Track & Field News

[gh]

I was doing some Olympic research this afternoon, and in looking at the results as presented in the eTrack Newsletter, I was reminded of how lane-dependent reaction times were. There was a heavy thread on the subject at the time, but rather than tack this at the end, I'll start it anew. If you want to see the original thread, go here:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/discussion/viewThread.jsp?forum=1&thread=8439&message=111697

I'm not doing any major scientific analysis here, but I think you'd have to be blind not to notice the incredible correlation between the athletes and their distance from the starter. Note that in 8 of 14 races (these are finals only) the lane-8 person had the slowest reaction. That defies random chance.

Hopefully Dapena and Julin are all over this again and can light a fire under the IAAF.

men's 100
(lanes: 1. Collins; 2. Zakari; 3. Gatlin; 4. Crawford; 5. Obikwelu; 6. Powell; 7. Greene; 8. Thompson)
(reaction times: Greene 0.151, Crawford 0.161, Obikwelu 0.163, Thompson 0.164, Powell 0.166, Collins 0.175, Zakari 0.178, Gatlin 0.188)

men's 200
(reaction times: Unger 0.153, Williams 0.173, Obikwelu 0.183, Gatlin 0.195, Crawford 0.226, Fredericks 0.248, Buckland 0.294)
(lanes: 1. Unger; 2. Powell; 3. Williams; 4. Crawford; 5. Gatlin; 6. Obikwelu; 7. Buckland; 8. Fredericks)

men's 400
(reaction times: Djohne 0.178, Blackwood 0.218, Harris 0.259, Brew 0.262, Clarke 0.263, Wariner 0.268, Siimpson 0.277, Francique 0.352)
(lanes: 1. Blackwood; 2. Djohne; 3. Brew; 4. Wariner; 5. Harris; 6. Simpson; 7. Clarke; 8. Francique)

men's 110H
(reaction times: Liu & Allen 0.139, Trammell 0.154, Wignall 0.164, García & Inocêncio 0.169, Olijars 0.174, Doucouré 0.204)
(lanes: 1. Allen; 2. Olijar; 3. Doucouré; 4. Liu; 5. Wignall; 6. Trammell; 7. García; 8. Inocêncio)

men's 400H
(reaction times: Myburgh 0.150, Sánchez 0.219, Carter 0.223, Kamani 0.233, Plawgo 0.242, McFarlane, 0.256, Keïta 0.268, Brazell 0.390)
(lanes: 1. Myburgh; 2. Kamani; 3. Plawgo; 4. Carter; 5. McFarlane; 6. Sánchez; 7. Keïta; 8. Brazell)

men's 4x1
(lanes: 1. Australia; 2. Brazil; 3. Great Britain; 4. Nigeria; 5. United States; 6. Poland; 7. Japan; 8 .Trinidad)
(reaction times: Brazil 0.159, Australia 0.199, Great Britain 0.232, Nigeria 0.266, Poland 0.295, United States 0.300, Japan 0.327, Trinidad 0.344)

men's 4x4
(lanes: 1.Australia; 2. Botswana; 3. Nigeria; 4. United States; 5. Great Britain; 6. Japan; 7. Bahamas; 8. Germany)
(reaction times: Australia 0.163, Nigeria 0.274, Great Britain 0.289, Botswana 0.311, United States 0.335, Japan 0.361, Bahamas 0.405 Germany 0.441)

women's 100
(lanes: 1. Lalova; 2. Bailey; 3. Campbell; 4. Williams; 5. Simpson; 6. Nesterenko; 7. Colander; 8. Ferguson)
(reaction times: Lalova 0.154, Simpson 0.164, Ferguson 0.177, Colander 0.183, Nesterenko 0.186, Campbell 0.199, Bailey 0.208, Williams 0.212)

women's 200
(lanes: 1. Gevaert; 2. Lalova; 3. Felix; 4. Campbell; 5. Oyepitan; 6. Bailey; 7. Lee; 8. Ferguson)
(reaction times: Lalova 0.162, Gevaert 0.172, Oyepitan 0.178, Ferguson 0.193, Felix 0.207, Campbell 0.207, Bailey 0.208, Lee 0.259)

women's 400
(lanes: 1. Trotter; 2. Guevara; 3. Richards; 4. Williams-Darling; 5. Hennagan; 6. Antyukh; 7. Nazarova; 8. Amertil)
(reaction times: Richards 0.205, Trotter 0.225, Guevara 0.234, Hennagan 0.241, Nazarova 0.251, Antyukh 0.263, Williams-Darling 0.268, Amertil 0.276)

