0:00

Whole Foods Market has the satisfying

0:02

lunch you're looking for. Level up lunch

0:04

boxes with Wallet Happy 365 by

0:06

Whole Foods Market snacks, like organic

0:09

vanilla animal cookies, organic string

0:11

cheese, and more. Hey, you have

0:13

to eat too! Hit the prepared foods department

0:15

and try the spicy red pepper salmon, or

0:18

treat yourself to pizza from the hot bar.

0:20

Either way, remember to bring home a rosemary

0:23

lemon chicken family meal for an easy

0:25

dinner that hits the spot. Shake things

0:27

up at Whole Foods Market. Ten years

0:29

ago, Chance the Rapper released a mixtape

0:31

called Acid Rap. It

0:34

was full of a certain joy and exuberance that

0:36

feels lacking in hip-hop today. I

0:39

asked him why that is. I think it's just

0:41

worse. Like, I think it's

0:43

just worse in terms of public

0:46

safety. You know, even the weather,

0:49

like the earth is not as lit as

0:51

it was in 2013. Chance

0:55

the Rapper

0:56

on how hip-hop has changed. This

0:58

week on Intuit, Vulture's pop

1:00

culture podcast.

1:05

This week is the start of the World Athletics

1:07

Championships in Hungary. It's the biggest

1:10

track and field competition of the year. And

1:12

we wanted to bring you an episode we first made during

1:15

last year's championships, when what seemed

1:17

like it should be the simplest possible

1:19

rule led to a full-blown

1:21

scandal. That is as tough a

1:24

break as I have ever seen in this sport. The

1:26

controversy got to the heart of one of the most basic

1:29

questions in sports. When

1:31

does a race actually start?

1:37

There's confident, and then there's Tania

1:39

Gaither. When I was younger, I used to beat up on

1:41

the boys in PE. And ever since then, like, I've

1:43

been addicted to what I do. What

1:46

she does is sprint for Team Bahamas

1:48

at the highest level. I love the adrenaline

1:51

rush that I get every time I line up. I love making

1:53

my family and my country proud. I wouldn't

1:56

choose any other career for myself right now.

1:58

Last July, Tania was gearing up for

2:00

a huge race in Oregon. This

2:03

was the World Championships, which is the biggest championship

2:05

that we have as professional sprinters for

2:07

the year. Tania had been training for months,

2:10

day after day, to get ready for this championship.

2:13

And she'd reached the semifinals of the

2:15

100-meter dash.

2:16

These moments are everything to us.

2:19

It was a beautiful day, high

2:21

70s, clear blue sky. Got out on the track.

2:23

Everything was perfect. I was really zoned in to

2:25

this race because I knew what I was capable of. I knew

2:27

that I was ready to run the race of my life.

2:29

Tania Gaetha at the Bahamas.

2:31

She lined up in the second lane. Twice a

2:34

World Championship finalist over 200. And

2:36

Tania was locked in. If you

2:38

go back and watch the video, you can just see how tense

2:40

my face looks. I'm like, okay, yeah, this is

2:42

gonna be great. She made sure to do her pre-race

2:45

ritual. My teammates like to laugh at me about

2:47

that. I slap my legs

2:49

and I throw my arms up in the air and throw them back over

2:52

my head and just do a little shimmy with

2:54

my shoulders. And then I get into the blocks.

2:56

She set up in the blocks, one leg in front,

2:59

one leg behind with both her hands

3:01

on the ground in front of her. I heard the

3:03

crowd go quiet. Of course you can hear a few

3:05

murmurs or whatever, but that's normal. And

3:08

when everybody gets set and still, only

3:10

when everybody's still, they'll stay

3:13

set and you'll come up in your set

3:15

position. And then I heard

3:17

the gun go off and I took off

3:20

and then I heard the gun go off again and then I

3:22

stopped.

3:22

At this point,

3:25

it was all confusion. That second

3:27

gun was officials stopping the race because

3:29

someone had broken a rule. I can't see from

3:32

this angle. No, I'm not sure

3:34

I can see that to the naked eye either. It's

3:36

a bit hard to hear, but behind the voices

3:38

of the commentators, you can just make out

3:41

an in-stadium announcement. By the way, this

3:43

is a brilliant. False

3:45

start, line two. It's

3:50

coming up on our screen. A false

3:52

start means that Tania didn't wait for

3:54

the gun before she reacted. She

3:56

started too early.

