Some things stick with me for a long time.
...Like watching the final heat of the Men's 100m Dash on July 27, 1996 (televised).
It was one of many events at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, but for me it was the most memorable. And even though I have never spoken with anyone about it, or looked for the story in the newspaper the day after, or even so much as done an online search since the event itself -- I've never forgotten it.
Regardless of what others thought, for me it had been a historic moment; not unlike the day that Deep Blue first beat Garry Kasparov, a mere five months earlier. To the delight of newspaper reporters, the race to determine "The World's Fastest Man" was beset with controversy. The reigning Olympic, World, European and Commonwealth champion was disqualified for leaving the starting blocks
after the gun was fired.Wait....can they do that?Having just turned fifteen years old, unfamiliar with the way the world sometimes works, I didn't think they could......until I watched it happen.
They DQ'd him. I couldn't believe it.
Though varsity cross country is as close as I've ever come to track and field, as a competitive swimmer I knew quite well what it meant to experience a DQ. Like runners, swimmers have their own starting blocks and compete under
very similar rules. Upon the command "Step Up!" you step up to the starting block. When the starter shouts "Take Your Mark!" you move your feet and hands into starting position, the gun sounds, and YOU'RE OFF! Or is it not that simple?
Apparently not.
That summer my family and I watched as
Linford Christie, of Great Britain, left the starting blocks with a perfect start only to be disqualified by Olympic officials for having a start time that was considered too fast to be humanly possible.
He refused to leave the field.
A
furor ensued.
Today was the first time I have had reason to go back and revisit what happened. You see, I am considering using that event as an illustration and wanted to make sure I had the details to go along with it. The general facts come readily to mind, but I like to be specific when I'm gearing up to make an argument or teach a lesson. The topic I am looking at is how we go about measuring human potential. The flip side to the coin is how we identify cheating.
After all, when it comes to a specific case with a specific person, we have no way of effectively measuring how far "off" their actual potential they were at a particular moment in time. The only thing we can say with confidence is that in that specific instance their performance was, to whatever degree, slower than their collective previous performances would indicate was their actual potential. In the end, there's actually no affirmative reason to define a specific person's potential because the only possible consequence would be to cause someone not to reach theirs. Accordingly, the only practical benefit to having a defined "potential" would be rather negative...to assist in the discovery of cheating.
Now, while cheating itself is a negative, the discovery of cheating is a rather good thing, and we can consider it of positive benefit to both the individual and the community whenever it is correctly identified and brought to light. But sometimes that is easier said than done. How much is society willing to invest in identifying and prosecuting cheating? Is it possible to reach a point of diminishing returns, when love of the game or love of the sport would oblige us to go no further? And if we succeed in identifying such a point and determine to go no further in defining actual cheating, is it worse at that point to set the bar too high, or too low? Is a false positive worth just as much as a false negative? Whose welfare ought to be considered first, that of the athlete, that of the sport, or that of society at large? Is it possible that these things should ever come into conflict, or can we assume that what is good for the athlete is also good for the sport and therefore for society as well?
Absent the application to our modern day, here is an outline of the lesson I am putting together:
The disqualification of Linford Christie has never sat well with me. People once said that it was inhumanly possible to run faster than a 4-minute mile. Then in 1954 it happened. Roger Bannister, another Briton coincidentally enough, ran the "
miracle mile." Within two years, six men has done it. Since then over 850 men have each accomplished the impossible. Now the record stands at 3 minutes, 43:13 seconds.
Where do people come up with what is "humanly possible" anyway? Does a lab tech determine it based on what he sees in a Petri dish? Or a neurologist when he reads an EEG printout? And why should his theory of the data become the be-all-end-all when it comes to human knowledge about what is or isn't possible?
Scientists theorize about what is possible by looking at statistics. They reach conclusions based on past data. This is how it was determined that no human, Roger Barrister or any other man, could ever run a sub-four minute mile. No one had done it before, therefore it seemed safe to assume that no one ever would.
