John Andrew’s 11.40 ‘world record’ removed from rankings

Yeah, everyone suspected a hoax. And everyone was right. The 11.40 credited to M55 John Andrew was too good to be true. As detailed here three weeks ago, this superfast 100-meter mark found its way onto How good is 11.40?  Well, it beats Bill Collins’ listed M55 world record of 11.44. Now the mark is gone. John Seto, overseer of the seasonal rankings site, deleted it over the weekend after failing to verify the time, and for other reasons. I also poked around, writing two other sprinters at the November 15 meet in Texas where the 11.40 was supposedly run. Curiously, meet director Seth Brower has been silent on this issue — despite several email queries from John and me.

M50 Bryan Shilcutt, who ran the 100 at the Texas meet, wrote me: “I have no recollection of this John Andrew. . . . There was a 30-something-year-old in my 100-meter heat on 11-15-09 that probably did run well under 12.  And, there was a gent that was considerably older than me in that same heat who finished well behind me.”

George Haywood, an M55 member of Houston Elite, ran the 400 that day a month ago, and he told me via email: “I’m sure I would have noticed an 11.40, especially since there were only a few 55-year-olds there. As they say, ‘There must be some mistake!’ “

Finally, John Seto informed me that the 11.40 was removed for three reasons: It wasn’t under fully automatic timing (FAT); Bryan’s recollection of a younger sprinter going sub-12; and “John’s e-mail address was invalid, so I could not ask him.”

The bogus email address was key to Seto’s decision. Folks who post marks on are expected to enter a legit email address “in case we have questions regarding this submission.” When John tried to write John, the email bounced. Bad sign.

But all is well now! A bogus mark has been banished.

And the most important thing?

I’ve been rightfully restored to No. 86 on the M55 seasonal list for the 100!

But watch out, guys!  I’m shooting for top 80 next year!

Print Friendly

December 15, 2009

14 Responses

  1. Anonymous - December 15, 2009

    There are others that are obvious but if a meet director transposes some numbers, like M55 23.80 in the 200, which is really a 28.30…the time still stays listed. It has been pointed out previously but that was the explanation, that it shows up in the results as such.

  2. Anonymous - December 15, 2009

    Where do you see rankings that go beyond the 25 or so shown on, Ken? Are were you kidding?

  3. Ed Baskauskas - December 15, 2009

    The event listings only go 25 deep, but if you search by the name of an athlete, you’ll see the athlete’s marks and ranking, even if that ranking is below the top 25.

  4. Kenneth Effler - December 15, 2009

    You can open the full ranking list for any event/age group, by clicking the link contained within the age banner.

  5. Thad Wilson - December 15, 2009

    On the heading for each age group there is a link to all the reported performances.

  6. Anonymous - December 15, 2009

    It’s a really fast track! The posted results for the 2008 meet show 2 M70’s who ran the 100m in 11.15.

  7. Ken Stone - December 15, 2009

    Here’s the link to my awe-inspiring 100:

  8. Keith McQuitter - December 15, 2009

    some of the time on the usatf site are checked or was checked. what makes me upset is that.some people log on more then one time other then posting there best time put 2 or 3 times if I DID THAT I would be in the top 20 10 times. we are, last I cheked adults, be real you may have to prove it on the track when you meet some one like myself.or others,lagit, M50 RUNNER,or some one like jeff watley M55 or 100m 60m you may run up on m50 sprinter val barnwell that can run 11.40 or better words mean nothing if you dont back them up.

  9. Fidel Banuelos - December 15, 2009

    There is one other result that I question. I don’t know Frank Makozy (45-49) and I apologize if I’m wrong but he lists an 11.76 100m for 2009. In looking at his past results, he’s run 59.85 400m, 13.32 and 13.79 2008 100m, 200m in 27.93, 400m in 60sec, 61 sec. and 8.40 60m dash. These times don’t support that 11.76 100m. I’ll write mastersrankings to follow up. Thoughts?

  10. Anonymous - December 15, 2009

    I like it! Masters going for each others jugulars on results. I love the comradery in masters track, hehehehe. Any one out there want to name any illegal drug users? TMZ, where are you when we need you?

  11. Panama Kid - December 16, 2009


  12. Liz Palmer - December 16, 2009

    I wouldn’t call this “going for each others jugulars on results.” If we want the rankings to be legitimate then it’s up to everyone to point out errors. Otherwise they are worthless and all John Seto’s hard work is for naught.

  13. John Seto - December 16, 2009

    Many people have told me they feel like they are tattling when they point out potential errors. That is certainly not the case. Liz’s comment (“If we want the rankings to be legitimate then it’s up to everyone to point out errors”) is crucial to the rankings’ accuracy. Most times the athlete hasn’t submitted the results; they have come from incorrect meet results. The athlete might not even know about the rankings to know their mark is incorrect. Of the 35,978 results (2009) in the rankings, only 9,527 were submitted by athletes. Frank Makozy (mentioned above) didn’t know his decathlon 100 result was incorrect in the rankings until I asked him about it because Fidel (thank you again) let me know. Frank told me the result was an age graded mark, not the actual. Please feel open to let me know there are questionable results in the rankings. I do check every single one that is mentioned to me and I go through a process of verifying the result before making any corrections or deletions. Thank you all, in advance for your assistance.

  14. Oscar Peyton - December 17, 2009

    John, you are doing a great job. Keep it up. All known errors in the Rankings should be straightened out by any and everyone aware of them.

Leave a Reply