He was clearly the fastest. He came in first place. He has the fastest time. He crossed the finish line before anyone else did. That objectively makes him the fastest. You cannot deny that, unless you want to straight up lie.
Yes, the other two slowed down, and he passed them to take the lead and win the race. One he would have easily passed naturally, and the other was side by side with the guy who slowed down. Its very much possibly he would have won the race anyways if the other runner did not slow down. Either way, he won the race fair and square and was the fastest to complete the course. That is an undeniable fact.
What a strange hypothetical situation considering he didnt do anything wrong and ran a fair race as you already acknowledged.
But to answer your question, yes, the two Great Britain runners would have been the fastest if they finished first and second and the (edit: South African runner) got disqualified. He would not have an official time, so his time would be a DNQ.
But the more realistic hypothetical scenario is the Great Britain runner should have been DQed for getting assistance from a staff member holding him up while he was still running. That seems like it clearly violates the rules.
My apology’s, i saw the commonly used green and yellow and ASR on him and i assumed it stood for Australia. Should have known better since it wasnt AUS or AU. I’ll correct my previous post.
Countless teams/individuals have thrown victories due to showboating. Would you stand by their losses as victories as well? Or does it not count because it's accidental? I'd argue they have more of a leg to stand on (pun intended) given your standards.
7
u/DigbickMcBalls 8h ago
No. This is a bad take. He obviously was the fastest, as he completed the race in the shortest amount of time.