And in most cases, with most people, that's exactly right. I am never going to run a sub-four minute mile. In fact, 99.9% of the world's population are never going to run a sub-four minute mile. Statistically, it's all but impossible that anyone ever would.
So what???
Who said that every aspect of the world has to be governed solely by statistics?
Why do we so often permit others to dictate reality to us based on what others have been able to do in the past and what seems statistically probable or likely? Worse, why do WE participate in it when we in turn treat others in like fashion? What is the cost that we pay in doing so?
Here is my issue with Christie's disqualification:
I look for potential in things; in people, in organizations, in communities. I would rather people lived up to my expectations, than down to them. This approach to life comes at a price. People don't always live up --- In fact, some people persist on living downright sideways sometimes.
But that's alright. There are other times when all that someone needed was simply a single, solitary friend who believed in them before they themselves went on to accomplish the "impossible." I've known both kinds.
But my conviction is not based on the potential existence of people that fall into the latter category. I know they're out there -- many of them. But even if they weren't, even if I had never met a one, I don't think that would alter my approach to life.
Fundamentally, I believe that my way of life is a better way of life; that it is somehow closer to the way that life is supposed to be lived. And what's more.....I like it.
I find great pleasure in watching the underdog come out on top in the end.
I find equal pleasure in watching someone's expectations be destroyed....for the better.
I love watching the light come into someone's eyes when they realize and come to see that the world--and life itself--is a bigger, better, more beautiful place.
As it happens, it is these very loves and joys that inspire me to work diligently to uncover the instances of cheating and corruption and perversion within my own sphere of influence. A love of goodness and beauty obliges one to protect both. And part of that task is sometimes peeling back a pleasant facade to expose the moral corruption that lies festering beneath. When exposed to the light of day, each of us is given a choice as to how we respond to the corruption in the institutions, organizations, and individuals we associate with; yea, even in our own lives. But while the lights remain off, the rats meander about the cellar at will, and we are not even afforded the privilege of being brought to the realization that the choice even exists and that we have been de facto making it. How can the world ever become better if we go around already telling others, and being told by them in return, that this is as good as it's gonna get; that we have reached the zenith; achieved our potential and (in so many words) now simply need to hold on to what we've got?
"Everytime I hear people say it's never gonna change,
I think about you..."As an optimist, I want to see the world record broken yet again. I want to see Christie win the Olympic gold not just once (1992), I want to see him with back-to-back golds. In the Olympics I want to see athletes fly higher, jump farther, and run faster than they ever have before. And who's gonna tell me I can't see that?
The idea of a +.110 or +.100 false start rule just naturally grates against everything I am yearning to see as a fan.
Here we are at the World Olympics - Atlanta, GA.
The stage is set for history to be made:
These are the fastest men in the world;
Competing in the fastest sprinting event in the Olympics;
With the best shoes manufacturers can make;
On a track constructed using the very best materials available;
The single-most anticipated racing event in eight men's lives.
If ever the stage were set to see what is truly humanly possible,
is this not it?
If ever the "impossible" were to have a chance of happening,
would it not be now?
I'm here to see what humanity is athletically capable of. As a former athlete I am with the runner on the starting blocks. The very idea of a computer telling me that I can't go faster than "X" speed is anathema to my love of the sport. I block the computer from my mind.
Yes, I know that being able to "anticipate the start" has become something of an art among high level athletes. I know, objectively, that cheating should always be exposed for the cancer it is. I'm all in favor of substance testing for Olympic athletes. But there's a part of me that looks at what happened in 1996, and then again in the same event at the 2003 World Championships when Jon Drummond was
likewise disqualified, and I understand why neither athlete left the field. They couldn't do it. For the love of the game, there is something deep within me that wants both athletes to be right and the rule done away with. In the end, I want the definition of cheating to be right even more. But still, is there truly an irreconcilable conflict between these two desires?
Current
USATF Competition Rules define a false start as starting less than 100/1000th of a second, or .100 seconds, from the activation of the starting device.
Yes, I know that there is
substantial grounds for concluding that the 0.100 second rule is correct in nearly every case and is therefore immanently rational. But are there no possible exceptions?
