[Thundermonkey]

Radcliffe's world record scrapped

Does this also mean that any men's world records in mixed races don't count?

It's hard enough finishing a marathon let alone winning one with a world record time. Now you have to hope someone of the opposite sex didn't step foot on the course or your worlld record will become a 'world best' time instead

This post has been edited by Mr X: 30 September 2011 - 08:33

[Cyber_soccer]

Thundermonkey, on 30 September 2011 - 08:23, said:

Radcliffe's world record scrapped

Does this also mean that any men's world records in mixed races don't count?

It's hard enough finishing a marathon let alone winning one with a world record time. Now you have to hope someone of the opposite sex didn't step foot on the course or your worlld record will become a 'world best' time instead

Your links not working TM.

[Mr X]

Cyber_soccer, on 30 September 2011 - 08:33, said:

Your links not working TM.

It is now, I fixed it for him

[Skyline Drifter]

Thundermonkey, on 30 September 2011 - 08:23, said:

Radcliffe's world record scrapped

Does this also mean that any men's world records in mixed races don't count?

It's hard enough finishing a marathon let alone winning one with a world record time. Now you have to hope someone of the opposite sex didn't step foot on the course or your worlld record will become a 'world best' time instead

Now that's hardly what's being said is it? Radcliffe consciously and deliberately used male pacemakers in the previous world record effort and I have to say I agree that shouldn't be allowed. I would agree with the IAAF on this one.

[Mr X]

Skyline Drifter, on 30 September 2011 - 09:01, said:

Now that's hardly what's being said is it? Radcliffe consciously and deliberately used male pacemakers in the previous world record effort and I have to say I agree that shouldn't be allowed. I would agree with the IAAF on this one.

Why should it not be allowed? Every other female racer had the same opportunity to do that, so why is Radcliffes time any less valid because she kept up with some male racers?

She also said that she was confident she would have ran the same time if she'd been on her own that day.

[deky]

Mr X, on 30 September 2011 - 09:07, said:

Why should it not be allowed? Every other female racer had the same opportunity to do that, so why is Radcliffes time any less valid because she kept up with some male racers?

She also said that she was confident she would have ran the same time if she'd been on her own that day.

I'm confident I could do a 26 mile snickers in under 2 hours.

[Skyline Drifter]

Mr X, on 30 September 2011 - 09:07, said:

Why should it not be allowed? Every other female racer had the same opportunity to do that, so why is Radcliffes time any less valid because she kept up with some male racers?

She also said that she was confident she would have ran the same time if she'd been on her own that day.

It's less valid (as a world record anyway) because she used male pacemakers. It's a cornerstone of every female track event and I don't see why the marathon should be any different just because it's outside on a road. It's perfectly clear that using pacemakers is advantageous, if it wasn't they wouldn't employ them. It's not a natural record. Nobody is suggesting she "cheated" in any way or that she wasn't the fastest female, so every other female racer having the same opportunity isn't the point.

The corollary of that is would it be ok for the fastest female sprinters or 1,500m runners to line up alongside males who are a little faster than them and set world records too?

[Mr X]

Skyline Drifter, on 30 September 2011 - 09:28, said:

It's less valid (as a world record anyway) because she used male pacemakers. It's a cornerstone of every female track event and I don't see why the marathon should be any different just because it's outside on a road. It's perfectly clear that using pacemakers is advantageous, if it wasn't they wouldn't employ them. It's not a natural record. Nobody is suggesting she "cheated" in any way or that she wasn't the fastest female, so every other female racer having the same opportunity isn't the point.

The corollary of that is would it be ok for the fastest female sprinters or 1,500m runners to line up alongside males who are a little faster than them and set world records too?

Absolutely, why not? If thats how fast they can run, then what difference does it make who's running alongside them?

[Skyline Drifter]

Mr X, on 30 September 2011 - 10:01, said:

Absolutely, why not? If thats how fast they can run, then what difference does it make who's running alongside them?

Well that's fair enough. I don't really have a problem with the attitude that says all of those should be world records if they are all run to the same basis. I don't think you'd get enormous support for doing so with track events but if the general feeling is that's ok then go for it.

My case is simply that the marathon (and any other road race event, basically the walking ones) should have the same standards as all other female athletic world records. If the track athletes aren't allowed to run alongside men and set records then the marathon runners shouldn't be.

[Thundermonkey]

Paula Radcliffe made no deliberate decision to run with male pace setters. Let's knock that one on the head. No only was it someone else's decision (and one that is made in all elite marathons before and since 2003) she was actively racing these pacesetters (who, it should not be forgotten, were covering a fraction of her distance).

She's been penalised because there was no other female pacesetter fast enough to match her. Paula has famously quit races she had no chance of winning, perhaps had she known that her record would be retrospectivly taken from her 7 years down the line she would have quit that one as well.....

To me it doesn't matter if she ran with male pacesetters or was chased by a pack of cheetahs. She ran 2:15, a world record. It was good enough for the IAAF in 2003 when they ratified the result.

Gabreselassi was paced by 5 runners at the recent Berlin Marathon. In fact, we was shielded from the elements and other runners by his pacesetters. He was multi-paced when he set his world record. Patrick Makau set the new world record in Berlin recently using pacesetters in a mixed Marathon. The decision to strip Radcliffe retrospectivly is frankly disgusting and one that a male runner would never face.

