It looks like nobody has been competing in lying so far. Strange, for lying, though it's hard to believe, needs an effort and force, too. Lying is a synonym of lack of effort. Lying is effortless. We lie to avoid effort. Well, we also sit after an effort, just to rest. However keeping the body is any position, no matter horizontal, vertical, diagonal, straight, curved or polygonal, always demands some effort, even a minimal one. How about tossing and turning? More, lying in a position comfortable in the beginning, can be hardly bearable in the end. And bearing anything is always related to some effort… Of course, it would be difficult to indicate who was lying the fastest, much more difficult than it is in the case of sitting and standing, though absolutely fascinating – just to define the speed of lying can be a real challenge, taking into account the simple fact that here fastest does not mean shortest (the fewest amount of seconds or minutes) like in the running. In the lying a distance is not a space, but a time, so the following bizarre question should be asked: who lay the fastest the distance of twenty minutes? . . . . . Another question has appeared: a speed, what is it? Because it's not only a distance covered per unit of time. Not only. In this very case it's a time covered per unit of... It would be much easier to indicate who was lying the longest – however here longest would be the counterpart of furthest in the running. Or: who was lying the longest? would mean the same as: who ran the longest distance? who reached the furthest point running? …… Of course, we should not confuse crawling with lying. Crawling is to move forward or backward in a lying position, while lying is just lying, an action that does not consist in relocating oneself (unless we relocate in a dream, but this is something absolutely different, though it could be a matter of competition). We should reject also rolling, which not necessarily must occur in a lying position . . . . . With no doubt supporting would be difficult, if possible at all, especially when the competitors should lie motionlessly – the lying in motion would be a bit less boring, but only a bit. Certainly, a lot would depend on what the competitors would be lying on (as well as under what, however not that much) – here the imagination seems to have no limits.

Laying down is a different kettle of fish. Yes, absolutely. Laying is not lying. No doubt about it. For example: to lay down in right order on a few dozens of numbered coaches scattered chaotically. Or: to lay down on the ground a hundred times (to lay, not to fall like a log!) - normally, supine…

AND SO ON. And so on. And so on. And so on . . . . .

The opinion that the lying does not contain an element of competing is wrong. It has been well known for very long that there are two kinds of competing: against the others and against oneself. Even if it is hard to notice the first one in the lying, the other one can be seen (and experienced) easily, and its level can be higher than in many other sport disciplines. Paradoxically, for the majority of the overfence and overscreen competitors the essence of competing will not consist in just lying, but in not-getting-up….

Nevertheless, trying to follow the Olympic motto faster higher stronger we choose without any hesitation faster. It must be emphasized that in the case of this discipline faster means slower – which doesn't solve the problem of the speed of lying. Yet we count on faster. We love preposterous absurd abstraction, don't we?