VenTARD--
You are actually correct about some things, yet totally wrong about others...and the things about which you are correct, are only "more accurate", but still support my post, except in the case of Rodgers, which is not nearly a big enough shift to make the post significantly less convincing.
Carter's Rieti 9.78 is indeed only .02 faster than his next-best...but it remains his PR, if only by an insignificant amount.
Rodgers--yes, he has in fact gone faster than his Rieti time, at Zagreb.
Forsythe--like I said, a PR by 0.16. A .16 PR is huge, and cannot be minimized, no matter how hard you try.
Lemaitre--his 9.92 and his 9.97 both correct to 10.02 Like I said, Rieti remains his corrected PR. His 200m time is not relevant to his 100m time, as you would like everyone to believe.
Ndure--like I said, it remains his PR, and again your myth of 200:100 concordance is just that--a myth.
Bailey, R.--like I said, Rieti is his PR by .12 over his next-best time...which WAS NOT in his "injured" 2011 season, but from the 2012 season in L.A., where he was perfectly healthy. He HAS had "opportunity to show his further ability", and it was in fact that very showing that I used in my comparison.
The RT's: they suck relative to the good RT's one would expect for such an array of stellar performances. The very best of the lot was .150 For all those spectacular performances to have been delivered with RT's between .150 and .200 is not what one would expect.
With a modification for Rodgers and a lesser modification for Carter, my post stands.
And we will have to see what the clockings will be at Eugene and Clermont this weekend to determine whether or not they should be ignored. Rome seemed to have been good. Again, I'm not predicting the future, just exposing the past. I make no claims to infallibility or to certitude, I just present the evidence of corrected times.
All the unverified, unverifiable, qualitative, suggested, postulated, intangible, sometimes incorporeal qualities that have been advanced as possible reasons are bogus because they cannot be proven with any degree of confidence, and can be so easily rebutted that it's not worth taking the time to do so, and I will not in fact do so if asked.
Rieti 2010 was bogus, as were Eugene and Clermont 2011.
I will not re-do the Eugene and Clermont analyses. Again, if you're interested, you can find them.
We'll see if the Eugene 13 show up again in 2012--but we might not know if they have until the end of the season.