Understood. My point though was that the 20m shuttle run does not necessarily give an indication of your fitness level. It only indicates that you can cover 20 m in the time allotted. Does the fact that the long-legged track star (who takes 12 steps to cover 20m)can go further in the shuttle run than the short-legged rugby player (who takes 17 steps, thus expending more energy), mean that the long-legged track star is more physically fit than the short-legged rugby player? Some folks are disadvantaged by the 20 m shuttle run simply because regardless of fitness level, they simply can't run any faster.
If you don't have the capacity (VO2 max) to run it within the time allotted then it doesn't matter how tall or short you are. I have seen my share of tall legged folks do horrible at the 20 MSR and vice versa for short folks. If one is a long legged track star then yes they are going to do better than the short rugby player. I fall into the latter category and don't feel slighted that I can't run as fast as someone genetically different than me.
Just as folks were disadvantaged by the 1.5 for the same reason. The difference with the shuttle run is that it controls how fast (or slow) one is going. If it weren't timed, I could see a lot of people possibly getting to higher levels by going faster at the beginning and slower at the end.
The real gripe is the turning. 
True dat. I was working with a co-worker who was having difficulty with the run and he was basically taking to long to turn around. Worked on the mechanics of actually turning and lo and behold he passed his next attempt.