3:57

I couldn't believe it because

3:59

I just knew it wasn't. There was no way.

4:01

I've never fall started ever in my life.

4:03

After a fall start, all the runners have to line

4:06

up again and restart. But without

4:08

Tania this time, because once you fall

4:10

start, you're immediately disqualified. I

4:13

thought it was an error. It wasn't

4:15

immediately obvious to the naked eye. I'd

4:18

quite like to see that again. I knew

4:20

I started once I heard that gun go off. That

4:22

one was so tight, I think it was indiscernible.

4:25

The crowd was like, no, no,

4:27

like, you didn't fall start. The crowd don't like

4:29

it. They was like, protest, protest, no, you

4:31

didn't do anything. And

4:34

then I was like, okay, you know, I'd like to protest. Okay,

4:37

so this might take a little while. Tania

4:39

walked off the track to make her case to the official.

4:42

And he has a little screen that shows him the video

4:44

replay. Wow, that's so much. That's

4:47

really hard to tell with the naked eye. Literally

4:49

looked like I did nothing wrong. But the official

4:52

wasn't just looking at the replay. He

4:54

also showed me my reaction time and

4:57

it was like lit up in red. Which

4:59

means, you know, basically the start was just too

5:01

fast. Pressure sensors in the starting

5:04

blocks showed that Tania had started .093 seconds

5:09

after the gun went off. After the

5:11

gun went off. Like, I'm mind

5:13

blown. You're telling me I'm penalized

5:15

for something I did after the gun went

5:18

off.

5:19

Just a reminder, I know many of you will

5:21

be familiar with this. If it's quicker than a tenth

5:24

of a second, it seems to be illegal.

5:27

Tania was officially disqualified

5:29

for reacting seven thousandths of a second

5:31

quicker than the legal limit.

5:33

According to what they were trying to tell us, no

5:35

human can possibly move that fast without

5:38

anticipating it. The officials were saying

5:40

that because it's impossible to react within

5:42

a tenth of a second, Tania must

5:44

have started before the gun went off. Even

5:47

if no one could see it. They were basically

5:49

telling Tania, you didn't wait for

5:51

the gun to go off before you started. You

5:54

cheated.

5:55

You guessed. There was no guessing

5:57

in my start. My coach trains

5:59

us to. wait until we hear the start. In

6:01

fact, sometimes she'll hold it extra long for us

6:04

just to see if we would jump out the block. So we train

6:07

to make sure that we don't throw away our opportunities.

6:10

Tania wasn't the only one who was disqualified

6:13

for a false start after the gun at

6:15

these world championships. It happened

6:17

to Julian Alfred, who started .095 seconds after

6:19

the gun. She's

6:22

right in the center of your picture in the white. Yes. It's

6:25

very, very, very marginal. And

6:27

then it happened to Devon Allen, who started .099 seconds

6:30

after the gun. And

6:33

he is faster than that tenth

6:35

of a second allowance. You know how much faster

6:38

he is? By one thousandth

6:40

of a second.

6:40

I just sort of start official, say,

6:43

I'm sorry. All three of these sprinters

6:45

started after the gun, and all

6:47

three of them were disqualified in some of the biggest

6:50

races of the year. I really don't

6:52

like seeing people disqualified. Having said that,

6:54

rules are rules, aren't they? You're right.

6:57

But I just couldn't understand

6:59

what they were saying. I'm

7:02

Noam Hasenfeld, and this week on Unexplainable,

7:05

how fast can humans react? And

7:08

is a rule like this actually fair?

7:25

Okay, Brian. Noam? There's

7:27

this rule in running that we've both been thinking about for

7:29

a while. It's designed to prevent people

7:32

from guessing when the gun goes off. And

7:34

it all relies on the assumption that it's impossible

7:37

to react in less than a tenth of a second.

7:39

That people who start that quickly are actually starting

7:41

in their heads before the gun.

7:45

So I wanted to ask you about the science

7:47

here.

7:47

Does this idea of a limit to human reaction time

7:50

make sense?

