Why You Can't Always Trust What You Read - The Limits of MileSplit & AthleticNet Databases

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
Every day I check the current rankings, both boys & girls, for any changes that might affect the all-time databases that I'm working on. In wind affected events, I even log wind-aided times & those without wind data that are significant from a historical perspective. However, I do come across marks that are clearly WRONG or of questionable validity, but have been uploaded into MileSplit & AthleticNet databases without anyone questioning the validity of said performance.

Just came across one this morning:

Rakim Deaver (Bucyrus) - 100m - 10.12 "PR" at the Bucyrus MS/HS Combined on 26 April 2022 (https://oh.milesplit.com/meets/480403-bucyrus-mshs-combined-2022/results/809789#.YmvgJNPMIRD)

This performance would be the fastest ever at 100 meters in Ohio history under all-conditions. However, it is total bull hockey. Just look at the results of the competitors in the 100 meters vs. their other performances and you'll see just how out-of-whack the times in the 100m are. Yet this is what makes it way onto the databases without some type of bad performance filter being applied. Clearly the timing malfunctioned or the race was most likely 80m in length.

Unless spotted by someone of responsibility associated with the individual meet in question, these marks will sit on these databases...sometimes for many years. This misleads casual viewers, parents, coaches, adminstrators, into believing the performance without question.

The old Latin proverb applies aptly, I think. "Caveat emptor" - paraphrased as "let the buyer beware". Don't believe everything you read.

There are a number of others currently still on these sites. Another one is the listing of Anjali Mead (SPIRE Academy) as #3 on the Ohio list of girls' pole vaulters. This girl, while very good at 12' 9 1/2", is NOT an Ohio vaulter. She is a Virginia-based vaulter training/living at SPIRE Academy. I do NOT list her on Ohio all-time lists. There've been a few others over the years in the same situation.

So, beware!
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
I have one for you that sort of haunts me. We do not have a wind gauge. (hoping to get one next season) In 2019 at our meet, Tre Young ran 10.41 in the 100. It was a damp rainy day. He absolutely crushed some really fast kids. I called down to the finish line to ask what they had hand timed because I thought it had to be wrong. Coach Howard who is very good with a watch responds 10.2. The print out from the "Time Machine" was 10.15. Everyone in that final ran great times, but not their fastest of the season or career except for Tre Young. Didn't feel like there was any wind. There were other fast times that day in not very good conditions at all. I thought maybe the timing system had a glitch or something. Other people in the stands didn't have him that fast, but thought the rest of the finishers were good. If you add to the hand time they had at the finish, it's legit, but so many people got on me about it, I thought it had to be wrong. I questioned it at first, but what I had on my screen and what came up from the finish line jived. I was hoping he would run faster at some point, but he didn't. It was sort of a fluke and I had as many people tell me it was right as I did people tell me it was wrong. I don't know. He came back and crushed the same kids in the 200 in 21.84 later, but that's not 10.41. I checked every single result that day with the had times from the line and they were all within reason, but something seemed off.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
Are you talking about Tre Tucker and not Tre Young? CVCA? If so, I do have him on my list of wind-aided marks, which is where ALL performances without wind gauges are put when statisticians compile lists. I have a feeling Tre may have had the run of his life...possibly a flying start that wasn't noticed. His best legal wind was a 10.67 (-0.1) in heat #1 at State that year. So, I can see a 10.41 as an outlier, but unfortunately for him, no wind data was recorded.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
Are you talking about Tre Tucker and not Tre Young? CVCA? If so, I do have him on my list of wind-aided marks, which is where ALL performances without wind gauges are put when statisticians compile lists. I have a feeling Tre may have had the run of his life...possibly a flying start that wasn't noticed. His best legal wind was a 10.67 (-0.1) in heat #1 at State that year. So, I can see a 10.41 as an outlier, but unfortunately for him, no wind data was recorded.
Yes, psycho meant to type Tre Tucker. Psycho must have NBA hoops on his mind, even though Young spells his name Trae. I was at psycho's meet when Tucker ran that 10.41. Coach Howard handled the situation smoothly. He immediately announced the time would not qualify for the D2 state record due to the absence of a wind gauge but that performance indicated that Tucker was positioned to do well in the postseason, which Tucker did.

