70.46 Meters and 19.88 Seconds: Two Athletics Marks in Nagoya and the Data Gaps That Have Not Been Filled

On day eight of the Asian Games in Aichi-Nagoya, in a corner of the stadium where a light drizzle persisted through the afternoon, Yan Ziyi — eighteen years old — stepped onto the javelin runway. She threw once. The javelin landed at 70.46 meters. Then she left the throwing area and did not return to the runway for any of the six rounds of the final.

The Games record was erased with a margin of 4.37 meters. The previous mark was 66.09 meters, set by Liu Shiying in 2026 — who went on to win Olympic gold in Tokyo. At a Games where the organisers were still scrambling over athlete accommodation, that figure is a signal that cannot be ignored.

That same day, only a few dozen minutes apart on the track, Puripol Boonson — twenty years old, Thai — crossed the line in the 200 meters in 19.88 seconds. That figure equals the Asian record set by Xie Zhenye in 2026. But in the entire report I could access, there is not a single line recording the wind reading.

Two marks. Two stories entirely different in nature. And two data gaps that anyone wishing to repeat the claims above must fill themselves.

A number never lies. It only waits for someone sober enough to listen. But before listening, I need to know the conditions under which the number was measured.

---

Context: a report with no named source

Before any analysis, I must be direct about the provenance of the data I am working with.

The original article I accessed names no publishing outlet. Its trail leads back to a YouTube video published by the Badminton Association of India, with a dateline reading Nagoya. This is a strange distribution channel for an athletics round-up, and it places every figure in the piece in a state I call "pending verification."

In twenty-five years of following athletics — from my days as the only data reporter at a newsroom in Nha Trang, to signing a full-time data consultancy contract with a football club — I have learned one non-negotiable principle: a performance figure only has analytical value when accompanied by four things. Wind conditions. Venue and altitude. Implement specification. And official confirmation.

Here, I have very little of any of those.

The original article is a multi-sport round-up. Beyond athletics, it touches on diving, squash, skateboarding and weightlifting. There is an Indian badminton player who sharply criticised the organisation. There is a Uzbek MMA athlete provisionally suspended for meldonium. There are two skateboarders aged fifteen and seventeen who won gold. All of those fragments form a wider picture of the Games, but the core I care about lies on two surfaces: the women's javelin runway and the men's 200 meters.

I will not repeat any claim from the original without flagging it. This is professional discipline. When a newsroom called me "the man in the cold room" for publishing xGA figures showing that Thanh Hoa's defence conceded more than expected, I did not argue. I waited until February 7, 2026, when Thanh Hoa lost 0-3 to Ulsan Hyundai exactly on the script the data had indicated. Data needs no advocate. It only needs readers who know how it was measured.

That is why I open this piece with a confession about method rather than a declaration of praise.

---

Dissecting the javelin: why a rainy day is a disadvantage in the opposite direction to every running event

This is the point most Vietnamese sports reports read wrong, and read wrong systematically.

In sprints and jumps, a tailwind is your friend. A headwind is your enemy. A tailwind at the +2.0 metres-per-second threshold can turn a mediocre mark into a record under question. That is why World Athletics requires every record to carry a wind reading, and any figure above +2.0 m/s is voided from the official list.

The javelin operates on the reverse physical logic.

When the javelin flies, aerodynamic lift depends on the relative airspeed passing over the shaft. In still air, that relative speed equals the throw speed. With a headwind, relative speed rises, lift rises, and the javelin flies further. With a tailwind, relative speed falls, lift falls, and distance is eroded.

In other words: a moderate headwind on a javelin runway is an advantage. A tailwind is a disadvantage. And a rainy day is a disadvantage on every front — a slick runway reduces the drive of the run-up, grip on the cord deteriorates, and the rhythm of the entire approach sequence is disrupted.

This means Yan Ziyi's 70.46 metres, if confirmed, cannot be discounted on the grounds of "favourable conditions." If anything, it is a conditions-suppressed mark. She threw 70.46 metres on a rainy day, at a sea-level stadium, with no environmental assistance whatsoever.

The missing variable — and this is the most important one the original article does not provide — is data on release velocity, release angle and attack angle. Those three parameters determine distance more than weather does. Without them, I can only say that 70.46 metres is a large number. I cannot say where its magnitude comes from.

