If fairness were the primary consideration, then they would use any old junk camera and be generous in calling ties. This kind of theatrical accuracy is there purely so that Omega can advertise.
So race organizers try to make things as fair as possible, but everything beyond that is just “part of the game.” The athletes accept that, and spectators should as well.
We don’t need to run the race.
But I don't quite see how using less accurate measuring tools makes sense. At the end of the day getting across the finish line first is the only thing that really matters. Seems to me that more accuracy can only be a good thing
The extreme level of precision, I suspect, is not the same at the finish and the start.
I join millions of other people who find it enjoyable to watch. By that measure it's meaningful. In fact, more meaningful than the _vast_ majority of Olympic events which have less parity and orders of magnitude fewer viewers.
Every competition has factors preceding and during the moments of measured performance that are like this. You could also say that a runner’s performance is about their ability to train consistently, apply self discipline to their daily lives, perform under pressure, etc.
It seems odd to me that in the sum of all moments leading up to the start of a race, somehow reaction time would no longer be relevant.
If a runner gets distracted by the crowd, that’s just as impactful to the race but has nothing to do with their potential speed. The race is a measurement of all factors - mental and physical - and all participants are measured the same way.
If a faster auditory reaction is intrinsic to the abilities of the runner, then that's an advantage they can exploit.
I don't think this method would be as entertaining to watch.
It is not. They do a great job of getting people to think that it is, however.