Incidentally, I know the timing system psycho uses is from Eagle Eye. I've talked to others who have timed their share of meets w/ FAT systems, and they have all seen some unusually fast results produced at times via Eagle Eye. What I don't know is what is fundamentally different about Eagle Eye vs. FinishLynx or any other FAT system that might make it any more susceptible to capturing some conspicuously fast performances.
 

Jaws31

Well-known member
Every day I check the current rankings, both boys & girls, for any changes that might affect the all-time databases that I'm working on. In wind affected events, I even log wind-aided times & those without wind data that are significant from a historical perspective. However, I do come across marks that are clearly WRONG or of questionable validity, but have been uploaded into MileSplit & AthleticNet databases without anyone questioning the validity of said performance.

Just came across one this morning:

Rakim Deaver (Bucyrus) - 100m - 10.12 "PR" at the Bucyrus MS/HS Combined on 26 April 2022 (https://oh.milesplit.com/meets/480403-bucyrus-mshs-combined-2022/results/809789#.YmvgJNPMIRD)

This performance would be the fastest ever at 100 meters in Ohio history under all-conditions. However, it is total bull hockey. Just look at the results of the competitors in the 100 meters vs. their other performances and you'll see just how out-of-whack the times in the 100m are. Yet this is what makes it way onto the databases without some type of bad performance filter being applied. Clearly the timing malfunctioned or the race was most likely 80m in length.

Unless spotted by someone of responsibility associated with the individual meet in question, these marks will sit on these databases...sometimes for many years. This misleads casual viewers, parents, coaches, adminstrators, into believing the performance without question.

The old Latin proverb applies aptly, I think. "Caveat emptor" - paraphrased as "let the buyer beware". Don't believe everything you read.

There are a number of others currently still on these sites. Another one is the listing of Anjali Mead (SPIRE Academy) as #3 on the Ohio list of girls' pole vaulters. This girl, while very good at 12' 9 1/2", is NOT an Ohio vaulter. She is a Virginia-based vaulter training/living at SPIRE Academy. I do NOT list her on Ohio all-time lists. There've been a few others over the years in the same situation.

So, beware!
I was asked by one of my assistants if I saw thst the fastest time in D3 was 10.39. It was run in the same meet as the 10.12. A quick scan shows that just the meet before these athletes rsn m8d 12s to 13s. This happens quite a bit on Milesplit. False time are reported either by honest mistake or not. Its not that big of a deal at the varsity level because it all comes out in the wash at districts. The cream will rise. Where it does affect things is at the JH level. The only qualifier for the state championship is the Milesplit list. If a erroneous time gets reported it can affect someone who legitimately would be qualified to compete. That's where it becomes unfair.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
Yes, psycho meant to type Tre Tucker. Psycho must have NBA hoops on his mind, even though Young spells his name Trae. I was at psycho's meet when Tucker ran that 10.41. Coach Howard handled the situation smoothly. He immediately announced the time would not qualify for the D2 state record due to the absence of a wind gauge but that performance indicated that Tucker was positioned to do well in the postseason, which Tucker did.

Incidentally, I know the timing system psycho uses is from Eagle Eye. I've talked to others who have timed their share of meets w/ FAT systems, and they have all seen some unusually fast results produced at times via Eagle Eye. What I don't know is what is fundamentally different about Eagle Eye vs. FinishLynx or any other FAT system that might make it any more susceptible to capturing some conspicuously fast performances.
Hmmm...not familiar with Eagle Eye, but I'll definitely do some research on the system. If they've got a problem with their system, they should be the first to know.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
I was asked by one of my assistants if I saw thst the fastest time in D3 was 10.39. It was run in the same meet as the 10.12. A quick scan shows that just the meet before these athletes rsn m8d 12s to 13s. This happens quite a bit on Milesplit. False time are reported either by honest mistake or not. Its not that big of a deal at the varsity level because it all comes out in the wash at districts. The cream will rise. Where it does affect things is at the JH level. The only qualifier for the state championship is the Milesplit list. If a erroneous time gets reported it can affect someone who legitimately would be qualified to compete. That's where it becomes unfair.
I think this particular situation calls for a review board of coaches to be set up to review entry performances in order to verify the validity of the qualifier's performances. Allowing kids to advance to the state championship based on false performance data does a disfavor to all involved. This situation is one of the reasons I brought this issue up on this forum. I hope it will result in action by responsible parties to do an impartial review of the lists prior to advancing the kids or disqualifying them.