---

The single throw and the most telling silence in the final

There is a detail in the original article that the original article itself underplays, and it carries the greatest analytical load in the entire Yan Ziyi story.

She threw once. One attempt, in a six-throw final.

A winning athlete who throws once and does not return to the runway can mean three completely different things.

First, she established an unassailable lead immediately, and the coaching staff decided to conserve her. This is the most positive scenario.

Second, there is a physical issue being managed cautiously, and withdrawing from the remaining throws is a precautionary measure. This is the most concerning scenario.

Third, this is a purely tactical decision in poor weather, where the coaching staff calculated that the risk of throwing further outweighed the benefit of improving a distance already more than sufficient to win.

The original article offers no explanation. No coaching statement. No medical note. No data on throwing volume in the preceding training session.

In my work, this is where I stop. A sample of exactly one observation is not enough to conclude anything about an athlete's nature. It is only enough to raise a question. Fortunately, a second data point exists that mitigates this — and I will come to it shortly. But the silence itself in the final remains a gap. For an eighteen-year-old in her first continental final, I lean towards precautionary management rather than purely tactical choice. But this is speculation, not data. And I will not write speculation as if it were data.

---

The May mark: 71.74 metres and the biggest question of the whole article

What holds the Yan Ziyi story up is not her Nagoya performance. It is the figure of 71.74 metres thrown in May.

If that figure is confirmed with full legal conditions, the story changes nature entirely. An eighteen-year-old throwing 71.74 metres — just 0.54 metres short of Barbora Špotáková's world record of 72.28 metres set in 2026 — is no longer a young talent. She is a world-class athlete closing on a historic threshold.

But I must ask the question any conscientious data analyst must ask: where was that 71.74 metres thrown, under what conditions, with what javelin model, and at what competition?

None of that information appears in the original article. And this is not a trivial question. In women's javelin, a 0.54-metre gap to the world record is the distance between a generation-defining throw and a very good but ordinary one in the sport's history. A professional thrower's within-season variance is typically about a metre. That means a single May mark is not yet enough to establish a stable performance baseline.

And there is a detail that must be faced directly: between May and the Nagoya final, her mark fell by 1.28 metres. For a thrower, that decline is entirely within normal seasonal variance. It is not a sign of decline. But it is also not a trajectory toward the world record. It is a stable peak — on schedule, on plan, and without anomaly.

Before trusting a reputation, I need to see the data behind it. Here, I have two data points. Enough to assert that Yan Ziyi is a phenomenon. Not enough to assert she is threatening the world record.

---

Kitaguchi's 62.70 metres: the overlooked variable that decides the whole conclusion

In a report focused on the winner, information about the runner-up is usually treated as the tail. For me, Haruka Kitaguchi's case is the most important part of the entire javelin story.

Kitaguchi finished second with 62.70 metres. She is the reigning Olympic champion in women's javelin. Her career best sits in the region of 67 metres, per public data requiring re-verification.

The gap between her and Yan Ziyi in Nagoya is 7.76 metres. In elite women's javelin, that is an abyss.

A reigning Olympic champion being beaten by nearly eight metres by an eighteen-year-old is an event. It can mean two things, and those two meanings lead to two entirely opposite conclusions.

If Kitaguchi competed in normal physical condition and was fairly beaten, then this is a reshaping of the entire world women's javelin order. A new era begins.

If Kitaguchi is struggling with an undisclosed injury, or a technical issue in her season, then the whole conclusion "Yan Ziyi is the world's number one thrower" collapses into a much softer sentence: "Yan Ziyi was the best thrower present on that day."

There is not a single line in the original article explaining Kitaguchi's performance. No data on her 2026 season marks. No statement from the Japan Association of Athletics Federations about her condition. This is a decisive information gap, because it is precisely that gap which makes the "Yan dominates" reading possible.

I am not saying Kitaguchi is injured. I am saying I do not know, and that not knowing is itself part of the data.

---

19.88 seconds: a continental mark and the distance to the global summit

Puripol Boonson ran 200 metres in 19.88 seconds. That figure equals the Asian record set by Xie Zhenye in 2026.

Before going further, I must split this figure into two layers.

The first layer is continental value. This is a genuine mark. The Asian men's 200 metres had stood at the 19.88-second threshold since 2026, and for seven years nobody touched it. A twenty-year-old from a country without a sprint system of scale has reached it. This is an event with clear regional significance.