women's 100H
(lanes: 1. Krasovska; 2. Golding-Clarke; 3. Morrison; 4. Hayes; 5. Felicien; 6. Shevchenko; 7. White; 8. Koroteyeva)
(reaction times: Morrison 0.145, Golding-Clarke 0.149, Krasovska 0.151, Shevchenko & White 0.155, Felicien 0.167, Hayes 0.169, Koroteyeva 0.195)

women's 400H
(lanes: 1. Tereschuk; 2. Taylor; 3. Tîrlea; 4. Halkiá; 5. Pittman; 6. Pechonkina; 7. Bikert; 8. Johnson)
(reaction times: Taylor 0.184, Pechonkina 0.244, Pittman 0.248, Tîrlea 0.292, Halkiá 0.295, Tereschuk 0.312, Bikert 0.322, Johnson 0.418)

women's 4x1
(lanes: 1. Belarus; 2. France; 3. Bahamas; 4. Jamaica; 5. United States; 6. Russia; 7. Belgium; 8. Nigeria)
(reaction times: Belgium 0.137, France 0.236, Belarus 0.254, Bahamas 0.261, Jamaica 0.264, United States 0.284, Russia 0.296, Nigeria 0.313)

women's 4x4
(lanes: 1. Romania; 2. India; 3. Jamaica; 4. Greece; 5. United States; 6. Russia; 7. Great Britain; 8. Poland)
(reaction times: Great Britain 0.180, Romania 0.232, India 0.244, Greece 0.270, Poland 0.299, Jamaica 0.312, United States 0.337, Russia 0.352)

[Jon]

>men's 4x1
>Great Britain 0.232
>United States 0.300





OK, cut to the chase. This is what this thread is all about, isn't it?? :-p

[bad hammy]

> men's 100
> (lanes: 1. Collins; 2. Zakari; 3. Gatlin; 4. Crawford; 5. Obikwelu; 6. Powell; 7. Greene; 8. Thompson)
> (reaction times: Greene 0.151, Crawford 0.161, Obikwelu 0.163, Thompson 0.164, Powell 0.166, Collins 0.175, Zakari 0.178, Gatlin 0.188)

Based on who won the men's 100, reaction time is clearly just a small part of the picture.

[DrJay]

It would be neat to see a graph of this in TAFNEWS, the mean reaction time by lane with standard deviation bars (which, by the looks of it would be pretty small.)

[mike renfro]

Part of the reason people get lane 8 (and 7, 1, 2) in the final is that mostly they were mostly slower than their competitors. The slowness may have involved poor reaction times. A better check might be the first round reaction times (available?). Those lane assignments are random draw (aren't they?) and if the disparity persists, a real case could be made.

It seems that for awhile, their were speakers behind all blocks to give the entire field access equally to the gun report. I will confess that I didn't notice if that was the case in Athinai. The gun report at St Denis was kinda an electronic ping, and that should carry over wires to speakers just fine.

[Daisy]

I participated in the original thread from Suso.
The take home message was that the speakers behind the blocks were not working and this probably happened at Atlanta too. Of course, the problem with this is that the starters assume that the speakers relay the sound accurately to the athletes and postion themselves in a non optimal postion. This is especially detrimental for the 400m, 4x400m and 4x100m relays since the athletes are spaced at a large distance (compared with the 100m).

I have reposted some data that I had put in the previous thread. In my personal opinion this problem may not have existed for all races. For example, the semi final starts in the 4x100m look OK but the final for the 4x100m is defintely skewed.

This is not becasue the slower athletes are on the outside for two reasons. First there is no equivalent increase in lane 1 times. Secondly a comparison of mens semi final reaction times compared to the mens final of the 4x100m shows a lot of variation for, in most cases, the exact same athletes.


P.S. I'm British so this has nothing to do with Jon's statement.



there..................A.................B.................C
>1..........0.133..........0.176..........0.189
>2..........0.150..........0.212..........0.202
>3..........0.132..........0.204..........0.221
>4..........0.151..........0.238..........0.242
>5..........0.147..........0.269..........0.262
>6..........0.150..........0.300..........0.281
>7..........0.151..........0.276..........0.300
>8..........0.142..........0.331..........0.317

A reaction times with speaker working and silent gun
B reaction times from Atlanta 4x100 (averages)
C predicted reaction times if speakers not working

>No speculation here, except for the doubt whether the problem has been fixed by now --which I bet it has not.