7:51

Yes, the concept behind

7:53

this rule does make sense. You

7:55

can't react instantly to a

7:58

sound. physiological

8:00

limits that need to be defined

8:03

to prevent some athletes to have an unfair

8:05

advantage by

8:06

anticipating the gun. So I

8:09

found a scientist who's doing his PhD

8:11

on this exact question. His

8:14

name is Mathieu Melose. My name is Mathieu

8:16

Melose. He's French, so I apologize

8:18

if I've said his name wrong. And

8:21

he thinks this idea of setting a limit makes sense

8:24

because reacting to a gun just

8:26

takes time. Right, right. There's so many things

8:28

that need to happen just to get you out of the

8:30

starting blocks. There is like different

8:33

components to the response time. So

8:36

first the gun goes off. There's

8:40

time it takes for that sound

8:42

of the gun to get into your ears. So there is

8:44

no time. Your ears have to convert

8:47

that stimulus into a neural

8:49

signal. Then there is no time. Your

8:51

nervous system has to identify that signal. The

8:54

time. Send a command

8:56

down to your muscles to start moving. And

8:58

that takes some time. And then there's

9:00

time for like the muscle itself to start

9:02

contracting to move. And then there

9:05

is the

9:07

time. Like you actually

9:10

exerting force on the starting

9:12

blocks that would detect your movement.

9:15

So there is all these different components.

9:17

It's complex.

9:22

So this idea of a limit

9:24

in sprinting makes sense. But what I

9:26

just cannot figure out is where this number,

9:29

tenth of a second,

9:30

where does that come from? So I looked

9:33

into this. I talked to a historian who wrote a report

9:35

about this for World Athletics, which is the

9:37

organization that runs these world championships

9:39

we've been talking about. His name is PJ Vazel.

9:42

And he told me that it actually traces all

9:44

the way back to the 60s and

9:46

this West German sprinter named Armin Hari.

9:50

He had surging power and explosive

9:52

pace, but he also possessed the most

9:54

dubious starting technique that international

9:56

sprinting has ever seen. Hari was famous

9:59

for being a...

9:59

suspiciously fast starter. His

10:02

fellow Germans called him the thief of starts. He

10:04

did apparently have a really fast reaction

10:07

time. They tested him, though we don't know exactly

10:10

how accurate that was. Many believe

10:12

he actually beats the gun. Ultimately,

10:14

we don't know if Hari was guessing

10:17

his starts or if he just had superhuman reflexes,

10:20

but in 1960, he won a bunch of races,

10:22

got called for some false starts, and people

10:24

were pissed because back then,

10:27

you know, you didn't get immediately disqualified

10:30

for your first false start. They would just run the race again.

10:32

Oh, okay. So it got a little messy. And

10:35

West Germany, you know, they wanted something more objective,

10:37

so they got these force sensors that

10:39

could automatically detect when someone

10:42

started. And this 10th

10:44

of a second limit basically comes from the company

10:46

that designed them. The traditional

10:49

brand, Jumhans, has been a trailblazer

10:51

and watch design for 160 years. That

10:54

said that they had tested a bunch of runners

10:57

and found that no one could start faster than

10:59

a 10th of a second. Okay. So that sort

11:01

of like company finding

11:04

became the basis for this rule of

11:06

thumb that continued for a couple decades

11:08

until 1989 when world athletics, then

11:12

known as IAAF, made it official.

11:16

So when Tainio was disqualified

11:19

and told,

11:20

you couldn't have possibly started that fast.

11:22

Right. That was just based on something

11:25

a German company said in the

11:27

1960s. Yeah,

11:30

basically. Okay. That's what this historian

11:32

told me. World athletics has

11:34

said it's based on science. So I reached

11:36

out to them and they told me that a 10th of

11:39

a second was determined to be the quote, minimum

11:41

auditory reaction time. But

11:44

they didn't point to a specific study. Okay.

11:46

The main study that other people point to is this

11:48

study on eight amateur sprinters, which

11:51

is just a really small sample

11:53

size. And it also seems like the

11:55

study came out after they

11:57

made the rule. So I just basically have

11:59

a ton. of questions about the science here.