The second layer is global value. And this is where the figure becomes far more sober.

At the Paris 2026 Olympics, the three men's 200 metres medals were awarded for 19.46 seconds, 19.62 seconds and 19.70 seconds. Boonson ran 19.88 seconds. He is roughly two to three tenths of a second outside the medal zone.

In elite sprinting, two to three tenths of a second is a very large gap. It is the boundary between an athlete reaching a world final and an athlete contending for a world medal. Boonson sits on the first side of that boundary.

The most accurate positioning for him is "a continental ruler with world-final value." Not "a world medal contender." Any claim exceeding that positioning is optimism running ahead of data.

---

The withheld 100 metres: a suspicious asymmetry

There is a technical detail in the original article I want to dwell on longer than usual.

The article states that Boonson won both the 100 metres and the 200 metres. It provides the 200 metres mark in full.

But the 100 metres mark is not given.

In a report otherwise generous with numbers, this asymmetry is a signal. It can mean two things. Either the 100 metres mark is unremarkable, or it is an editorial omission.

Either way, it creates a serious gap for analysis.

A 100-200 metres double at a continental games is a rare feat. To assess that double, I need to know what it was built on. A 100 metres mark in the 10.0-second region combined with 19.88 seconds over 200 metres is the configuration of an athlete with exceptional top speed. A 100 metres mark in the 10.2-second region combined with 19.88 seconds is the configuration of an athlete with better speed endurance than peak speed. Those two configurations lead to entirely different training strategies in the cycle toward Los Angeles 2028.

And I have no split data. No 100 metres split within the 200 metres. No peak-speed segment in the 100 metres final. No reaction time data.

This means I know what Boonson did, but not how. For an analyst, that is half an answer cut off.

---

The critical gap: the wind reading of a mark equalling the Asian record

This is the point I must name decisively.

A mark equalling the Asian record over 200 metres, recorded without a wind reading, is a mark that cannot yet be confirmed.

That does not mean it is wrong. It has almost certainly passed a wind gauge check. Because a record is only ratified when wind conditions are legal. The problem lies in the fact that the report did not provide that figure, and readers have no way to verify it themselves.

I repeat the technical rule: a sprint mark is only entered on the record list if the tailwind does not exceed +2.0 metres per second. A reading at the +1.9 m/s threshold and a reading at the +0.2 m/s threshold produce two entirely different readings of the same 19.88 seconds.

In the first case, the mark sits at the edge of legality, and its nature is in doubt. In the second, it is a completely clean performance and its value is fully affirmed.

Without a wind reading, I cannot choose between those two readings. And I will not decide on behalf of readers.

An empty stadium, I hear what twenty thousand people once drowned out: data. But the wind data in Nagoya I have not yet heard, and that goes on my list of things to retrieve.

---

The China-Japan axis and the global upgrade of Asian women's javelin

Returning to the javelin runway. Beyond Yan Ziyi's personal story, there is a structural signal the original article does not exploit.

The previous Games record was 66.09 metres, set by Liu Shiying in 2026. Liu Shiying went on to win Olympic gold in Tokyo. In other words, the old Games mark was set by an athlete who would become an Olympic champion.

Yan Ziyi broke that mark, and broke it as an eighteen-year-old, with a margin of 4.37 metres.

A gap of more than four metres over a record set by an Olympic champion is a far stronger signal than a story about an individual. It shows that Asian women's javelin has shifted up to an entirely new performance tier.

And the driver of that shift comes from the China-Japan axis. China has an organised women's throws system, with a tradition of integrating international technical expertise into a state structure. Japan has a distinct javelin technique tradition, represented by Kitaguchi.

When an eighteen-year-old from one system beats the reigning Olympic champion of another by nearly eight metres, it is no longer an individual race. It is a contest between two development models.

---

Development models: the state factory and the individual pathway

The two athletes in this article represent opposite ends of the athletics development spectrum.

Yan Ziyi emerges from a large, institutionalised, resource-concentrated system. This is the model Chinese women's throws have operated for decades, producing a production line of world-class athletes. When an eighteen-year-old throws 70 metres, the right question is not "who is she" but "who will the system behind her produce next."

I note an inference with medium probability: China's system will most likely produce one or two more athletes in the 70-metre region within the next Olympic cycle. This is the core difference from the "single prodigy" reading. If correct, the real story is not about Yan Ziyi. It is about a production line in motion.

