Antti Pihlakoski, who sat on the judges’ council, tells about the intense behind-the-scenes events after the 400 meter genuine semi-finals. He denies that the superstar was treated with his own standards.
Athletics World Championships 19.8.–27.8. Ylen channels. See the schedule and broadcast information of the games at this link.
There is no need to guess the main topic of Monday evening and Tuesday at the World Athletics Championships in Budapest.
Norwegian megastar, two-time world champion, ME man and Olympic champion Karsten Warholm appeared to cross one of the 10 fences illegally in his semi-final run.
Based on the camera image obtained from one angle, Warholm’s left leg never rises to the height of the fence, i.e. 91.4 centimeters, let alone passes over the fence line. According to the rules, this is grounds for disqualification in the 400-meter hurdles.
For example, the SE man of the trip Oskari Mörö and a coach Mikael Ylöstalo in an interview with Urheilu, they considered Warholm’s violation of the rules to be clear. However, on the night between Monday and Tuesday, it was announced that Warholm would run in the World Cup final on Wednesday.
No protests
In Budapest, a member of the board of the International Athletics Federation World Athletics (WA) watched the events from the actual site Antti Pihlakoski. On Monday, he was in the Jury of Appeal.
Canadian by Abby Hoffman chaired by the Council of Judges, there are two rotating members from the WA Board.
Pihlakoski, who will be in action for the second time next Saturday, told Urheilu on Tuesday why Warholm will run in the World Cup final, even though the first-line evidence spoke against him.
– The reason is that the jury of the games presented footage of the situation to the teams that considered protesting, i.e. Italy and the USA, based on which both withdrew and announced that there was no reason to protest. The Italian protest would not have been processed anyway, because it would not have entered the system until half an hour after the 30-minute time limit had expired. The USA, which was on the move in time, did not protest in the end.
The formal protest would have been discussed in the judges’ council, but before it is finally drawn up and submitted, those who expressed dissatisfaction with the decision can and almost always want to see the video footage of the judges, as was also the case on Monday.
The decisive angle
So what made both the USA and Italy happy with the solution? Warholm’s rejection would have raised the USA Rai Benjamin’s as the overwhelming favorite to win the final and Italy Alessandro Sibilion as the eighth man in the final competition.
Warholm’s winning time in the semi-final was 47.09, the longest in the history of the WC at this stage of the competition. Benjamin ran 0.15 seconds slower, and Sibilio eventually dropped out of the final by a margin of 0.04 seconds.
– The judges of the games have very versatile footage at their disposal, and one particular angle now spoke for Warholm. Photographed directly from the front, it is clearly visible that at the H-moment his left leg both rises above the fence line and passes over the fence. The crossing is completely clear. The US and Italian delegations were able to watch this material in slow motion and zoom, frame by frame. Its resolution is very high.
The judges would have had the opportunity to disqualify Warholm also directly based on their own opinion, without a protest procedure, if a rule violation had been detected. The half-hour time limit for making a protest sounds strict, but Pihlakoski defends it.
– The teams know how to react quickly if they see something and a DQ (rejected) does not appear on the scoreboard. If the time limit were significantly longer, it would increase the risk of image manipulation, for example.
Pihlakoski understands if some consider Warholm as a megastar of the sport to have received special treatment.
– The process would have treated any other competitor in exactly the same way. Warholm was not discredited because he did nothing in his performance that would have justified it. It is of course true in itself that the absence of an athlete of this level from the final would have been quite anti-climatic for the sport and the event.
More lenient rules?
The rules of athletics are strict, for example, when it comes to fence crossings or track violations discussed above. Touching the track line is grounds for rejection in the 100-400 meter races. Pihlakoski admits, as a private thinker, that he thought about whether there would be more room for humanity.
– I sat on the jury of the under-20 World Championships in Poland 2016. There was a great 400m guy from Botswana (Baboloki Thebes), who had run 44.22 during the season. In Poland, he won his semi-final overwhelmingly, but a few millimeters of contact with the track line led to rejection. I’ve been wondering if this rule could be changed to be less harsh if line contact in no way benefits the perpetrator or harms any opponent.