I, likewise, invite scrutiny of my lists that I publish here as well. Peer review is always best. If mistakes are made, I am more than willing to make necessary changes with proof of the mistake.
 

mathking

Well-known member
Here is another problem with times. We are now using Milesplit for district meet entries. And they have disabled manual editing of seed times, saying only verified times are allowed. It should absolutely then be the responsibility of Milesplit to have ACCURATE times and to get results from ALL meets that have published results. If the district meet rolls around and I still have to use NT or vastly slower times/marks than those my athletes earned I am going to be pretty angry.
 

madman

Well-known member
Milesplit doesn't time meets. It can't held responsible for the accuracy of the results at any meet.

Mark Dwyer and the folks at oh.milesplit quickly update results when they are officially changed. It is the job of meet management at each to ensure times/marks for their meet are accurate. I believe meet results can be modified for up to 48 hours after the conclusion of a meet. Milesplit has no standing to make changes to official results. Each coach bears responsibility in this process as well.

Futhermore, there is no practical way milesplit can be responsible for collecting meet data from every nook and cranny on the internet. It should be each meet manager's responsibility to get results to milesplit.

If you attend a meet where the results aren't finding their way into the milesplit database, then get on the meet director or stop going to that meet.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Are you talking about Tre Tucker and not Tre Young? CVCA? If so, I do have him on my list of wind-aided marks, which is where ALL performances without wind gauges are put when statisticians compile lists. I have a feeling Tre may have had the run of his life...possibly a flying start that wasn't noticed. His best legal wind was a 10.67 (-0.1) in heat #1 at State that year. So, I can see a 10.41 as an outlier, but unfortunately for him, no wind data was recorded.
Yes, I have no idea why I typed Young.

He was legit about a second ahead of everyone else in the race. I looked at it 20 times. We no longer use the EagleEye timing, but more than once, I set it up side by side with Lynx and it was accurate. It's limitation was that it did 60 frames per second, so between frames was .0167 seconds.
Here is another problem with times. We are now using Milesplit for district meet entries. And they have disabled manual editing of seed times, saying only verified times are allowed. It should absolutely then be the responsibility of Milesplit to have ACCURATE times and to get results from ALL meets that have published results. If the district meet rolls around and I still have to use NT or vastly slower times/marks than those my athletes earned I am going to be pretty angry.

I agree. I have kids that I may enter in events that I have not run them in all season. Say, I'm developing a hurdler. I like running them in hurdles most every meet to get them the rhythm and to work on form etc. I may not need them in the open 200 until the District. I'll pull them from the hurdles to run them in something else if I have 2 kids ahead of them in the hurdles. My 400m runners have not run an open 400m yet and probably won't because of nagging injuries and trying to get relays finalized, 4x100 4x200 etc...
Milesplit doesn't time meets. It can't held responsible for the accuracy of the results at any meet.

Mark Dwyer and the folks at oh.milesplit quickly update results when they are officially changed. It is the job of meet management at each to ensure times/marks for their meet are accurate. I believe meet results can be modified for up to 48 hours after the conclusion of a meet. Milesplit has no standing to make changes to official results. Each coach bears responsibility in this process as well.

Futhermore, there is no practical way milesplit can be responsible for collecting meet data from every nook and cranny on the internet. It should be each meet manager's responsibility to get results to milesplit.

If you attend a meet where the results aren't finding their way into the milesplit database, then get on the meet director or stop going to that meet.
I should not have to put together my schedule to satisfy a database. I should stop going to a meet because they do not report to Milesplit? We put together our schedule for what is best for our kids, not what is best for Milesplit. We are not trying to hit times in April, we are training for the entire season. We run dual meets and I know what my kids can do based on hand times we have. I can make my decisions of who I enter into the District meet based on my criteria not Milesplits. I need to be able to enter times based on performances that I have that are not in the database.
 

