New static WR attempt tonight in German TV

[trux]

Is Tom in DB?

Yes, he is (using his full name as handle), but rarely active.

 

[BennyB]

The rule is somewhat hazy, but I take it to mean that you can't take any information from an athlete by artificial means (pulse oxymeter etc) during the performance and use that information during the performance for the athlete's benefit. For example to stop them hooking up to a pulse oxymeter and breath holding till they hit 50% SaO2.

However taking that information for other purposes (eg research) is ok. When I read 1.22 that kind of supports what I think by saying that the athlete is not allowed to use any electronic device. If the athlete doesn't see the readings then they are not "using" any devices, the coach, researcher is using the device.

Starting to get a bit lost in translation but there's a great quote from an Aussie movie called The Castle that sums it nicely - a not-so-great lawyer is trying to use the Australian Constitution to defend his client's house being compulsorily acquired by a corporation - "It's all in the Constitution, Your Honour. It's the vibe of it."

In this case I see the vibe of the rule is to stop athletes from benefiting unfairly, yet still allowing science to benefit from potential research.

Hmm, too deep for 10am, need more coffee!

Cheers,
Ben

 

[trux]

In this case I see the vibe of the rule is to stop athletes from benefiting unfairly, yet still allowing science to benefit from potential research.

Yes, I do agree, but in this case it was used against the rules - the information was used to pull Tom out. If the instruction came some 30+ seconds later, based on the monitoring data, it would be a clear violation of the rules, and the attempt would have to be disqualified.

 

[BennyB]

I wrote my post the same time as you Trux so I didn't see your comments about the medic yelling at him to come up. In that case I agree entirely that it goes against the rule and a judge would be correct to DQ that performance (assuming of course that the medic is looking at the heart rate monitor which would be a fair assumption).

Another question - where would one get a waterproof heart rate monitor?

 

[sanso]

...Another question - where would one get a waterproof heart rate monitor?

A friend told me recently that his polar is rated down to -30m - even the sensor belt.
I never looked at his, but my cheap-o (tchibo) one I tested down to -4 m (bottom of the pool) which it mastered bravely. I'll not go deeper with it, though.

 

[BennyB]

My Polar watch is rated to 50m, but the chest device is only rated to 30m, sampling rate is poor too.

Actually I made a mistake before, I should have said a waterproof Pulse Oxymeter.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Billextreme]

Jorg,

The judge can say no when there are other languages involved than they can understand... and there can be other difficulties that could make a judge say no.

If the electronic device is used by someone that the athlete is using as coach, trainer... medical helper etc. That is the same thing as the athlete using the device himself. So total silence is required... and if there is a coach helping, even the coach will be without info from any electronic device. (1.22)

soo maybe it was 8'34" was not that bad after all :rcard


regards
Bill

 

[jome]

Just a warning (learned the hard way) - the ratings in watches are not what they actually say.

A watch rated to -50m is basically "spalsh proof" - you don't want to take it down to 50m

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_6425]Water Resistant mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

# A watch rated 50 Meters is expected to survive immersion without pressure such as being worn while washing up dishes.
# A watch marked with 100 Meters should be able to survive surface swimming.
# A watch marked with 200 Meters should be able to survive Scuba Diving to a depth of 30 meters.
# A watch marked with 1000 Meters should be able to withstand pressure greater than 500 Meters which is at the edge of the limit of human endurance.

 

[glennv]

Hmm, i don't have my stinger with me , but doesn't that rate 200m and definately goes way deeper then 30 meters ?

Strange way of indicating water resistance....
Good thing my video housing rating isn't measured the same way :naughty

 

[jome]

Well, to make things even more confusing, actual dive instruments have a completely different rating system.

Ie a T6 and D3 put side by side...Both are rated to 100m, but only one is actually good for it...Guess which

Imagine my disgust when I first discovered this. But that's how the rating been since the 60's - it's an industry accepted standard way of ripping off gullable customers.

 

[rbsub]

Well, to make things even more confusing, actual dive instruments have a completely different rating system.

