Great thread.

I would post $10k for him not doing it, subject to the rules etc.

Think it would be a great bet to sweat - he could get a huge social media following if it was sub-contracted to a film/documentary crew.

10.90 or under is a win, good grief 10.91 is obviously a loss

details like this need to be made clear before the bet is posted

That “detail” is also determined by the setup on race day. Hundreds (or thousands) of seconds is a pretty small amount of time. Tenth of seconds is something you can do by hand. In the latter setup, 10.94 is 10.9 by default.

zero chance ainec

I ran track in high school many years ago. Zero chance he can run 10.9 or faster under legit conditions at his age.

This post is terrible.

Hundreths of a second is absolutely not a small unit of time in a 100m race.

10.94 hand-timed is 11.0, not 10.9.

2 timers, A with 1/10 second precision, B with 1/100 second precision.

If B shows 10.94, A will show 10.9.

You're talking about how a timing device spits out its number. I'm talking about how a time is officially recorded in the sport of track and field.

In the world of track and field, if a 100m dash is timed by hand and the time is 10.94 on the watch, the official time is 11.0. (It is also 11.0 if the watch reads 10.91.)

Yes, we are talking about a timer with 1/10 second precision. Similar to a timer with 1/100 second precision (i.e. shows 2 decimal points of precision) will show 10.94 when a timer with 1/1000 precision will show 10.944.

If I prop I can run 10.9 or better with a timer 1/10 second precision, and I run 10.94 by an unofficial observer, I win the prop because the official timer will read 10.9.

Small but important point: 10.9 != 10.90.

Years ago most thoroughbred tracks moved from 1/5 second precision to 1/100 precision. 1:59.97 would be converted to 1:59 4/5 for continuity.

Okay sure? But why are you talking about timing in tenths of a second at all? Why would they ever do that to time a 100m race?

Unless I'm missing something, the argument here appears to be 'theoretically, if they apply a more inaccurate standard no one has used for athletics for 40 years, he could run 10.94 and win the bet'. But they won't, will they? Because that would be ridiculous.

Does he have to do this alone on some track or can he run at a sanctioned event against other sprinters?

A sanctioned event might work best as the starter and timing would be hard to dispute. Also, running against others that are faster my help him.

Can he move to Colorado and train at altitude?

he's allowed to use steroids, but moving to Colorado is a step too far

He's a sprinter, not a distance runner. Altitude means almost nothing as far as sprint training, although sprint marks above 1,000m of altitude, like marks with wind ratings above 2.0m/s, are not record-eligible.

I don't know, maybe because that would be the terms of the prop?

Just like flying start, juicing, etc. A prop can include any terms agreeable to both sides.

Incorrect.

Yup. I was wrong. WRs CAN be set at altitude, but they get an (A) next to them (I believe starting at 1,000m) because everyone knows it's a bullshit mark.

high school track stars re-living their peak days itt

For a sprinter, training at altitude will do pretty much nothing. In fact, it will likely do more harm than good.

You're supposed to rest high and train low by the way. Unless the event will take place at altitude. But that's for endurance events.

Running the event at high altitude might help a sprinters time slightly, but probably insignificant.

the difference is pretty significant, actually

the most recent study that I was able to find had 100m men time improved by 0.19 with 90% confidence by running at Azteca stadium (2250m elevation)

it was previously thought that 100m time improves by about 0.04 per 1km of elevation, even with those numbers you're looking at 0.09 improvement which is not insignificant

seems like it could be one of the more legit angles where Koon runs at one of the super elevated (4km+) tracks in Bolivia or Peru

100 metres or 100 meat hairs?

I think the people here who say Koon can't run under 10.9 are mistaken and don't understand basic human biology.

The human body is meant to keep itself with the ability to peak perform until age 40-43. Lookup Kim Collins, Dana Torres, Floyd Mayweather who destroyed 20 year old Tenshin Nasukawa at age 42, heck even Michael Phelps admitted if we wanted to he could come back and whoop everybody.

I get the feeling some of the people here who are naysayers always relate it back to themselves: "well in college I was at my peak and uh there's no way". Yeah most likely you let yourself go and eat junk daily, play long poker hours/lack sleep, drink beer ruining your body etc...

Koon is not like that, and is still in his thirties. He can most definitely do it with the right training regimen and coaching.

Then why is the world record held by a 22 year old? If he was a distance runner trying to run as fast as his peak in college I would say it's possible. A 35 year old sprinter with a history of injury trying to match his college PB is impossible. Sprinting is a whole different animal. He'll injure himself if he even gets close. Sprinting puts a ton of stress on your ligaments and tendons and those deteriorate significantly as you get older. You really have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

For what it's worth, if they are requiring FAT (fully automatic timing), then the clock will go beyond tenths of a second. A FinishLynx, for example, will get it down to thousands of a second and even ten thousandths if you have it set that way (which you don't tend to do for track & field).

Also, I doubt any track person would round down that way. By rule, when you have a manual time (e.g. with a stopwatch), you round to the lower tenth. So a 10.87 on your stopwatch or Chronomex goes in as a 10.9. A 10.31 is a 10.4 officially. And so forth.

If it's a sprint, there used to be an amount you add to make it an FAT equivalent for the purposes of qualifying standards or records. I think it's 0.24 but I don't remember for sure. e.g. assuming that number is correct, if you hand-time at 10.83, you first round to 10.9, then add the 0.24 and it becomes an 11.14.