This data for Atlanta looks quite convincing to me, however, I was a bit suspicious if this was actually occurring in Athens.

I checked the reaction times in the men’s two semi finals as well as the final. They are as follows for each lane.

lane.....semi#1........semi#2.........final ----> semi time
1..........0.152..........0.162..........0.199 ----> 0.199
2..........0.211..........0.212..........0.159 ----> 0.138
3..........0.156..........0.146..........0.232 ----> 0.162
4..........0.149..........0.206..........0.266 ----> 0.211
5..........0.237..........0.153..........0.300 ----> 0.289
6..........0.158..........0.289..........0.295 ----> 0.152
7..........0.199..........0.406..........0.372 ----> 0.149
8..........0.252..........0.138..........0.344 ----> 0.156

From Suso’s analysis above the two semi finals look fine (conform with the A column) but the final does look suspiciously slow on the outside lanes (more like the C column).

The fourth column is to confirm that the slower RT’s in the final are not due to some athletes having slow reaction times as their norm. The fourth column represents the RT for the athlete in the final from his respective semi final (not necessarily in the same lane).

In summary, for the final the inside lane reaction times seem comparable, however, the outside lanes reaction times are significantly slower, when compared to the semi final times. For example, lane 2 was 0.159 in final and the same athletes RT was 0.138 in the semi#2 (lane 8). Conversely, lane 7 was 0.372 in final and the same athletes RT was 0.149 in the semi#2 (lane 4).

Clearly this is not a statistically relevant analysis since there are so few data points and the circumstances of each race are different (athletes physiology with regard to RT, crowd noise, nervousness etc.) This cursory analysis does, however, give credibility to Suso’s hypothesis that the speakers were not working for the final.

[Daisy]

>It would be neat to see a graph of this in TAFNEWS, the mean reaction time by
>lane with standard deviation bars (which, by the looks of it would be pretty
>small.)

Suso has graphed some of the races if you delve through the previous thread. here are a couple of his links:

http://home.insightbb.com/~j.dapena/starts/atlanta-goeteborg-men.jpg

http://home.insightbb.com/~j.dapena/starts/athens-men.jpg

http://home.insightbb.com/~j.dapena/starts/athens-women.jpg


See the original thread for context.

[Daisy]

> Hopefully Dapena and Julin are all over this again and
> can light a fire under the IAAF.

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/results/newsletter/200105/reaction_times.html

According to this link the noise of the gun is not even transmitted through the block speakers.

QUOTE
What the loudspeakers relay to the athletes is just the Starter's verbal commands, not the "bang". That sound still travels through the air from the gun to the ears of the athletes. And it even has to be like this! Because if the "bang" would be coming through both loudspeakers and air the athletes would be experience two distinct shots, which would then be interpreted as a starting "bang" followed by a recall!!
END QUOTE

If that is the case why don't the starters stand in a more equidistant poition to the athletes at the 400m start.

I checked an online video for the 4x100m starts and there is no sign of the starter in the HJ area which is where he would need to be for the gun to be a roughly equal distance from all the athletes (disclaimer:: the video is very poor resolution so I could have missed the starter). Does anyone kow or remember where the starter stood for the 400m etc starts in Athens?

[jhc68]

Why don't we create a system where at big time meets the bang does not sound through the gun at all, but rather only sounds electronically through the speakers in the lane? That doesn't seem like a big technological challenge and that way all athletes would hear the sound stimuli at the same time, thus putting any controversy to rest.

ALSO(reviving yet another endless thread!), if not all athletes hear the gun sound at the same time how in the hell is it fair to disqualify athletes whose reaction times are fractionally less than the allowed .1 second? If not everyone hears the sound at the same instant, this system is patently unjust.

For example, in the men's 200: Unger, in lane one reacted in .153 and Fredericks out in lane eight reacted in .248. The implication of gh's post is that maybe Fredericks did not hear the gun until .095 second later than Unger heard it (.248 - .153 = .095). Hypothetically, if it were true that Unger heard the gun .095 earlier than Fredericks, and then IF Frankie Fredericks had a recorded reaction time the same as Unger's .153, then that means that Fredericks REAL reaction time would have been .058, way below the allowable limit. In this hypothetical Fredericks in lane 8 might have prompted a recall based on visual perception but he would not have been caught electronically.