Puripol Boonson emerges from an entirely different model. Thailand does not have a sprint system of comparable depth. The emergence of a runner at 19.88 seconds from that base almost certainly has to come from an individualised pathway: a private coach, an overseas training programme, or a specific federation investment.

That creates an important difference in durability forecasts. For Yan Ziyi, durability is a function of institutional continuity. For Boonson, durability is a function of a specific coach and environment the original article does not describe.

A sprint programme built around a single star, without system depth, exposes itself to three classic risks: a coach leaving, funding being cut, and the post-breakthrough plateau — the phase in which most breakthrough athletes stop improving.

---

Load pressure: two different risk pathways

There is an intersection between the two stories I want to analyse separately.

Boonson competed in both the 100 metres and the 200 metres at the same Games. That is a medal-maximisation decision — rational for a delegation seeking iconic golds. But it is not load-neutral.

A double at championship level means the entire heats and finals of two events are compressed into one week. For a sprinter, this concentrates both maximal-velocity and speed-endurance load into a single time window. The hamstring and Achilles tendon are direct load-bearing points, and hamstring injury in sprinting typically appears precisely in this type of competition-schedule model.

At twenty years old, this load is acceptable. But if this model is repeated in 2027 and 2028 while simultaneously pursuing global qualification, the risk rises non-linearly.

On the opposite side, Yan Ziyi's competition load in Nagoya was unusually low. An athlete throwing once in a final accumulates almost no competition load. For a young thrower, this is protective.

But here a different structural risk appears, and it is more serious. Javelin throwing imposes enormous load on the elbow, shoulder and lumbar spine. An athlete at eighteen carrying adult-level loading sits in the highest-risk cohort for overuse injury and technique-driven breakdown. A 70-metre throw at eighteen is not a free gift in biomechanical terms. It is an unpaid invoice.

This is why I rate Yan Ziyi's physical risk as medium-high, despite no injury being reported.

I do not have the injury history of either athlete. That is a genuine information gap, not a clean bill of health.

---

The 2026 calendar context: why both marks were created at exactly the cycle peak

A detail the original article does not raise but which I must add, because it is the key to decoding both performances.

In 2026 there is no outdoor World Athletics Championships. The outdoor world championships cycle operates on a rhythm of 2026 then 2027. That means for Asian athletes, the Asian Games is the final target of the season.

The consequence is very clear. When a Games is the final target, athletes build their training cycles to bring peak form to that moment. This raises the probability that a mark created there reflects genuine ability rather than a mid-cycle marker.

A season should be read as a sequence of probabilities, not a sequence of events. And within that sequence, it is highly likely that both Yan Ziyi and Boonson peaked in Nagoya.

This is a favourable interpretive position. It is why I believe these two marks are more credible than an equivalent mark created at a mid-cycle meeting.

But it carries a flip side. When the World Championships return in 2027, both athletes will face far greater competition density and pressure. And that is the natural verification window for every claim made in Nagoya.

---

An overall assessment of the women's javelin landscape value

I reconstruct the global women's javelin landscape after this result.

At the ruler tier, we have Kitaguchi — reigning Olympic champion, who just threw 62.70 metres. At the contention tier, we have Yan Ziyi — eighteen, 70.46 metres in adverse conditions, with a May mark of 71.74 metres. At the finals tier, athletes in the Andrejczyk class of Poland and the Barber class of Australia. And at the memory tier, Liu Shiying — present in the article only as the former record holder, not as a competitor.

Liu Shiying's absence as a competitor is a noteworthy point. She is the Olympic champion of this event. If she is absent through injury or another reason, that is part of the context readers need to know.

But even setting Liu Shiying aside, the landscape structure has visibly changed. A shift from a weakening single-ruler structure to an emerging two-horse structure, with an eighteen-year-old Chinese athlete on one side and an Olympic champion Japanese athlete on the other.

This is the highest-value analytical signal in the whole article. And it is also a signal wholly dependent on one unknown variable: Kitaguchi's condition.

---

An overall assessment of the Asian men's 200 metres landscape value

On the men's side, the picture has a simpler structure.

At the world medal tier, we have the Lyles, Tebogo, Knighton, Bednarek group — running in the 19.46 to 19.70 second region. At the world finals tier, we have Boonson at 19.88 seconds. At the continental ruler tier, we have Xie Zhenye with the Asian record of 19.88 seconds set in 2026. And at the continental depth tier, we have roughly five to seven Asian athletes running in the 20.2 to 20.5 second region.

