey, it's her choice. I'm not going to scrutinize her, but if that were me I would not have conceded a spot to the olympics.
If you play an Olympic sport, especially one such as track and field, you have one main career goal: Represent your country in the Olympics. To be right on the doorstep of accomplishing that goal and then throw a lifetime of hard work and dedication all away just because you don't want to run one more race to prove yourself, speaks volumes about what type of person this athlete is. I'm happy she isn't going to London because clearly she isn't worthy of the honor.
to stop acting like a vagina and run the race.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: Vaginas are notorious for their refusals to run races.
I will say that if a vagina were to be in the olympics, she would certainly NOT be a sprinter. Maybe a marathon runner or a gymnast, but not a sprinter.
Trust him, he's a doctor.
I'm pretty sure a runner who's confident she'll win would run the tiebreaker race. She took a loser's position.
If she wants to be such a baby and cry about it, she can call the wambulance because we don't want her.
Seriously? There may be some immature and conclusion-jumping responses in this thread, but this takes the cake. I can't believe that "wambulance" was used on this blog in a non-ironic manner.
Damn, how disappointing. But if you're going to crack under pressure at the US trials, better to have someone else go to the Olympics.
Is she actually going to be a relay runner, or just an alternate? I hope she gets her head on straight if she's going to compete for the US.
Hmmmnnn...would you trust her on the relay?
I think there was a scence in the movie Chariots of Fire where one of the english sprinters sought out a professional coach, something rare and hush-hush in the 1920 era of "amateur" sports. The coach said something which I think applies - he said something to the effect that sprinters as neurotic because they are essentially bundles of pent up energy.
Not surprised that this is how it turned out - short of them both going, couldn't see anyone accepting it without a scene.
She is a mess and I am glad she is done. She would have lost the head to head. The team is lucky they don't have to deal with her on the trip to London.