Ie a T6 and D3 put side by side...Both are rated to 100m, but only one is actually good for it...Guess which

Imagine my disgust when I first discovered this. But that's how the rating been since the 60's - it's an industry accepted standard way of ripping off gullable customers.

You write:
# A watch marked with 200 Meters should be able to survive Scuba Diving to a depth of 30 meters.

Which deep can such a watch survive by freediving? rofl

 

[wolleneugebauer]

I was in -60m with my polar without any problems.
Salt-water is more a problem than the pressure.

The hf is no information about your conscious.

 

[perow1]

Yes, I do agree, but in this case it was used against the rules - the information was used to pull Tom out. If the instruction came some 30+ seconds later, based on the monitoring data, it would be a clear violation of the rules, and the attempt would have to be disqualified.

I do not know german and i did notsee the complete show, just the clip, so I do not really know how the oxymeter was used.

Was it obvious thet the medic called him up because of the oxymeter showing a low value? Maybe he freaked because he let out air or some other irrelevat reason. Perhaps even the medic did not see the values or the heart rate. Maybe it was "recorded" to be watched later.

Now, i belive themedic was able to see the heart rate ande the oxygen levels, but it is not obvious to me.

It would have been a cool thing if it would have been possible for the TV audience to see heart rate and ox. saturation. At least I would have enjoyed it.

Anyway 8.34 was a great performance!

 

[trux]

Was it obvious thet the medic called him up because of the oxymeter showing a low value? Maybe he freaked because he let out air or some other irrelevat reason. Perhaps even the medic did not see the values or the heart rate. Maybe it was "recorded" to be watched later.

I think the real reason for the medic to terminate the attempt is irrelevant and unimportant. The simple fact that the attempt was interrupted externally, and that the competitor did not exit voluntarily, should be sufficient for invalidating and disqualifying the attempt. The access to the monitoring data only adds to it, but is in fact secondary. This attempt was clearly wrongly organized, and hopefully we won't have any such medics influencing results at future attempts or at competitions. On the other hand, since it was a publicly aired performance, it may be better it finished in this way. Have Tom exited upon such medic instruction after breaking the record, I am afraid AIDA would have to disqualify the attempt, which would be very sad.

If there is no clause in AIDA rules disqualifying a performance interrupted externally, I believe it should be added. Also the use of monitoring is rather controversial - I agree that collecting the data may be useful for the science, but I am afraid there is no easy way the judges could exclude the possibility that a person watching the monitoring device gives some secret signal to the competitor (i.e. coughing, whistling, or whatever else method not easily detectable). It means the monitoring device would need to be in a remote location, or completely sealed and just recording the data for later analysis, otherwise influencing the performance can be barely excluded.

Still, I share with you my admiration and respect for the performance - the unlucky and unusual ending was not Tom's fault.

 

[Jorg]

Jorg,

The judge can say no when there are other languages involved than they can understand... and there can be other difficulties that could make a judge say no.

Oh yes, that was a good one. Different languages, didn't think of it. :friday

 

[Haydn]

Just to clarify the water resistancy capabiities of dive watches. The watches are rated by placing them under pressure in a chamber for a few seconds in a number of positions. The watch remains stationary. Therefore a 50 meter rating appears to suggest that the watch can withstand a 50 meter dive. It would but for the fact that a diver will be moving through the water and effectively increase the exposure to the watch. Further, imagine your disapointment with a 30 meter watch that fails in 6 feet of water because you have just dived into the pool from a diving board. The sudden shock of water impact is greater than the gentle immersion to 30 meters. Of course, the cynical will say its just the manufacturer trying to reduce their liability. So the rule of thumb, is 30 meters is for splash proof and domestic water rsistancy like washing the car. 50 meters will allow swimming, showers and shallow snorkelling. 100 meters for water sports including wind surfing type impacts. 200 meters for scuba. I ignore them and have taken toy watches to 50 meters just to see what happens. I trained for one of my channel swims with the lighest watch I could find, it was made of lego. So you can break the rules. Anyway, perhaps this is in the wrong thread.