12:02

Okay, so this whole story you're telling

12:04

me makes perfect sense considering when

12:07

I asked Machu about this number, do

12:09

you think it's valid? He told me, The 100-millisecond

12:12

false start threshold is not

12:14

science-based. He argues that this tenth

12:16

of a second limit is just not

12:19

based in rigorous science. Okay. And

12:22

we really don't know what the actual

12:24

number is, what the limit ought to be. If

12:27

you look at the scientific literature, you can

12:29

find there have been a bunch of studies that try

12:31

to answer the question how fast someone

12:33

can start a race. And they

12:36

all kind of find slightly different numbers. People

12:39

can start faster than 0.1 seconds. Machu

12:42

says he's even found this

12:43

in his own work. I'm sure that you

12:46

can react in less than

12:48

100-milliseconds in spring

12:50

start. And there is no paper

12:53

you can go to that has the

12:55

gold standard for studying

12:58

how fast people can start. There's

13:00

a lot of small studies on this. They find

13:02

different numbers. So there's just not

13:05

a lot of confidence from the scientific

13:07

community that World Athletics has

13:10

a correct firm number here.

13:12

Yeah, I actually came across a study that

13:14

was commissioned by World Athletics itself

13:17

in 2009. And that

13:19

study said the tenth of a second limit

13:21

is incorrect. Oh, so they know this. Apparently.

13:24

And I asked them about that, but

13:26

they said this study was too small to

13:29

actually merit a rule change. So do a better

13:31

study. Right. I mean, given that

13:33

all of these

13:34

studies are so small, it makes me wonder, like,

13:37

is reaction time in a race a

13:39

particularly hard thing to study?

13:42

When I asked Machu about this, he explained

13:44

it. It's very complicated. There are just

13:46

a lot of variables to control for.

13:49

So one thing here is that depending

13:51

on how loud the start sound is, people

13:55

might start faster. Like a startle

13:57

response or something? Yeah. Well, it's just like if it's louder,

13:59

people. seem to start faster. And

14:01

then the longer the official weight,

14:04

the faster the start times can be because

14:07

you're just so ready to start. It's like

14:10

a spring being coiled up or something. Yeah.

14:12

And then when it comes to these sensors

14:14

themselves, apparently how

14:17

they decide when a start happens can

14:19

be very variable between sensors.

14:22

There doesn't seem to be enough consistency

14:24

here in either the science or the practice

14:27

to really exactly nail down a number.

14:30

So if this tenth of a second limit isn't

14:32

based on rigorous science, do

14:34

we have a sense of what a better

14:36

general area of rightness might

14:39

be?

14:39

So I asked Mathieu this

14:42

question and he said, if

14:44

I give you an number now, I will kind of

14:46

lie to you. If I gave you a number,

14:48

I would be lying to you. If

14:51

you look around, there are some scientists who have done

14:53

some back of the napkin calculations,

14:56

that whole list of things that I outlined

14:58

that need to happen before you can start a race. Some

15:01

say that could take 85 milliseconds,

15:03

so 15 milliseconds faster

15:05

than what is allowed. But

15:08

then again, Mathieu was

15:10

very insistent on this. There's no perfect

15:13

way to measure anything. So any measurement

15:15

is going to come with some range of error.

15:18

At the same time, Mathieu thinks it's important

15:20

to get a better

15:22

range of what the limit could be because

15:25

the victories here can be decided by

15:27

hundreds, thousands of a second.

15:29

The margin of victory is so small in

15:31

spring that

15:33

I think it's worth to try to improve

15:35

this. Mathieu basically thinks

15:37

that improving on this

15:40

number and getting a better estimate of

15:42

it will really make

15:44

races fair.

15:46

So is there a way to get a better sense

15:48

of what this limit might be

15:50

or is it just too many moving parts?

15:59

So not amateurs anymore. Yeah,

16:02

not using amateurs. Top-level printers

16:05

react

16:06

quicker than you want me. It turns out

16:08

on the track, during a competition, there's

16:10

some evidence that suggests that runners are not

16:13

starting as fast as they possibly could

16:15

because they just don't want to risk false starting.

16:18

They prefer to delay their response time

16:20

to not be disqualified. Ah. That's

16:23

why he wants to bring them to the lab and say, okay,

16:25

everyone, don't worry about false starts. We just want

16:27

to see how fast you could possibly

16:30

start and just collect a lot of data

16:32

on some of the fastest people in the world. He

16:34

wants to make sure researchers

16:37

can control for all those variables with

16:39

the sensors and really

16:41

just find a gold standard

16:43

to agree on that this is the best

16:45

way to record a race start. And

16:48

then plot that data in a distribution

16:50

curve and see really

16:53

where we can better decide on where the limit

16:55

is. Okay. He also thinks that we've

16:57

been measuring sprint starts in just

16:59

the wrong place.