Yes, I know that sound travel from the inner ear to the brainstem and then to the auditory cortex can take up to 65 mSec. I now know that the auditory ERP's can take up to 200 mSec to then pass data on to the motor cortex and then the central nervous system, and then the athlete's muscles themselves. That's not the point. These are high-end values. I want low-end values. In fact, I don't just want any old low-end values. I want low-end values of test dummies who have competed in the Olympics! And then I want the rule to be even lower than that! :)
Computerized post-start DQ's are intended to eliminate the "what-if" factor. But I like the what-if factor! To the general public, isn't that what dreams are made of? Experts tell us that start times of better than .120 are not repeatable, and therefore not "trainable" or attributable to unnatural ability. Fine--They're not repeatable. Fine, you can't expect an athlete, even an elite athlete, to be able to do it consistently.
You can't expect an athlete, even an elite athlete, to compete in the Olympics consistently either. The Olympics are a non-repeatable event. Can we equate them with other scientifically repeatable events? The Olympic Games is the one place, if any, where miracles are supposed to be able to happen, like
the US besting the Soviet Ice Hockey Team in the 1980 Winter Olympics. It couldn't happen. But it did.
Linford Christie was disqualified for having a .086 second start-time. It "wasn't possible". He had to be disqualified. Statistics say he couldn't have done it. Ergo, he didn't do it; he false-started. At the 2003 World Championships Asafa Powell had a .086 second start-time and was disqualified as well for the same reason.
Tim Montgomery, however, was not disqualified when he broke the world record in September 2002 in Paris. His start time was .104 seconds.
Bruny Surin, Canada's fastest sprinter, ran a start time of .101 seconds at the 1999 World Championships at the height of his career. He wasn't disqualified either.
Montgomery set the world record in the 100m at 9.78 seconds. Surin ran 9.88 seconds. Christie ran it in 9.87 in 1993 (
we'll never know what he would have run at the 1996 Olympics). But the point is not who was fastest and by how much. The point is that each of these three men were, in their time, the best in the business. They didn't just meet statistical human potential, they exceeded it. That's what it means to break a world record. And they did.
In our efforts to accurately calculate human potential, one of them was disqualified. He started too fast. He cheated. Or so they say.
Looking back on the event, Christie still sees it differently: "
It was not a false start. My reaction time was positive, but it was less than 0.1, which counts as a false start. We train to react like that..."However, this topic isn't important to me simply because of a good or bad call made by an official, as important as that may be to the athlete. It's important to me because of how we go about defining the "impossible", and therefore cheating, in all areas of life. It's also important because the definition of the word "miracle" is also at stake. If we acquiesce in handing over the pursestrings to our bag of marbles to the lab tech, he will be quick to tell us that--as far as science is concerned--miracles don't happen. Sorry Tootles, no more marbles for you. You have to grow up now. You have to "get real".
And why is that term universally understood to be a negative one? Is there something about "reality" itself that obliges us to assume a negative outlook on life? Think about it. Within a Christian worldview, "getting real" obliges us to assume a positive outlook on life. Within a secular worldview, it obliges us to assume a negative one. The lab tech cannot validate an occurrence of the miraculous because science predicated on a materialistic understanding of the universe has no way to account for them. Ergo, they don't exist. And if we permit scientists to become the priests of our own modern day, and science and statistics the sole power to determine true knowledge, we end up losing far more than a single race. We lose the reason we even have for holding races to begin with. Under the promise of "more credible" knowledge, we intentionally eliminate the what-if factor. We settle for a cold and unsympathetic, secular, "rational" view of life itself. Dreams? What for? Faith? Yeah right. Hope? Don't even get me started.
Why is a race that occurred eleven years ago important to me? It's important to me because the person who tells me that Christie cheated, and Montgomery and Surin didn't, is dangerously close to falling into the same mire that David Hume climbed into two hundred and fifty years ago. He's coming awfully close to saying that "miracles can't happen because I haven't seen one (and I of course haven't seen one because every intelligent person in the world knows they can't happen)." It's a silly argument. Rather, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Regardless of whether or not miracles do in fact occur, we can be certain of one thing: David Hume was not going to be seeing one.