There is one notable thing about this structure. The Asian record has stood at the 19.88-second threshold since 2026, and for seven years it was not broken. Now it has been matched by a twenty-year-old from a country without a sprint tradition. Combined with the Su Bingtian and Xie Zhenye generation from China, this indicates the Asian sprint ceiling is being raised structurally, not just occasionally touched.

This is a durable continental mark. And I emphasise: durable as a continental mark. Not as an indicator of a global medal contender.

---

The meldonium case: ethical transmission and governance consequence

In another corner of the article, there is an event I cannot ignore, because it is part of the environment in which both marks were created.

An Uzbek MMA athlete who won bronze was provisionally suspended after a sample returned positive for meldonium. The case is being handled by the International Testing Agency.

Meldonium is not a recreational drug or a simple masking agent. It is a metabolic modulator, in Class S4 of the WADA prohibited list, added to the list in 2026. It enhances endurance and accelerates recovery. The most famous case attached to this substance is Maria Sharapova's in 2026.

The direct effect of the case on athletics is zero. The sanctioned athlete does not compete on the track. But the governance effect is not zero.

A confirmed positive on day eight of a multi-sport games typically triggers an escalation of targeted testing for the remainder of the programme, led by the International Testing Agency. And the two record-level marks — an eighteen-year-old's performance and a large performance jump by a twenty-year-old — are the two natural first targets.

I am not saying anyone has violated anything. I am saying the long-term monitoring mechanism, including the Athlete Biological Passport, will be activated or intensified as standard procedure. This is a mechanism that generates no news now, but is the mechanism that generates result reversals years later.

And there is a notable editorial asymmetry in the original report: a positive case in one sport is reported in the same article as record claims in athletics without any verification conditions.

---

Organisation: when the stage falls short but the numbers still stand

The original article carries a thread about the Games' organisation, and I need to handle it separately.

A former Indian badminton player publicly criticised the competition conditions. Another athlete said she felt as though she was not competing at an Asian Games. The Aichi-Nagoya organisation model has no traditional athletes' village, instead using hotels, temporary accommodation units and a cruise ship. There were complaints about airports and transport.

I separate this issue from performance analysis for one technical reason. Organisation quality does not affect the validity of a mark. A figure of 70.46 metres measured by an official measuring device on a regulation runway retains its value regardless of where the athlete slept.

But it affects something else, and that something matters more in the long run: the event's credibility envelope. If top Asian athletes begin to question whether to prioritise the Asian Games over Diamond League commitments in future, organisation quality becomes a variable in scheduling decisions.

And there is a secondary signal about how media is changing. A national sports association using its own YouTube channel to broadcast criticism, rather than going through traditional press, is an indicator of the direction of sports transmission. Athletes and federations now route their criticism through their own channels. This model will increasingly apply to athletics too.

---

Industry transmission: the value of a tier-two Games

The Asian Games is not a high-end commercial property. It has negligible prize money. Its value comes from national prestige and from Olympic-cycle visibility.

That shapes the entire value-transmission chain of the event.

Athletes are not paid by the competition. They are paid afterwards, through state and provincial reward programmes, and through the activation of subsequent endorsement contracts. This makes an Asian Games gold disproportionately important to athletes from state-supported systems relative to its actual prize-money position.

The case of North Korean weightlifting in the original article is the extreme version of the same dynamic. Six of ten golds in one sport concentrated in a country with a state-funded system and low commercialisation. At the other end of the spectrum, two skateboarders aged fifteen and seventeen winning gold shows the young demographic trend present across multiple sports.

For Yan Ziyi, her commercial position will change structurally. A Chinese athlete within a state-supported throws programme typically realises value through national and provincial reward structures first, and endorsement activation second, with activation concentrated in the Olympic cycle.

For Boonson, the position differs. A Thai athlete in a sport not traditional to Thailand becomes a nationally iconic figure, with limited global endorsement reach. This is the regional-ceiling model.

On equipment technology, the impact here is small. Women's javelin is a narrow equipment market with a limited set of approved models — 600 grams, with centre-of-gravity constraints. There is no technology transfer from javelin to the mass market. Entirely unlike carbon-plated road-running shoes. This also means the equipment-dividend risk flag — the hypothesis that a mark is inflated by gear technology — is negligible here, because javelin specifications are tightly regulated.

