Weldon: Perhaps You're Too Close to The Situation

They formed a phalanx around Radcliffe and shoved Ndereba out in the cold to run by herself.

But gee that seems to be "okay" with the brotha's and Radcliffe.

If she's good enough to run a WR then let her do it.

The only reason for having a group around her is to cheat.

dunes runner wrote:

just the facts wrote:

Are the pacesetters for Paula or for the women's leader? If an unknown takes the lead, will the pacesetters abandon Paula and go with the other woman?

They are there to make sure no other woman will win -- just as they did at Chicago.

Please. At Chicago we were escorts for the women's race not for Paula Radcliffe. Naturally the focus was on the leader of the race, but at mile 13 we sent an escort back to Ndereba and she rejoined Radcliffe by mile 16. Deena Drossin also had a male escort with her.

I just don't think having male escorts should diminish Paula's reputation because she had them in Chicago as well. The only way I could see her reputation diminushed if you really had a philosphical problem with pacers versus escorts.

Having said that, I understand how people can say there shouldn't be male pacers in a women's race. If this is the IAAFs stance however they should be consistent and not recognize mixed race world records.

However, our objection on the front page was to the IAAF secretary saying Paula Radcliffe's reputation would be diminished. We just don't see how. If people disagree with male pacers I think they would think less of the London marathon not paula radcliffe for just wanting to run as fast as she can which is what she did in Chicago.

wejo wrote:

However, our objection on the front page was to the IAAF secretary saying Paula Radcliffe's reputation would be diminished. We just don't see how. If people disagree with male pacers I think they would think less of the London marathon not paula radcliffe for just wanting to run as fast as she can which is what she did in Chicago.

Paula could make this issue go away by telling the organizers that she doesn't want male pacers in the women's race.

Regarding the distinction between "escorts" and "pacers," there is a huge difference between, on the one hand, having people around to protect a runner from spectators and other runners and, on the other hand, having people (or other aids) in front of a runner to reduce air resistance, provide a reliable pacing mechanism, and permit the runner to achieve a time that is faster than she can achieve on her own. I have little doubt that the Berlin organizers use the latter, although they may deny it winkingly. I don't know how things were set up in Chicago, so I can't comment intelligently on whether there were merely "escorts" or, as in Berlin, "pacers" and human windbreaks for Paula there.

As for the implicit argument that other runners and races use variations on the "pacer" model, it is a credit to Paula that some of us expected her to adhere to, and perhaps even demand, a higher standard.

Dunes runner, please bust out the tape again, figure out you are wrong, and go away. They "shoved" Ndereba out of the way? Please explain. From what I have seen in the four times I've watched the race, Ndereba never seemed to have an interest in running stride-for-stride with PR. She and the other female runners never even made an attempt to race PR -- she always stayed back for whatever reason. Whether it was to set her pace and hope PR faltered or what, but to say some sort of fix was on -- or that the pacers were told to make sure a certain runner won -- totally detracts from Paula's run that day. Ndereba didn't have it -- because if she did she would have been mixing it up with PR instead of sitting back and hoping that she would give in.

That is nicely put.

Significantly, Ndereba made NO complaint about PR's WR in Chicago being a *fix* because Ndereba was paced herself just as she was when she scored WR year before!

But then everything *dunerunner* throws is meant to detract from PR's running, that is what he does. Sick loser.

Edith

just the facts wrote:

Are the pacesetters for Paula or for the women's leader? If an unknown takes the lead, will the pacesetters abandon Paula and go with the other woman? If PR drops, will the pacesetters? These are serious questions to which I don't know the answer. I have an opinion concerning men pacing women, but I prefer to stick to the facts and not babble what I 'think'.

Answer: pacers in London women's marathon would NOT be dedicated to Radcliffe but to the leading women athletes (plural) WHOEVER they might be so PR will have to race SAME as the rest of the women elite. If there is another way of winning new world record except by running the fastest then somebody please let me know so I can collect huge pay cheque.

Thanks

Edith

I'm not quite up-to-date on this but after reading all the posts I have 1 question. Who will tell the 'pacers/escorts' what pace to run? Whomever does then it will seem to be their race. And what happens if that racer cannot hold the pace and fades? If at half way the lead runner fades and is caught or drops out how will the pacers job description change? It is not the same as a paced mens race because the male pacer cannot win the females race. This will be very interesting to watch.

The controversy stands because

In all the other marathon World Record races the races were

a.) mixed races or the women started before the men

b.) the male pacesetters were eligible for prize money and placing

c.) the MAJORITY of the pacesetter went on to finish the races

d.) did not include males starting (with no intent to finish) with females in a seperate elite female field.

the biggest problem lays with b and c and that may be the very reason IAAF don't ratify any Record run at London 2003!

Vipam

Yes, and having competitors also leads to faster times than what someone could run on their own, so let's make it ALL solo time trials, fastest time wins.

Or just a credit to your own biases and prejudices and outdated, inconsistent notions.

So, why would any of that be a problem? What's exactly wrong with pacesetters not being able or having the intent to finish the race? What's exactly wrong with them being ineligible for prize money and placing? Some real reasons, not just something like "well, it's never been done before". P.S. Any record run at London isn't subject to IAAF ratification.

Vipam wrote:

The controversy stands because

In all the other marathon World Record races the races were

a.) mixed races or the women started before the men

b.) the male pacesetters were eligible for prize money and placing

c.) the MAJORITY of the pacesetter went on to finish the races

d.) did not include males starting (with no intent to finish) with females in a seperate elite female field.

the biggest problem lays with b and c and that may be the very reason IAAF don't ratify any Record run at London 2003!

Vipam

Grumpy Old Men wrote:

Or just a credit to your own biases and prejudices and outdated, inconsistent notions.