17:01

What do you mean?

17:02

So far we've been talking about the feet. Right. You

17:04

know, like when your foot moves, like that's when the race starts. But

17:07

he says like the actual first thing that

17:09

moves when you start to run are your hands.

17:11

Like you're crouched in the starting blocks, your two

17:13

hands are on the ground in front of you and

17:15

you're pushing off with your hands. Yeah. Yeah,

17:18

they push on the floor first. So that is the

17:20

first movement you do. And like he

17:22

says that is much faster. I have a

17:24

difference, an average difference about 50

17:27

milliseconds between the impulse in the

17:29

legs and the impulse

17:31

on the floor that react first. So

17:34

that's like a huge difference. Yeah.

17:36

Maybe that's where we should decide where the race starts.

17:39

So

17:43

that all sounds great.

17:46

Okay. But to be honest, like I'm

17:48

not actually sure more science

17:50

and more technology is

17:53

the

17:53

whole answer here.

17:55

Isn't the answer usually more science?

17:58

We need more science. So we stay on the show. It's

18:01

definitely often science, but when

18:03

it comes to sports, I mean, I think using

18:06

technology in the name of fairness,

18:08

it's harder than you think. And there's

18:11

an argument that sort of a hyper-focus on

18:13

technology might actually

18:15

be ruining sports a

18:17

bit. Oh, I want to hear that.

18:20

I'll tell you after the break.

18:24

Whole Foods Market has a satisfying

18:26

lunch you're looking for. Level up lunch

18:28

boxes with Wallet Happy 365 by

18:30

Whole Foods Market snacks, like organic

18:33

vanilla animal cookies, organic string

18:35

cheese, and more. Hey, you have

18:37

to eat too. Hit the prepared food's department

18:39

and try the spicy red pepper salmon. Or

18:42

treat yourself to pizza from the hot bar.

18:44

Either way, remember to bring home a rosemary

18:47

lemon chicken family meal for an easy

18:49

dinner that hits the spot. Shake things

18:51

up at Whole Foods Market.

18:53

Imagine you

18:55

call a cab, and it pulls up to

18:57

the curb in front of your place, and

19:00

you get in, and you look over the driver,

19:02

and there is no driver. There's

19:05

just robot.

19:06

Hello, I'm Johnny Cab.

19:09

Where can I take you tonight? And

19:11

you're like, what's going on? This feels unsafe.

19:14

But then the robot's like, come with me if you

19:17

want to live. And so you relent. And

19:19

all of a sudden, the robot makes the car go, and

19:22

you actually get to your destination. But then the robot gets

19:25

kind of surly. Get out. What

19:28

sounds like a distant, sci-fi future

19:31

is now a reality. RoboCabs

19:34

are picking up passengers in San Francisco,

19:37

and they're coming for you next on

19:39

Today Explained. So

19:41

we yells out,

19:44

ready, on your mark,

19:46

get set.

19:59

And I was so teed up, I just took off!

20:02

So we've got this rule that really

20:05

seems to be unscientific, to

20:07

say the least. Yeah. And honestly, kind

20:09

of unfair. And there's

20:12

rumblings that world athletics might be considering

20:14

changing it. A World Athletics Council member

20:17

from Finland actually called for a rule change

20:19

on this. And the president of

20:21

World Athletics said... And

20:23

yeah, the full start rule, I'm sure, will

20:25

be looked at by the Competition Commission. And

20:28

everything is on the table, as it always

20:31

is after championships.

20:33

World Athletics actually sent me a great

20:35

statement on this, which said, It

20:37

is standard procedure after each World

20:39

Championships for the World Athletics Competition

20:42

Commission to review the championships and

20:44

recommend any rule changes. So

20:46

they're not saying anything? Not

20:49

really. So until they

20:51

do figure out how to change this, I guess I

20:53

was wondering if

20:55

we could try to figure out how we might get to a perfectly

20:57

fair race. Yeah. And what

20:59

are the options here?