I never attribute the residual to luck, but I also never attribute the residual to technology when technology is regulated.

---

The contrarian angle: two marks, two tiers, and a packaging error

At this point, I must deliver the contrarian point of this piece, because the most common way of handling these two marks is to bundle them into a single story about "a great day for Asian athletics."

That is a packaging error.

The two marks in this article are of entirely different tier significance, and bundling them distorts both.

Yan Ziyi's mark, if confirmed, is a global mark. An eighteen-year-old throwing 70 metres in adverse conditions, with a second mark in May near the world record, is the performance tier of a generation. This is the story of a dominance period that could last a decade.

Boonson's mark is a continental mark. It equals the Asian record, but it sits roughly two to three tenths of a second outside the global medal zone. This is the story of a regional ruler, not a global contender.

When a report places these two marks side by side under one headline, it implicitly creates a common frame of reference. And that common frame is always wrong — it either drags Yan Ziyi down, pulls Boonson up, or both.

And here is the second, more important contrarian point.

The original article's greatest weakness is not any single performance. It is the world-record framing.

The article describes Yan Ziyi as "closing in on the world record." But that frame rests on one May mark, and then in the Nagoya final she threw 1.28 metres shorter. For a thrower, over-a-metre variance within a season is normal. But a single May mark followed by a lower championship mark is not a record-chasing trajectory. It is a stable peak.

In other words, the world-record frame is running ahead of the data.

And there is a third contrarian point, methodological in nature. Both of the article's most important marks depend on data gaps. For Boonson, it is the wind reading. For Yan Ziyi, it is the conditions of the May mark. Without either, both marks sit in a pending-verification state. That is why I do not write this piece as a victory report. I write it as an inventory of evidence.

---

Conclusion: the signal of the next cycle

Neither of these marks will be verified by subsequent articles. They will be verified by two measurable data milestones.

In Boonson's case, that is the 2027 milestone. If the 2027 World Championships take place and he reaches the 200 metres final, the positioning "continental ruler with world-final value" is confirmed. If he is outside the final, that positioning is downgraded. At the same time, if he continues to double at championship level in the 2027-2028 period, hamstring and Achilles risk will rise non-linearly, and any soft-tissue problem appearing thereafter should be read as retrospective confirmation of the current load model.

In Yan Ziyi's case, the verification milestone comes far earlier. It arrives as soon as the conditions of the May mark can be retrieved: venue, altitude, wind, implement model. If all those conditions are legal, she becomes an athlete to follow closely for the world-record race in the 2027 cycle. If there was an unusual assisting condition, the record frame collapses, but her continental value still stands.

And there is a third variable, placed at the edge of the story, but potentially the most important in the long run. That is Haruka Kitaguchi. An Olympic champion beaten by 7.76 metres by an eighteen-year-old. If she competed in normal condition, this is a genuine re-ordering. If she is struggling with an undisclosed physical or technical issue, then the conclusion "Yan dominates" narrows to "Yan was the best thrower present that day."

Both readings are credible. I do not yet know which to choose. And in my work, that is not a weakness. It is an honest state.

I worship data, but I pray with real-world verification. And in Nagoya, reality is still waiting for a wind reading, a May condition, and a statement about the condition of an Olympic champion.

Those three numbers will tell me more than any headline this week. They just have not been printed yet.

---

End-of-article data box

So readers can verify for themselves, I list here the variables to retrieve, with the valid source to consult.

For Puripol Boonson: the 200 metres mark, the official wind reading (consult the official World Athletics results page for the Asian Games men's 200 metres final), the 100 metres mark and splits, and the speed splits within the 200 metres (legal condition: wind not exceeding +2.0 metres per second).

For Yan Ziyi: the conditions of the 71.74 metres May mark — venue, altitude, wind, season, javelin model; and confirmation that the 70.46 metres mark was achieved with an approved javelin model.

For Haruka Kitaguchi: her 2026 season marks and any statement from the Japan Association of Athletics Federations about her physical condition.

For every record mentioned: the official ratification file, including measurement conditions, as a basis for cross-checking before any claim is repeated.

A number never lies. It only waits for someone sober enough to listen. And it only waits for someone thorough enough to re-check the measurement conditions before they finish listening.