If this all sounds too complex to digest it is because the reaction disqualification rules that aim to eliminate anticipation and kick out runners who started AFTER the gun but to soon after are indigestably non-sensical.

[Daisy]

>Why don't we create a system where at big time meets the bang does not sound
>through the gun at all, but rather only sounds electronically through the
>speakers in the lane? That doesn't seem like a big technological challenge and
>that way all athletes would hear the sound stimuli at the same time, thus
>putting any controversy to rest.

You mean like the system they us for the World Championships? You should read the link I posted above but here is a relevant quote from the link:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/results/newsletter/200105/reaction_times.html


QUOTE
But there is one obvious solution to this problem: To have the "bang" only via the loudspeakers, i.e. to use a "silent gun". A silent gun is a "gun" that doesn't fire a conventional shot but one that when the trigger is pulled sends not only a starting impulse to the electronic clock of the timing device but also an impulse that manifestates itself as a distinct "bang" sound coming out of the individual loudspeakers in each lane.

<snip>

Because after performing an analysis like the one above the organisers of the 1995 World Championships decided to request ­ to achieve maximum fairness to the athletes - a "silent gun" type of starting system for their meet. The request was granted and since then "silent gun" starting has been used at all following World Championships, outdoors, indoors as well as juniors! And it has indeed worked precisely as intended!

This knowledge makes it even more astounding that "silent gun" starting was not used in either the 1996 or the 2000 Olympics!
END QUOTE

And obviously not used in the 2004 Olympics either.

[jrun]

Jon,

E-mail addy?

Thanks.

[Kevin]

I think an analysis should include the distance from the starter's pistol to each of the athletes. The factor that we are talking about here is the delay in sound reaching the runner. Given the speed of sound being roughly 770 miles per hour, would the observed reaction time delays be commensurate with the delay of the sound reaching the blocks?

I tend to see a correlation in the data Garry provided, but the scientist in me is not ready to call it a done deal.

[Jon]

>Jon,
E-mail addy?
Thanks.



Only just seen this message. Sure thing,

jon@athleticslinks.com

[DrJay]

>I think an analysis should include the distance from the starter's pistol to
>each of the athletes. The factor that we are talking about here is the delay
>in sound reaching the runner. Given the speed of sound being roughly 770 miles
>per hour, would the observed reaction time delays be commensurate with the
>delay of the sound reaching the blocks?

I tend to see a correlation in the
>data Garry provided, but the scientist in me is not ready to call it a done
>deal.

At about 331 meters/second, it would take three-thousandths of a second to travel one meter. I don't know the exact width of a lane, but it's probably about a meter. The reaction times in the 100 and 110 hurdles were more like two to three hundredths of a second slower from lane one to lane eight so your point is well-taken--the the difference in time between when runners in lane one and lane eight here the gun could not account for the different reaction times in the straight-line starts. The starts on the curve may be a bit different but I'm too lazy to play with the numbers now, though I suspect the same would hold true.

[DrJay]

At about 331 meters/second, it would take
>three-thousandths of a second to travel one meter. I don't know the exact width
>of a lane, but it's probably about a meter. The reaction times in the 100 and
>110 hurdles were more like two to three hundredths of a second slower from lane
>one to lane eight so your point is well-taken--the the difference in time
>between when runners in lane one and lane eight here the gun could not account
>for the different reaction times in the straight-line starts. The starts on the
>curve may be a bit different but I'm too lazy to play with the numbers now,
>though I suspect the same would hold true.

Well, that was a real bonehead move. I checked my brain at the door on Friday and only just found the claim check at breakfast today.

0.003x7=2.1 seconds, which quite nicely could account for the entire difference in reaction times between lane 1 and lane 8 in the 100m and 110m hurdles. I hope there's nothing in the Message Board "Rules of Engagement" about pure stupidity or I'm gone.

[Daisy]

>0.003x7=2.1 seconds,

Shouldn't that be 21 milli seconds? Or 0.02 seconds?

>I hope there's nothing in the Message Board "Rules of Engagement" about pure stupidity or I'm gone.

I always assumed it was a requirement. Just look at some of the longest threads.

[DrJay]

>>0.003x7=2.1 seconds,

Shouldn't that be 21 milli seconds? Or 0.02
>seconds?

>I hope there's nothing in the Message Board "Rules of
>Engagement" about pure stupidity or I'm gone.

I always assumed it was a
>requirement. Just look at some of the longest threads.