21:01

Okay. So on the one hand, we've got Mathieu,

21:04

right? He wants to use more science,

21:07

more technology to kind of get finer

21:09

distinctions on this limit. You know, take

21:11

this

21:12

kind of non-scientific, tenth of a

21:14

second limit and bring it firmly

21:17

into the realm of science, rigorous

21:19

science, like you said. Yeah. And that's

21:21

broadly what a lot of the people I spoke to

21:24

also told me. So the historian I talked to,

21:26

PJ, he said he wanted a lower, more precise

21:29

limit. I talked to a sports scientist,

21:31

Matt Payne, who said the same thing. And

21:33

they both said we also need more transparency

21:36

around exactly how these machines work.

21:38

Yeah. So, you know, we can hold them accountable.

21:41

Yeah. We need to know, like, each machine

21:44

is making the same decision around,

21:46

like, when that person started. Right.

21:48

And that's actually what some people think

21:50

happened at the World

21:51

Championships with Tania and these other runners,

21:54

that something must have been up with the machines,

21:56

because reaction times were just, like, super fast

21:59

across the board.

21:59

And honestly, I think that's a

22:02

key problem with having this

22:05

really strictly enforced

22:07

limit because applying this tiny

22:09

distinction across tons of machines

22:11

perfectly consistently without any error

22:14

is clearly showing itself to be really difficult.

22:17

And it's also always possible that someone can come along

22:20

with just superhuman reaction time

22:23

and just slightly break

22:25

this limit, whatever we find. Yeah. And

22:27

the limit is always going to be a fuzzy number anyway. Right.

22:30

And if you draw a clear line

22:32

in the middle of

22:34

what is ultimately just

22:36

a fuzzy border and

22:38

someone is barely on the other side of that clear

22:40

line, is it really enough to label

22:42

them a cheater? I don't know. Yeah.

22:45

Technology doesn't

22:46

necessarily make fuzzy borders go

22:48

away. Sports have not been

22:51

created or invented to deal

22:54

with the technology that we have today.

22:56

So I talked to this sports writer, Joe Poznanski, and

22:58

he's written a lot about the use of technology in

23:01

sports. Joe says that technology

23:03

can give us a lot more data,

23:05

but it's not always clear that more data

23:07

equals more accuracy,

23:09

especially when we're dealing with fuzzy borders and sports,

23:13

which are ultimately, they're games, right?

23:15

They're not scientific experiments. There

23:18

is a

23:18

way to break down the context

23:21

of any game to a point

23:23

where it's no longer a game, where it no longer

23:25

makes any sense. I think it's kind

23:27

of funny. We've been talking to scientists who the answer

23:29

to this question is, well, we just need more precise

23:32

sensors. We need better science. We need more, you

23:34

know, data, data, data. And I'm sure that's

23:37

that's fun for them. Right. Yeah. And

23:39

Joe told me that it can cause some real

23:41

problems.

23:43

In baseball, for example, used

23:45

to be that a guy stole a base

23:49

and the tag was late. He

23:51

was safe. That's how that worked. So

23:56

as long as you're touching the base, you're safe. That's

23:59

the one thing I know about.

23:59

baseball. Right, that's the main rule

24:02

of baseball. But now if you slow

24:04

it down enough you'll see

24:06

that occasionally the guy when he slides

24:09

into second base just for a fraction of

24:11

a second, his foot will bounce off the bag for like the smallest

24:17

amount, I mean a millimeter. And

24:20

what happens in baseball now sometimes is they go to

24:22

this like instant replay review and then

24:25

the ump's like, he's out now.

24:29

That's not the

24:32

way the game was intended to be played, nobody ever even

24:34

knew this existed. And they stopped

24:36

the game for like a while. You know instead

24:38

it becomes this people just

24:40

pouring over it like it's this a brooder film

24:43

trying to figure out is this guy safe,

24:45

is this guy out, it's not great.

24:47

You know I'm realizing that if we went

24:50

the max technology limit and

24:53

you actually got to an absurdly

24:55

small view you would see that actually we

24:57

don't touch anything. Matter is mostly

25:00

empty space, it's just electromagnetism

25:02

that's convincing us we're touching, right? Yes. No

25:04

runner is ever touching a base and

25:07

no fielder is ever tagging a runner. This

25:10

is a little, I think we got a little too deep from

25:12

this topic. But I see what you mean in that

25:14

like there's always going

25:17

to be like the closer you zoom into

25:19

things. You see actually

25:20

like our experience of that

25:23

thing like touching a base is not necessarily

25:26

what's happening on a microscopic view.