ENA2

Active member
I'm sure I will be in the minority here, but for years, I felt that at the district level, everyone should enter at NT (no time) or no mark. Especially since the top 8 marks make the final in the events with flights or semis in the laned running events. Some coaches were entering suspicious marks anyway (or relay splits for the sprints). Also, random lanes and order in the field events are not a bad thing. Now in the distance events... the 800 for example... this could cause one semi-final at Districts to be "stacked" with 10 of 12 fastest kids so the other heat may have it easier, but that happens now. I have seen one heat of the 800 go out crazy and the top 8 times be as fast ad the winner of the next heat where everyone sits and kicks. If you have a potential regional qualifier, they should be able to make the final from lane 8 in the 400, or lane 1 in the hurdles, or as the first thrower in the first flight in in the short, or the last jumper in the long jump. I really don't like to hear kids, coaches (or parents), use the excuse of flight/jump order, or lane assignment for a poor effort. I will usually say "I know, I can't understand why lane 1 (or 8) is longer than lane 3." or "I think you're right, the 7th hurdle in lane 7 seems higher on this track"...I do understand that the entry for the Middle School "State Meet" is all based on FAT (or legit) marks and needs to be, may comments are for District Entries.
 
Last edited:

mathking

Well-known member
Milesplit doesn't time meets. It can't held responsible for the accuracy of the results at any meet.

Mark Dwyer and the folks at oh.milesplit quickly update results when they are officially changed. It is the job of meet management at each to ensure times/marks for their meet are accurate. I believe meet results can be modified for up to 48 hours after the conclusion of a meet. Milesplit has no standing to make changes to official results. Each coach bears responsibility in this process as well.

Futhermore, there is no practical way milesplit can be responsible for collecting meet data from every nook and cranny on the internet. It should be each meet manager's responsibility to get results to milesplit.

If you attend a meet where the results aren't finding their way into the milesplit database, then get on the meet director or stop going to that meet.
I actually think it should not be the responsibility of a meet manager or timing company to upload results if Milesplit is being paid to do the entries for the district meets, they derive advertising revenue from their database and are insisting only verified marks can be used for district seeding. My opinions were reinforced this weekend when talking to the person running timing for us this weekend (who has done a lot of our meets) and hearing about the difficulties he has had with Milesplit vis-a-vis getting results on their site.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
I'm sure I will be in the minority here, but for years, I felt that at the district level, everyone should enter at NT (no time) or no mark. Especially since the top 8 marks make the final in the events with flights or semis in the laned running events. Some coaches were entering suspicious marks anyway (or relay splits for the sprints). Also, random lanes and order in the field events are not a bad thing. Now in the distance events... the 800 for example... this could cause one semi-final at Districts to be "stacked" with 10 of 12 fastest kids so the other heat may have it easier, but that happens now. I have seen one heat of the 800 go out crazy and the top 8 times be as fast ad the winner of the next heat where everyone sits and kicks. If you have a potential regional qualifier, they should be able to make the final from lane 8 in the 400, or lane 1 in the hurdles, or as the first thrower in the first flight in in the short, or the last jumper in the long jump. I really don't like to hear kids, coaches (or parents), use the excuse of flight/jump order, or lane assignment for a poor effort. I will usually say "I know, I can't understand why lane 1 (or 8) is longer than lane 3." or "I think you're right, the 7th hurdle in lane 7 seems higher on this track"...I do understand that the entry for the Middle School "State Meet" is all based on FAT (or legit) marks and needs to be, may comments are for District Entries.
That's all well and good, and I agree to a point, but, the fact is that they do seed by times and they do assign lanes by times and for kids that are on the edge, it might matter. They aren't preferred lanes for no reason. For distance races, I don't care and I never cared when I ran. There are advantages and disadvantages for every lane in distance races and it's up to the individual to exploit the positives and make others suffer the negatives. But, in the sprints and in my experience hurdles the most, lanes do matter to some kids. If I have a kid where it doesn't matter, I might not sift through all my stats to find their best race and just go with what I know they run often.
 

Altor

Well-known member
I actually think it should not be the responsibility of a meet manager or timing company to upload results if Milesplit is being paid to do the entries for the district meets, they derive advertising revenue from their database and are insisting only verified marks can be used for district seeding. My opinions were reinforced this weekend when talking to the person running timing for us this weekend (who has done a lot of our meets) and hearing about the difficulties he has had with Milesplit vis-a-vis getting results on their site.
I can confirm. I uploaded the requested results file to Milesplit and e-mailed it to their results@ address. Two weeks later, I got an e-mail from a coach because her discus thrower wasn't on the list for the JH state meet. I replied that I submitted the results the way they requested, I have no control over what Milesplit does with that information.
 

Altor

Well-known member
And while I'm on my rant...this is related to the OP.

