Weldon: Perhaps You're Too Close to The Situation

When Tegla Lorupe set her current 1 hour record on the track, 07/08/98 at Borgholzhausen, she was paced from half way by someone she had already lapped..!!! But that got ratified by the IAAF. Seems they are selective not only with their memories but also when they apply their own rules.

If the IAAF still stand by the claim that no women's record will be ratified this year under this arrangement I personally dont think London will go ahead with it.

The only reason I think they are putting male pacers with the women's elits is so that they can continue to get unhindered coverage of both the mens & women's races ( at present the women are due to start 45 minutes before the men ), while seeing how fast Paula ( and anyone else how cares to try )can go. If no record is to be ratified there is little incentive for London to go with this, why bother with the agro when there is no tangible benefit for them at the end....

What about this for a possible solution.

1. Instead of reverting to a mixed race, have the womens elite start only 5 minutes ahead of the mens elite field.

2. If PR and whoever wants to push her, set off at about 5.13 / 5.14 per mile ( approx 2.17.00 time ) they would reach 10 miles in just over 52 minutes.

3. The mens field, having set off 5 minutes after the women, use their pacemakers ( because apparently as long as they have the intention of finishing or may have a chance of winning this is OK ) crank through the miles at about 4.49 / 4.50 pace and reach 10 miles in just over 48 minutes.

4. By this time, the leading men and women would merge at about 11 miles, the men could still have their pacemakers and the women would then be able to run with the rest of the men from the lead group.

5. This would not only enable TV to get coverage of both the mens and womens races seperately for 10 / 11 miles. But als after the lead men had caught the lead women, the mens field would have thinned out suficiantley for easy coverage of both races to continue

Just a thought.....but would something like this suite those who dont want women to have male pacemakers unless they are hidden in the pack in a mixed race under the guise of ''protecting'' them.

oldguy wrote:

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.

I must have missed these reasons that others have already pointed out, would you mind summarizing them for me? It's all the same to me, so I'm having a really hard time figuring out just what is so dramatically more flagrant and egregious about PR's arrangement.

As for PR's image, I don't think anyone will really have a problem with it outside of a small subset of the cult that follows the sport with regularity. The general public, either in the UK or abroad, won't get caught up in the nitty gritty details about what kind of pacing is kosher and what kind isn't. They will read about her and think she's great, they wouldn't give a damn who paced her for part of the way.

MTW wrote:

When Tegla Lorupe set her current 1 hour record on the track, 07/08/98 at Borgholzhausen, she was paced from half way by someone she had already lapped..!!! But that got ratified by the IAAF. Seems they are selective not only with their memories but also when they apply their own rules.

If the IAAF still stand by the claim that no women's record will be ratified this year under this arrangement I personally dont think London will go ahead with it.

The problem seems to be that the IAAF seems to have no stringent, concrete rules regarding marathon or 1-hour records. It seems they simply make up the criteria for what they'll ratify as a record in these kinds of races as they go along. I see no reason for London to buckle before the IAAF, as the general public doesn't give a fig what the IAAF thinks, if they have even heard of the IAAF.

I don't understand the problem.

She'll still run the race right? These pacesetters won't be carrying her on their backs.

Who cares what is happening around her if she's still doing the running?

Grumpy Old Men wrote:

I must have missed these reasons that others have already pointed out, would you mind summarizing them for me?

Actually, I do mind. They have been discussed ad naseam on this and other threads.

I don't approve of the use of pacemakers and windbreaks in races that are set up for "world record" and "world best" attempts. I also recognize, however, that there is a difference between, on the one hand, hiring a guy to stay ahead of Geb for as long as he can in a 10,000-meter race and, on the other hand, hiring a bunch of 2:15 male marathoners to run along at 5:10 a mile (or whatever pace PR wants them to run at) in a "women-only" race so that PR doesn't have to trouble herself with the usual constraints of air resistance. Some seem to think that both arrangements are O.K.; others, like me, disapprove of both. But no intelligent person -- and, although we may have differing views, I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person -- is unable to see differences in the two arrangements, in both degree and kind.

Get rid of the pacers.Make a phalanx of electric trucks with the press on board as wind breaks and have them pace PR through the race.People must realise that appearance is more important than the intent.

oldguy wrote:

there is a difference between, on the one hand, hiring a guy to stay ahead of Geb for as long as he can in a 10,000-meter race and, on the other hand, hiring a bunch of 2:15 male marathoners to run along at 5:10 a mile (or whatever pace PR wants them to run at) in a "women-only" race so that PR doesn't have to trouble herself with the usual constraints of air resistance.

Solution to your *problem* is easy:

either

1. IAAF recognise Women's marathon run as seperate event

or

2. Give Paula what she asked for - not pacers but a mixed race!

But proposed compromise in London is NO WORSE than what goes on in some other races -- the IAAF is LYING when it says pacers would be dedicated to helping PR, they would pace lead women runners WHOEVER they might be so Paula would have to race under same conditions as rest of the women's field.