25:29

Yeah and it's not just baseball either

25:31

like

25:32

in basketball there are these endless

25:34

replay reviews on fouls. I get

25:36

so bored of these replays, they

25:39

got a great game going. Again it's a gray area

25:41

of like what is a foul. Is that an offensive foul

25:43

or I don't know. And then in football

25:45

there's this kind of like deeply philosophical

25:48

issue of what is a catch. What?

25:51

Yeah like it used to be in your

25:53

hands. Yeah it seems like this really simple idea

25:55

like are you holding the ball. But now

25:57

it's like...

25:59

during the process of the catch. OK.

26:03

If you zoom in really close, is the ball moving

26:05

a tiny little bit when you hit the ground? Like,

26:07

even though it's in your hands. Even though it's in your hands. And

26:10

even though, like, it was always considered

26:12

a catch before. And you've got

26:14

to continue through the play.

26:16

We will now review the previous

26:19

play.

26:21

I don't want to sound like technology is really bad. You

26:23

know, it has its place in sports,

26:25

especially when the lines aren't as fuzzy.

26:28

So like, who finishes a race first seems

26:30

a lot easier to judge on replay than who

26:33

started. Or like tennis, where, you

26:35

know, whether a ball is in or out. Like, that's

26:37

a pretty clear decision. But

26:40

using fancy technology and tons of camera

26:42

angles on things like the start of a race or

26:45

what is a catch in football, it

26:47

can end up being really disappointing

26:49

to fans because,

26:51

you know, you're expecting this clear objective

26:53

result from all this technology. And

26:56

it's just a fuzzy border. Like, technology

26:59

can't solve this problem. Yeah,

27:01

we signed up to come to a game, not to,

27:03

you know, slide presentation. It's,

27:06

yeah, it's like something you would do in a lab. It's not

27:08

something you want to do,

27:09

you know, in an arena.

27:11

So should we just throw out all the sensors,

27:14

the cameras, everything and just

27:16

go out there and

27:18

have fun? So I

27:20

think there's a couple things we could do here. So we could

27:22

throw out the limit entirely. Like,

27:25

just go back to the eye test to see

27:27

who fall started. But the

27:29

sports scientist I talked to told me that like

27:31

people's perception of movement

27:34

can actually be different.

27:35

So some people could actually be better at

27:38

spotting movement in other people. So

27:41

introducing yet another complication

27:44

to when does a race start? Yeah, and

27:46

we could also like keep these pressure sensors,

27:49

but just get rid of this tenth of a second

27:51

reaction time limit. Like just have

27:53

the race start when the gun

27:55

goes off and just say that's it. That

27:58

makes sense to me.

27:59

Like not giving people

28:02

penalties for these apparent thought crimes

28:04

that they started before the gun

28:07

in their head. Right, that's intuitive. That's what

28:09

we think a race should be. But

28:11

without this reaction time limit,

28:13

both of these other options might actually

28:15

incentivize runners to anticipate the

28:17

gun. Like to guess when the gun would go off.

28:20

Is it a huge problem to

28:23

anticipate the gun? Couldn't that just be a part

28:25

of the race? Well, it's against the rules

28:28

for one thing, but it could also just

28:30

make races super chaotic.

28:32

Like there'd be false starts and restarts all

28:34

the time. I don't really think races

28:37

would want to incentivize that.

28:39

Wouldn't runners still just get disqualified?

28:41

There's still a big cost for jumping the gun.

28:44

Yeah, there's a big cost. But the people I talked

28:46

to said they think runners would risk

28:48

it. Like if you're racing someone who's just way faster

28:51

than you and your only shot is to anticipate

28:53

the gun, you might just risk

28:55

it even if you could get disqualified. And

28:57

then some people probably wouldn't risk it. So,

29:00

you know, if we're looking for the fairest possible

29:02

race, like one where every single person

29:04

is being timed from the gun to the finish line,

29:07

I don't really think the answer is taking away the

29:09

limit and maybe encouraging people to jump

29:12

the gun more.

29:13

I think every option here

29:15

will fail us in some way. It's just

29:17

deciding which failure

29:20

feels like sports. I

29:23

think that's exactly right. And

29:25

that's something that Joe said to me. He basically

29:27

said, There's no way to

29:30

make sports perfectly

29:33

fair. What you want

29:35

to do is make it fair enough that

29:37

people have faith in it. But we accept

29:40

the illusion.