Perhaps, although I doubt that you have any substantial basis for characterizing my notions as "inconsistent."

In any event, my point in this thread is that, putting aside the dispute over what race conditions should disqualify a performance from quasi-official "recognition" as a "world best," the IAAF official makes a legitimate observation that this course of action could harm Paula's reputation, at least among some of us (including me). One might reasonably respond that Paula's larger fan base, especially in Great Britain, probably doesn't care about disputes over pacers, windbreaks, and other performance aids, so she shouldn't either. (After all, Roger Bannister's first four-minute mile was aided by pacers, but people still think of him, not John Landy or someone else, as history's first.) I guess we'll just have to see.

Vipam wrote:

The controversy stands because

In all the other marathon World Record races the races were

a.) mixed races or the women started before the men

b.) the male pacesetters were eligible for prize money and placing

c.) the MAJORITY of the pacesetter went on to finish the races

d.) did not include males starting (with no intent to finish) with females in a seperate elite female field.

the biggest problem lays with b and c and that may be the very reason IAAF don't ratify any Record run at London 2003!

Vipam

Cut the crap -- IAAF hypocrites don't recognise women's marathon WITH or WITHOUT pacers, that's why they don't want PR or any woman winning new world record in London...

Edith

wejo wrote:

I just don't think having male escorts should diminish Paula's reputation because she had them in Chicago as well.

Right. It would be hard to tarnish her reputation any more.

Heck just tie a rope around her and Bedford can drag her around the course.

But that damned IAAF probably wouldn't approve that either.

[quote]dunes runner wrote:

It would be hard to tarnish her reputation any more.

quote]

Yeah, that's why they pay Radcliffe any money she wants to show up cos the crowd just hate to see her -- remind us who won the 10K road race with new world record in Puerto, we want to know why it wasn't fair...

Edith

I think the Paula Plan may already have started to open up whole can of worms.

Here's something you may have missed in the UK this weekend.

"Continuing the most amazing winter of her career, Hayley TULLETT prepared for the 3000m at the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Birmingham on 14-16 March by running the second-fastest 800m of her life at the UK Athletics Indoor Meeting at SportCity, Manchester, on Saturday 8 March. And she did so with a little help from her friends.

She was paced to victory in the Women?s 800m in 2:01.81 ? within 0.56sec of her lifetime best ? by Commonwealth Games Men?s 1500m Champion Michael EAST . Meeting officials were not so sure about the plan, until UK Athletics Performance Director Max JONES pointed out a primary purpose of this meeting was to enable members of the Norwich Union Great Britain and Northern Ireland Team to prepare for the World Indoor Championships ? and added that it would be merely similar to the help Paula RADCLIFFE received on her way to running the World Women?s Marathon best in Chicago last year.

The race enabled Tullett to sharpen her pace before she tackles the best in the World over 3000m indoors ? and then takes her place in the Norwich Union Great Britain & Northern Ireland Team for the 4km race at the IAAF World Cross Country Championships in Lausanne, Switzerland, a fortnight later. She earned automatic selection by finishing fifth in the Senior Women?s race at the European Cross Country Championships in December.

East ? like Tullett, coached by former steeplechase ace Mark ROWLAND ? had earlier won the Men?s 800m in 1:49.28, sprinting home less than half a second ahead of James THIE, who will be his 1500m team-mate at the World Indoor Championships.

I LOVE PAULA, BUT I THINK THE MALE PACEMAKER THING IS A BAD IDEA ALL ROUND...

I know this sounds simplistic but it's the way I see it, Pacers or not, all the women had the same chance to go with PR at Chicago and couldn't and that same chance will exist at London. How does it hurt her rep. I call her tough because she ran 2:17, I don't care if she had a freaking armed escort she ran 2:17, those behind her could have latched on and ran that fast too but they didn't. She is tough because she ran from pt. a to pt. b in a certain time.

Weldon: Clearly Paula is on some kind of stimulant. You know it and everybody knows it but don't want o talk about it. Just like R. Jacobs. Watch Paula drop out of the olimpic picture. CHEATERS!

You seem to understand what it was that I was getting at. So, you have the same problem with Bannister, El G, Khannouchi, Geb, Komen, Meb, Kennedy, etc ad nauseam that you do with PR and view them all in the same light? If you are consistent, then you would, because what PR is doing really is no different from what the men have been doing for YEARS AND YEARS. If her reputation ends up being harmed enough that in years to come she's mentioned in the same breath as KK or Geb, I'm sure she could live with that, despite what a few unimportant nobodies, including an IAAF official no one cares about, may think.

Grumpy Old Men wrote:

You seem to understand what it was that I was getting at. So, you have the same problem with Bannister, El G, Khannouchi, Geb, Komen, Meb, Kennedy, etc ad nauseam that you do with PR and view them all in the same light? If you are consistent, then you would, because what PR is doing really is no different from what the men have been doing for YEARS AND YEARS. If her reputation ends up being harmed enough that in years to come she's mentioned in the same breath as KK or Geb, I'm sure she could live with that, despite what a few unimportant nobodies, including an IAAF official no one cares about, may think.

Grumpy,

Don't confuse intellectual consistency with the inability to make distinctions and draw lines. There are lots of different ways to use hired pacemakers and human windbreaks to inflate performance, and while I may disapprove of all of them, I also recognize that some arrangements are more egregious than others. For reasons that others have already pointed out, the arrangement that London is offering to Paula (and, in theory, to other women in the race) appears to be more egregious, and certainly more flagrant, than most.

As I have acknowledged, however, Paula's complicity in this arrangement may have little effect on her popular image, particularly in Great Britain, where her sainthood seems assured.