Should the IAAF decide to ban pacesetters will we see them null and void all WR back to say, 1984 (which is the year Women were finally recognised over 26.2 miles )

[T_S_A_R]

Thundermonkey, on 30 September 2011 - 12:39, said:

Gabreselassi was paced by 5 runners at the recent Berlin Marathon. In fact, we was shielded from the elements and other runners by his pacesetters. He was multi-paced when he set his world record. Patrick Makau set the new world record in Berlin recently using pacesetters in a mixed Marathon. The decision to strip Radcliffe retrospectivly is frankly disgusting and one that a male runner would never face.

if a man broke a record using a scooter as a pace setter then should it count?

[Skyline Drifter]

Thundermonkey, on 30 September 2011 - 12:39, said:

Paula Radcliffe made no deliberate decision to run with male pace setters. Let's knock that one on the head. No only was it someone else's decision (and one that is made in all elite marathons before and since 2003) she was actively racing these pacesetters (who, it should not be forgotten, were covering a fraction of her distance).

She's been penalised because there was no other female pacesetter fast enough to match her. Paula has famously quit races she had no chance of winning, perhaps had she known that her record would be retrospectivly taken from her 7 years down the line she would have quit that one as well.....

To me it doesn't matter if she ran with male pacesetters or was chased by a pack of cheetahs. She ran 2:15, a world record. It was good enough for the IAAF in 2003 when they ratified the result.

Gabreselassi was paced by 5 runners at the recent Berlin Marathon. In fact, we was shielded from the elements and other runners by his pacesetters. He was multi-paced when he set his world record. Patrick Makau set the new world record in Berlin recently using pacesetters in a mixed Marathon. The decision to strip Radcliffe retrospectivly is frankly disgusting and one that a male runner would never face.

Should the IAAF decide to ban pacesetters will we see them null and void all WR back to say, 1984 (which is the year Women were finally recognised over 26.2 miles )

Well obviously. Short of using motorbikes or horses!

Don't agree with much else of that though. She certainly did make a deliberate decision to run with pacesetters. I don't doubt if she hadn't wanted them she could have insisted otherwise. She was London's star draw and they'd have done anything she asked.

She's not been penalised because no female can match her (though that is kind of inherent in any world record holder at the end of the day), she's had a record stripped because it was set runing with men, with whom, regardless of how many times it is peddled, she was NOT racing or competing against. It is a separate event. There's a reason why the womens' events are set off early in most of the big races now and it's precisely to avoid controversy such as this.

Let's not forget that she does actually still hold the world record anyway, and the one that has been redefined hasn't been cast from the record books, it's still the World's Best Time. Sooner or later someone will better it in a genuine women's only race and it won't matter.

I don't particularly agree with pacesetters at all to be honest but it's hard to see how exactly you could prevent it happening amongst members of the same sex.

It might perhaps have been fairer not to strip the Radcliffe record but to set in place a rule that any future record has to be set in a women only field. The problem with that is people would reasonably say that they are not competing off an even field with the existing record.

It's not like there's never been previous examples of records being stripped away. When they changed the men's javelin for instance (because the existing one was going to get thrown right out of the stadium and certainly into the track the way things were going) they stripped Zelezny (I think) of the record and it started again with the new balanced javelin. These things happen. Goalposts move.

This post has been edited by Skyline Drifter: 30 September 2011 - 20:06

[Thundermonkey]

T_S_A_R, on 30 September 2011 - 19:06, said:

if a man broke a record using a scooter as a pace setter then should it count?

No problem with it. It's the runner putting in the physical work to get to the finishing line quicker than anyone else. It's no different to the cox in rowing races.

Skyline Drifter, on 30 September 2011 - 19:57, said:

Stuff

Should we prevent female greyhounds and horses racing against males, especially when they use pacesetters and 'rabbits'?

Do we now have to scrap national and county records?

I've been thanked before at the end of 10k races by a women who said they used me as a pacemaker and had a PB. Should I be contacting her somehow to tell her it's scrapped? I've done that myself, should my PB not count because I used a pacesetter or is it OK because I'm male and followed a male runner?

[T_S_A_R]

Thundermonkey, on 01 October 2011 - 07:50, said:

No problem with it. It's the runner putting in the physical work to get to the finishing line quicker than anyone else. It's no different to the cox in rowing races.

i think the problem is if you use a pace maker who isn't part of your race.

a man isn't part of a woman's race the way a bike isn't part of any race. it's not just about the distance it's about the race. if you built a 10,000m straight athletics tracks and ran a world record it definitely wouldn't count.

[kiddy]

I wonder if she'll quit again, when the medals are disappearing down the road, next summer?

[Thundermonkey]

WR stands

[Skyline Drifter]

Skyline Drifter, on 30 September 2011 - 19:57, said:

It might perhaps have been fairer not to strip the Radcliffe record but to set in place a rule that any future record has to be set in a women only field. The problem with that is people would reasonably say that they are not competing off an even field with the existing record.

Thundermonkey, on 10 November 2011 - 12:11, said:

WR stands

Your link doesn't work.

But yes, best solution all round I'd say now, as I suggested in my previous post. I don't agree that women should be able to use male pace-makers (or horses, rabbits, greyhounds, cyclists, or anything else) in any athletic event and the marathon (for elite runners obviously, I'm not suggesting anyone should care in terms of non-professional athletes) should be no different.

However, I would agree retrospectively changing the rules is unfair. Hopefully it will be beaten in the not too distant future by someone under the new qualification terms and the issue will disappear.