29:41

So Joe's favorite solution for fuzzy borders

29:43

in sports like baseball and football is

29:46

just to accept the gray area. Let the official

29:48

watch the replay in real time. No slo-mo.

29:51

And if the call can't be overturned, just stick

29:53

with the call in the field because perfectly fair

29:56

isn't possible.

29:57

Yeah, I think perfect fairness

29:59

is... is impossible. But

30:01

at least with this false start rule, we

30:04

could probably make it a little fairer.

30:07

We definitely can, especially because we

30:09

know this reaction time limit isn't right.

30:12

So lowering the limit seems like a clear move.

30:15

We can embrace the fact that we'll probably

30:17

need to keep updating it over time. And

30:20

then ultimately, if we're honest

30:22

about the fact that when a race starts is

30:24

kind of this fuzzy border,

30:26

we'll end up labeling fewer people cheaters

30:29

who probably didn't cheat. It's still embarrassing

30:32

because you don't want to

30:35

ever be labeled as somebody that cheated. Tania

30:37

is still thinking about her false start at the World

30:39

Championships in July when officials said

30:42

she started before hearing the gun.

30:43

I literally waited till I heard what

30:46

I needed to hear, just like I've done in hundreds

30:48

of other races. For a while, it was

30:50

hard to shake. I haven't really

30:53

shared this with many people, but I've kind of been experiencing

30:55

a little PTSD with it because

30:57

now when I get in my blocks, the

31:00

only thing that I'm thinking about in my blocks is

31:02

be patient.

31:03

That's literally the thing that's been engraved in my head

31:05

since that moment. Be patient because you can't

31:07

afford for that to happen again.

31:10

But Tania is nowhere close to giving

31:12

up on running. I'm one of the true lovers

31:15

of this sport. I love

31:16

what I do.

31:18

And as

31:21

big of a blow as that was, it hasn't changed

31:25

my eagerness to step on the line. And

31:27

last August, she was back on the blocks

31:29

at another big race. Brittany Brown

31:31

followed closely by Tania Gaetha. She

31:34

took home a silver medal running a personal

31:36

best in the 200 meter dash.

31:39

But the thought of that false start after the gun in July,

31:42

it's still lingering in the back of her head. So

31:44

at the end of all of this, I told her about

31:47

our reporting and all the people we've talked to. And

31:50

I guess it doesn't seem like to me like you cheated.

31:53

Yes, that's how I feel. But

31:56

I guess the data says I cheated. And

31:59

I think. Based on the science here, we

32:01

have good reason to say Tania Gaither

32:03

is not a cheater. Wow. Well,

32:05

I really appreciate that. I would love for

32:08

the world to see that research.

32:25

Since we first ran this story last year,

32:28

World Athletics has changed their

32:30

rules. Really slightly. So

32:32

now, if there's any doubt about the call

32:34

from the automated system, referees

32:37

can allow athletes to run and

32:39

then appeal afterwards. So

32:41

it's a little more flexible. But

32:43

starting faster than a tenth of a second is

32:46

still considered to be a false start. So

32:48

no huge changes here.

32:50

This episode was reported and produced by Noam

32:53

Hassenfeld and me, Brian Resnick. It

32:55

was edited by Meredith Hodnot and Catherine

32:57

Wells. Noam wrote the music, Efim

33:00

Shapiro and Christian Aiella did the mixing

33:02

and sound design, Serena Solon

33:04

checked the facts, Mandy Nguyen

33:06

is going for a swim, and Bird

33:08

Pinkerton, she jumped up

33:11

and ran to the door while the alarm

33:13

was blaring. But the door slammed

33:15

shut, and over the loudspeaker she

33:17

heard a deep voice.

33:19

Lockdown sequence initiated.

33:24

Special thanks this week to PJ Vazel,

33:26

Matt Payne, and Robert Johnson for their help.

33:30

If you have thoughts about this episode or

33:32

ideas for the show, email us. We're

33:35

unexplainable at vox.com. We'd

33:37

also love it if you wrote us a review or

33:39

rating.

33:41

This podcast and all of Vox is free,

33:43

in part because of gifts from our readers and listeners.

33:46

You can go to vox.com slash give

33:49

to give today. Unexplainable

33:52

is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network, and

33:54

we'll be back next week.