OK, I'm obviously in over my head with this 4th grade math. Let's try again.

0.003 m/sec x 7= 0.021 sec

I need a beer.

[Daisy]

>I need a beer.

It was kind of fun to imagine the athetes leaving the blocks in a slow synchronized wave. Imagine the athlete in lane eights surprise to see the athlete in lane 1 already 20m down the track when he hears the gun! Bummer.

By the way this analysis may be moot since I do not see the reaction times rising from lane 1 to lane 8 in the stats that GH presented for the mens 100m or 110mH. In both cases the reaction times appear to be randomly distributed, which is what you'd expect if there was a bang from the speakers. So may be there was no problem for the mens 110m and 100m?

There does appear to be skewed reaction tines in 200m 400m and 400mH and 4x100m on the mens side (slower reaction times on the outside lanes.) It's possible that the time differences are so small in the 100m (0.021) that the normal variation masks the problem. One would have to monitor several races with the athletes in different lanes to determine if there was a statistically significant problem (and even that would assume that the athletes have similar reaction times in each race which is not a given)

[DrJay]

>>I need a beer.

It was kind of fun to imagine the athetes leaving the
>blocks in a slow synchronized wave. Imagine the athlete in lane eights
>surprise to see the athlete in lane 1 already 20m down the track when he hears
>the gun! Bummer.

Would you believe I was on the math team in high school?

[Daisy]

> Would you believe I was on the math team in high school?

Absolutely, the easy math is often the hardest to get right. it's so easy you don't think about the answers compared to the more esoteric intergrals.

One of the biggest problems in undergraduate biology is getting students to accurately calculate dilution factors for solutions. It's trivial math but many fall on their face. At the same time they are doing fiendish calculus with great success. Go figure.

[DrJay]

By the way this analysis may be moot since I do not see the
>reaction times rising from lane 1 to lane 8 in the stats that GH presented for
>the mens 100m or 110mH. In both cases the reaction times appear to be randomly
>distributed, which is what you'd expect if there was a bang from the speakers.
>So may be there was no problem for the mens 110m and 100m?

Oops again! I looked at GH's list of increasing reaction times and didn't catch the fact that those weren't listed by lane order (the lane listing right above was different.) it does look random.

[DrJay]

>> Would you believe I was on the math team in high school?

Absolutely, the
>easy math is often the hardest to get right. it's so easy you don't think
>about the answers compared to the more esoteric intergrals.

I just dictated a letter to a new employee including an annual salary figure--I calculated and recalculated the figure about five times, given how I'm doing (wanted to get that one right!)

[runforlife]

You know what's really screwy??? The Italian track on page 6 and 7 in the Dec. issue of T&FN!! That company does NOT know how to mark tracks.

Either that or the picture is backwards. In which case I hope T&FN refunds some of Conica's advertising dollars. That would only be the right thing to do. But does T&FN plan to do the right thing??? Stay tuned as the screwiness continues.

[gh]

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/discussion/viewThread.jsp?forum=1&thread=9685&message=133130

Needless to say, Conica doesn't expect any advertising dollars back from us.

[26mi235]

Someone has probably gotten this correctly explained and I missed it. When there is a staggered start, as in the events greater than 110m, the distance from the gun is affected by the stagger as well as the lane width.

The effect should be greatest in the 4 x 400, of course, because there is a 9 meter stagger per lane, or 9m/lane x 7 lanes or 63 meters. Of course, the stagger and the lane width relationship depends on where the starter stands, as noted earlier on.

At least the bigger effects are in longer races (3 meters[or less, because it is not a full turn]/lane for the 200m vs the maximum of 9m/lane for the 4x400. Since the 200m takes less than 1/8th as long, the relative effect is still bigger.

[Daisy]

>At least the bigger effects are in longer races (3 meters[or less, because it is not a full turn]/lane for the 200m vs the maximum
>of 9m/lane for the 4x400. Since the 200m takes less than 1/8th as long, the relative effect is still bigger.

Another thing to consider is that the 400m runners do not seem to respond as aggressively to the gun as short sprinters. May be they are not concentrating on the gun as hard as the sprinters?

This may be completely wrong and certainly seems illogical but it is definitely the sense I get when I watch the 400m starts. The times posted by Garry above seem to bare this out too when compared with the 4x100m (EDIT: actually I take this back after looking more closely the reaction times between the 400m starts and the 4x100m seem to correlate quite well. I assume the starter set up in a similar spot for each race.)