I'm seeing more and more meets where we aren't weighing implements. Is this happening in other parts of the state? I even saw a pre-meet memo from the meet director that specifically said "We will not be weighing implements." Why not just advertise, "Feel free to cheat"?

We impounded about 8 shot puts a couple weeks ago because the girls brought 8lb shots. They had been using them all year and nobody knew it. One coach said it was a brand new shot that year, they'd had it for about a month. He was sure he ordered a 4kg shot. Nobody had bothered to weigh it. Had one girl last year at Districts nearly in tears... "I throw that one 3 or 4 feet farther than the others." Yeah, no kidding, it's 10% lighter.

As somebody else said, this will hopefully shake itself out at districts for the high school athletes. But, how many JH boys are on the State qualification list and they are throwing shot puts that are 10% lighter than everybody else?
 

ENA2

Active member
Good point alter.... Our girls had an 8 pounder for the first dual... went 30' and 28"10.... not sure where they got it as I took all of our old ones to scrap medal about 5 years ago. May have been left from another school last year.... we don't weigh at duals. after the meet we weighed them. One was actually 8.10 pounds. Probably the one they used. I got rid of it... the two frosh throwers have improved, but still each is two feet less than that first meet.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
And while I'm on my rant...this is related to the OP.

I'm seeing more and more meets where we aren't weighing implements. Is this happening in other parts of the state? I even saw a pre-meet memo from the meet director that specifically said "We will not be weighing implements." Why not just advertise, "Feel free to cheat"?

We impounded about 8 shot puts a couple weeks ago because the girls brought 8lb shots. They had been using them all year and nobody knew it. One coach said it was a brand new shot that year, they'd had it for about a month. He was sure he ordered a 4kg shot. Nobody had bothered to weigh it. Had one girl last year at Districts nearly in tears... "I throw that one 3 or 4 feet farther than the others." Yeah, no kidding, it's 10% lighter.

As somebody else said, this will hopefully shake itself out at districts for the high school athletes. But, how many JH boys are on the State qualification list and they are throwing shot puts that are 10% lighter than everybody else?
A few years ago, we went to a dual meet where we knew the host school would not be weighing implements (unfortunately, we don't either). We had a boys shot that did not make weight at an invite the previous weekend. In those days, we would have the kids put the implements they wanted into a container, and we would be sure the container either got on the bus or was brought to the meet by the throws coach if he was driving separately. I noticed this particular shot was in the container, so I removed it. A former coach asked why I was not taking that shot to this dual meet. The question left me speechless for awhile before I could tender a response of "we know it doesn't make weight, so we shouldn't be throwing it in competition." I didn't dare finish the thought by asking the coach if he really wanted us to promote cheating. Then again, it's only cheating if you get caught, right? :unsure:
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
We've had shots that we know are heavy weigh light, so it sort of goes both ways. While at a big invite this year, half the shots being weighed were confiscated. There is no way that is possible. There had to be a scale problem. A few years ago we were at a meet and had two shots weigh light. I pulled them and put them in a different bag with the intention of weighing them on our scale. It was like a three stooges or three's company show where the handle broke on the bag with the good shots, so one of the kids swapped bags with the confiscated shots and then I had another kid switch the shots again without knowing it was already switched and we went to the District meet with shots that had weighed light just a few weeks before. I knew as soon as they took them out of the bag that I was making a frantic trip back to the school or making a phone call to someone to grab the other shots. They weighed in fine. I even had them weigh them multiple times to make sure. The one shot had a big red X on it from the nice person that wanted to make sure the world knew it did not make weight. It has never crossed my mind that people would knowingly throw light or non compliant implements.
 

Altor

Well-known member
8-pounders are still around? Who uses them at any level?
They aren't used at any level in NFHS/OHSAA or NCAA. I suppose some states could be throwing 8 lbs in Junior High. I don't know what USATF uses at their various age-group levels.

When we come across them, we try to stress that point...this shot put is not a legal implement at any scholastic level. It would be best if it just went away. And every year, I swear the impound pile gets bigger at some of these meets. Like I said, the one coach claimed it was practically a brand new shot put. I have no reason to doubt him. But it was definitely eight pounds.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
They aren't used at any level in NFHS/OHSAA or NCAA. I suppose some states could be throwing 8 lbs in Junior High. I don't know what USATF uses at their various age-group levels.