And therein lies the danger.
Such assertions as his get us no closer to the truth in the end. They simply push us farther away from it. What is the cost of such self-fulfilling prophecies? What is the effect simply on human behavior when a person is told, "
you can't run that fast," or (like Christie) "
You're too old to run any faster," or the even more common "
you can't do that -- nobody can"? What is the effect on a child when she is taught that miracles can't happen? What is the effect on a boy when his parents tell him he's not Wild Bill and he certainly shouldn't act like he is in "civilized" society? What happens to Never-Never-Land?
You can't make a difference. The world is the way it is. Nothing you can do about it. It's never gonna change.
It's the perpetual nay-saying of the enchanted. Like in the story, the nay-people's role is to corrupt hope, to instill fear, to nourish apathy, to discourage responsibility, and to do anything and everything they can to quench the fire. They can be powerful foes of the Kingdom.
I have watched as some of those I love have become captivated by their Sirens song. If you haven't noticed, the no-people are recruiting today. They're always recruiting. They are making others into their own image. Will you, too, be assimilated?
...Carry your candle, run to the darkness;
Seek out the lonely, the tired and worn.
Hold out your candle for all to see it,
Take your candle, and go light your world...If you do not, you will almost certainly find yourself in the business of blowing out candles. After all, it's the rational, logical thing to do in a world without hope...without meaning...without purpose. Unfortunately, if you are in the business of blowing out candles, you will soon discover that you and I are at war. And I love my candles dearly. And even if there were no hope...even if there were no Aslan...I fancy that I would go on about my business all the same. Because it's what I was made to do.
The question of how we strike a balance between rational judgment and a vision for something beyond a materialistic, deterministic universe is of course a bit more than can be answered in this short missive. It is an important question. In answering it I find that we walk an increasingly narrow path today; with chasms, as it were, on either side. Make no bones about it, the world can at times be a fearful place.
Today I speak to the dangers of falling off one side of the path. I speak from personal experience as one who's been pushed. It seems that Peter Pan and miracles are on
the outs today. Attempting to do better than anyone has ever done before is no longer cause for celebration. Rather, it is now cause for concern, skepticism and frequent ridicule from the "more enlightened" masses. Well meaning people see nothing wrong in grabbing you by the suit tie and yanking you back to "reality"; their reality; their cold, sterile place of existance. We are modern day crabs, so diligent in our efforts to pull others down that even a shallow tub is sufficient to keep us in captivity for all time.
Some within the church today would sooner take you down with them into their own chasm, than see you continue to walk the narrow road with the attendant risk of falling off the other side. In their ignorance, they suppose their way is "safer". I've got news for you -- life is risk. Without risk, it ceases to be real life. No thank you. There's more to this life than that. I'm not here to gather around me the security and comforts of this life. Life means too much to spend it on such short-lived pursuits. Here I take my stand, atop the ridge as it were. And I happen to like the view. When you get right down to it, it's an awfully nice way of life.
Again, today I speak to the dangers of falling off one side. Perhaps at some point in the future I will speak to the dangers of falling off the other...But why would I when there are already so many other voices out there doing it for me? We've no shortage of voices telling us to "get real." How about a few telling us to take this life for all it's worth and to never settle for half a life when the whole may be won? I rather like Erin Mae's slogan this week:
Enjoy Life. It comes only once.
Who do you have to be – To be here? ~ Investigator Anton
Well naturally our standard is beyond that of the common citizen.~ Mission Director Josef
Well amongst your people you must have varying levels of excellence. Yet you still closely monitor performance?~ Investigator Anton
We have to ensure that people are meeting their potential.~ Mission Director Josef
...and exceeding it. ~ Investigator Anton
No one exceeds his potential. ~ Mission Director Josef
If he did? ~ Investigator Anton
It would simply mean that we did not accurately gauge his potential in the first place. ~ Mission Director Josef, dialogue in the film Gattaca (1997).