So if *Queen Catherine* or anyone else wants to go faster than Paula NOTHING is stopping them so quit whining!

Edith

Well, if they were there, I managed to miss them. Until I see them, I don't believe you.

You're a little late to the table then. There was a guy who is probably older than even you right now who set a WR way back in 1954 with the help of pacemakers. It was ok then and it's ok now.

Geb's pacers don't merely "stay ahead of Geb for as long as he can", they actually go for a set pace and stay out there for a predetermined minimum distance. What is the difference, then? I'm looking for something in terms of impact on the outcome. Would you object if it were a phalanx of women doing it for PR instead of men? How about hermaphrodites? Eunichs?

So long as you are consistent, then it shouldn't matter what the sex of PR's pacers are, if you object to the use of pacers, period. Very strange that you would worry about the distinction between the use of same-sex pacers and the use of opposite-sex pacers. The reproductive glands don't alter the job description.

Thanks for the backhanded compliment, I think. Saying that if I'm intelligent then I have to agree with you on this won't cut it. Since you are so intelligent and enlightened, won't you help those of us who disagree and are therefore not intelligent see the folly of our ways? Just explain what difference it makes if PR has women or men doing the job.

Slg Edith wrote:

Solution to your *problem* is easy:

either

1. IAAF recognise Women's marathon run as seperate event

The IAAF and *intelligent* people recognize that men are not *women*.

or

2. Give Paula what she asked for - not pacers but a mixed race!

Why not just give her the record and we'll all just pretend she ran it.

Grumpy Old Men wrote:

Would you object if it were a phalanx of women doing it for PR instead of men? How about hermaphrodites? Eunichs [sic]?

Grumpy,

O.K., I'll tell you what. I won't object to a phalanx of eunuchs. Are you volunteering?

All the best.

--oldguy

don't rock the boat "oldman" do you know how embarressing it is to ask a hermaphrodites what sex they are. Let me me what should I be today M or F or should I just circle both. WHat is the politically correct term for these people confused, bifunctional.

oldguy wrote:

Grumpy Old Men wrote:

Would you object if it were a phalanx of women doing it for PR instead of men? How about hermaphrodites? Eunichs [sic]?

Grumpy,

O.K., I'll tell you what. I won't object to a phalanx of eunuchs. Are you volunteering?

All the best.

--oldguy

Alright, thanks not only for the spelling lesson, but also for the personal flame. It's why this board exists and beats edification any day.

Love ya,

KMOWA

Grumpy,

Somewhere in your characterization of my views as "biases," "prejudices," and "outdated, inconsistent notions" held only by a few "unimportant nobodies," I missed your earnest search for edification.

In any event, it will be interesting to see whether the London organizers will go forward with this arrangement, and how the IAAF will deal with it if they do.

Cheers.

--oldguy

I think the *unimportant nobodies* was a reference to the IAAF ? -- good call, people want to see how fast PR and the other athletes will run in London and care less what the IAAF think about it.

Edith

So, you missed all the ensuing posts? No offense, but you really aren't important enough to warrant proving your lack of objectivity on the matter, though you seem to do a fine enough job of that. Those phrases were only used to characterize the impression your 'argument' left, as well as indicate the true impact of the players who hold that view, and not meant in a specifically personal sense. Not that you dispelled any of that, but it hardly matters. The London organizers will hopefully realize that the IAAF and its objections are insignificant.

Have A Nice Day.

Slg Edith wrote:

I think the *unimportant nobodies* was a reference to the IAAF ? -- good call, people want to see how fast PR and the other athletes will run in London and care less what the IAAF think about it.

Edith

You nailed it, lady.

What needs to happen.

1. Get female pace setters. Why is that so hard?

2. Let the men pacing compete for the women's prize money. They are running the women's race. Let them see if they can beat the women. Pacesetters have won Chicago repeatedly.

3. Paula needs to nut up and tell Cathy et al, "fine, I will run without aid and I will beat your little ass." If her main competition wants it like that Paula should respect it.

4. If a man paces a women (or vice versa) it is a time trial and not a real race. Some traditions make a sport what it is instead of a spectacle. Remember when Jesse Owens was running against horses. We don't need to see that again. It makes a fool of the athletes. Paula's male pacesetters looked like fools in Chicago and will really look like fools in London where the pack can't hide them.

I say throw tomatos at them when they pass. Aim for Paula.

People are not all that interested.

I can tell you within 10 seconds, what Radcliffe's time will be at the London Marathon, before the race even starts.

People are not all that interested.

I can tell you within 10 seconds, what Radcliffe's time will be at the London Marathon, before the race even starts.