• Danny F.
      • Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/17/2014 9:31PM
      • Danny F.
      • http://espn.go.com/sports/endu...erlin-race

        The front page has this link and a blurb comment regarding male pacers. I was under the impression now that IAAF says no mixed races for women's record purposes is the reason all the majors are sending the girls down the road 15-30 minutes ahead of the guys. I'm with the brothers on this one. Odd that they would set up a (race/time trial) this way. Odd that IAAF will allow it?

        Thoughts? Opinions?
    • honestly...
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/17/2014 9:34PM - in reply to Danny F.
      • honestly...
      • I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.
    • Sir Hanlon
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/17/2014 9:37PM - in reply to Danny F.
      • Sir Hanlon
      • The USATF will allow it as a national record. Look it up yourself in the USATF competition rules.

        The IAAF wouldn't consider it a world record but who cares? She ain't running a WR.
    • Sir Hanlon
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/17/2014 9:38PM - in reply to honestly...
      • Sir Hanlon
      • honestly... wrote:
        I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.
        Exactly
    • agc5k
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/17/2014 9:47PM - in reply to Danny F.
      • agc5k
      • It's gonna be fun to see her go for the American Record. I'm rooting for her, but I don't expect a record. I'm thinking 2:20-2:22 depending how she feels. 2:24 if weather is bad or she has a really bad day.
    • messi
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/17/2014 9:55PM - in reply to Sir Hanlon
      • messi
      • Sir Hanlon wrote:
        honestly... wrote:
        I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.
        Exactly
        No. It was so the elite women would actually have to race each other. Rather than have their male domestique pacing & fetching water for them.
    • Sir Hanlon
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/17/2014 10:12PM - in reply to messi
      • Sir Hanlon
      • messi wrote:
        Sir Hanlon wrote:
        honestly... wrote:
        I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.
        Exactly
        No. It was so the elite women would actually have to race each other. Rather than have their male domestique pacing & fetching water for them.
        Same thing. What you described is a reason it's better for spectators.
    • Area code xy
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 8:07AM - in reply to Sir Hanlon
      • Area code xy
      • Sir Hanlon wrote:
        The USATF will allow it as a national record. Look it up yourself in the USATF competition rules.

        The IAAF wouldn't consider it a world record but who cares? She ain't running a WR.
        So no IAAF Area Record either, if Shalane were to beat Deana's time.
    • uphill run
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 10:24AM - in reply to Area code xy
      • uphill run
      • Area code xy wrote:
        So no IAAF Area Record either, if Shalane were to beat Deana's time.
        Who cares about Area Records? USATF will consider it a record, as will TFN, so it'll be in all of the record books that really count and fans will consider it the AR, too.
    • wejo
      co-founder
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 10:31AM - in reply to uphill run
      • wejo
        co-founder
      • So is Paula's 2:15:25 no longer the IAAF world record?

        The cat is already out of the bag. We can have the fastest time by an American woman (the American record) and also the fastest time by women in all women's races.
    • whatthewhatthewhat
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 10:32AM - in reply to honestly...
      • whatthewhatthewhat
      • honestly... wrote:
        I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.
        I'm confused, how are the women going first not as exciting for the spectators? Every time I go to the NYC Marathon people are going crazy over the first women and then again for the first men. It's like watching two different exciting
        races right after the other.
    • Trying to Helper
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 10:35AM - in reply to whatthewhatthewhat
      • Trying to Helper
      • whatthewhatthewhat wrote:
        honestly... wrote:
        I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.
        I'm confused, how are the women going first not as exciting for the spectators? Every time I go to the NYC Marathon people are going crazy over the first women and then again for the first men. It's like watching two different exciting
        races right after the other.
        You two are in agreement. He meant that the 1st woman being 80th place isn't as exciting.

        He is saying that they do it that way so that there are two races to be watched. If the 1st woman is embedded deep in the race, it isn't as exciting and climactic, so they have them start before the men so there are two distinct races.
    • have hope
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 4:36PM - in reply to Sir Hanlon
      • have hope
      • Sir Hanlon wrote:
        The USATF will allow it as a national record. Look it up yourself in the USATF competition rules.

        The IAAF wouldn't consider it a world record but who cares? She ain't running a WR.
        Sir, you are dead-on right about several things.
        1. She ain't breaking 2:16 and neither is anybody else so WR rules are a moot point.
        2. If she does go under the AR it only has to count to her, her fans, and her sponsors (Nike may actually care whether or not USATF recognizes it)
        3. As to #2 above, it will but she won't. 2:20 high is realistic. 2:20 low would be great and I'm rooting for her.
        4. The separate start does make watching more fun, and no marathons did/do this that aren't on TV. (Shorter races - Carlsbad, Boulder Boulder, etc - do run separately)
        5. Whether or not she brings an 'official' pacer or domestique, being surrounded may make things psychologically easier - again, even if they're all strangers. Of course, your employee fetching drinks, plowing other folks out of the way and breaking wind really does make it physically easier.
        6. As to #5, Paula had none of the advantages of an actual employee helping in any way nor of being in a crowd and whatever mental stress that removes.
    • Netwerk Errer
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 5:56PM - in reply to wejo
      • Netwerk Errer
      • wejo wrote:
        So is Paula's 2:15:25 no longer the IAAF world record?

        The cat is already out of the bag. We can have the fastest time by an American woman (the American record) and also the fastest time by women in all women's races.
        She is. The IAAF split the WR categories into two. The mixed race wr and all women wr. Paula holds both records, her 2.17:25 is the fastest all women wr and the 2.15 is the mixed race wr.
    • Jimmie
      • RE: Flanagan's record(?) attempt 9/18/2014 7:54PM - in reply to Danny F.
      • Jimmie
      • Shalane will be kicking herself when she runs 2:14 with male pacers and all she gets is the "mixed race World Record".
        The red-headed step child of world records if there ever was one.
    • Straw M Thoroughman