Efficient response to false-start saga

THE EDITOR, Madam:

This proposed response is primarily for upper-level (however determined) championships. It does not require a race to be restarted except for equipment malfunction or physical environmental disturbance. For events that are normally affected, reaction times for all athletes must be mandatory. A legal range for negative reaction times must be established. Zero must be considered as positive.

Disqualifications must be done after the race. Those with negative reaction times which are out of range, are to be disqualified. Positions must be determined based on accorded times. Accorded times must be determined by one of two ways. First, those with negative reaction times will have the negative values converted to positive and added to the normal time. An athlete who completes the race in a normal time of 10.00 seconds, having a negative reaction time of 0.01, should be accorded 10.01 seconds. Second, for those on the positive side, accorded time = normal time. Normal time is from the sound of the starter’s gun to the crossing of the finish line. What are the advantages? Each athlete will get to showcase his/her skills. Despite being disqualified, scouts would be able to identify talent and potential in such athletes. Also, there would be some positive (in keeping with a certain narrative) to be gained from the experience. Would most athletes do their best for the duration of the race, wary of the fact that their normal times could be negatively adjusted? Would those in the lead begin showboating by looking across the lanes with arrogance, certain of victory? What about those who love to rejoice before reaching the finish line? Such attitudes would most likely diminish.

After hard and possibly hazardous, long-term training, athletes do not have to be given the sore, embarrassing marching orders. This is to the great hurt, also, of relatives, teammates, friends and supporters. The disappointment of being disqualified after, pales in comparison to the devastation of being ordered away. The great levels of annoyance and frustration to which athletes and spectators are subject, because of unwarranted delays, would be eliminated. This response should replace annoyance and frustration with eager anticipation and tolerable disappointment.

What some of us will not like about this response? The athlete crossing the line first may not be the winner. The partisan spectators may roar in ignorance or doubt or may not roar during the race. They would have to wait and see. Would there be too much anxiety? Would the fun be gone? What do you think?

HENSLEY PINK