When we come across them, we try to stress that point...this shot put is not a legal implement at any scholastic level. It would be best if it just went away. And every year, I swear the impound pile gets bigger at some of these meets. Like I said, the one coach claimed it was practically a brand new shot put. I have no reason to doubt him. But it was definitely eight pounds.
Hmmm....I would be VERY curious as to know where these shots (not shot puts - the event is the putting of the shot) are sourced from? Are these cheapies coming from overseas sources and direct-shipped to the U.S. being sold as 4kg shots instead of the 8-lbs they actually are? Hmmmm...if so, then they're being fraudulently marketed. In any event, the local HS coach needs to check each implement received through school sources and notify their AD if the implement doesn't meet basic dimensions/weight. You just need a basic digital scale & some cheap calipers to verify the basics to tell the difference.
 
In terms of weighing in shots it is amazing what the scales say on different days. My biggest complaint is with the official that weighs a 12 lb shot in kilograms. Even though there is an equivalent the two weights are not 100% the same. I have also had a shot not make weight one week and three weeks later in warmer weather the shot makes weight on the exact same scale.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
In terms of weighing in shots it is amazing what the scales say on different days. My biggest complaint is with the official that weighs a 12 lb shot in kilograms. Even though there is an equivalent the two weights are not 100% the same. I have also had a shot not make weight one week and three weeks later in warmer weather the shot makes weight on the exact same scale.
That sounds like a scale construction issue where the mechanism or transducer that is converting mass (weight) into a read out that is subject to thermal expansion/contraction beyond the tolerance that is necessary for accurate measurement.
 

Altor

Well-known member
My biggest complaint is with the official that weighs a 12 lb shot in kilograms. Even though there is an equivalent the two weights are not 100% the same.
Since the minimum weight in the rulebook is "5.443 kg (12 lb.)", I have no qualms about leaving my scale in kg mode.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
I do have a question about entries. I entered our conference meet and I have kids that do not have times in the database for the events I'm putting them in. I didn't really get into it too much because I was just more concerned with making sure we were entered, but I have legit times from dual meets we have had. How do I enter those times? Believe it or not, It's not just about my team. Another coach might look at the heat sheets and move their kids around based on bogus information that is linked to my kids. I have kids with same last names and they might look and see "Smith" in the 400 with a time that is 5 seconds slower than they actually run and think I've put in a different "Smith" Or see a NT and think I'm doing something I'm really not doing. Coaches are allowed to make in game decisions and having bad information might have them making bad moves.

Other than emailing the meet manager, is there a way in Milesplit to enter seed times or heights and distances other than what is defaulted?

Same with Starting Heights for the HJ and PV. I don't necessarily put my kids lifetime best in, but now I really have no choice if it's in the database. Am I wrong?
 

Altor

Well-known member
Same with Starting Heights for the HJ and PV. I don't necessarily put my kids lifetime best in, but now I really have no choice if it's in the database. Am I wrong?
Oh, this is bad if it's doing that. The tournament guidelines for field events should be "most consistent." That helps setting starting heights and increments.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Oh, this is bad if it's doing that. The tournament guidelines for field events should be "most consistent." That helps setting starting heights and increments.
I agree.

Like I said, I have not dived into it fully yet, but I'm pretty sure it put lifetime bests for field events. (I could be wrong) It really doesn't affect my team right now, but that's right now. I'm sure it will at some point and I'm sure it does other teams starting very soon. We have all had those years where our jumpers aren't that good and we need to build for next year and having them make a height at the league or District is a good starting point. I've had kids in the past that just need to clear that opening height to maybe get the confidence to score. Every 1/2 point is HUGE.
 

mathking

Well-known member
I went through to check all the events in Mileslpit and it is still the case that in a third of the events they are missing marks/times for my athletes, so that sprinters may end up incorrectly seeded. And in the HJ and PV there are a couple of marks that do not represent what they can consistently make.

Also, we should all remember that once we put in the entries to go back and remove them and put them back in if they get a new mark that is in the system, so that the new mark will be used. I can't begin to describe how painful that is to my computer science teacher brain.
 

madman

Well-known member
Moral dilemma - In conference meets requiring an FAT time, would you enter an athlete who has a verifiable FAT time and then scratch/replace them later with the athlete you really wanted to enter who didn't have an FAT time in the event? Assume the athlete without the verifiable FAT time actually has the better time in the event when dual meets are considered.
 
.
Top