Should Pace Makers be allowed?

truth is, with rabbits the meet directors can promote record attempts. This draws revenue. Rabbits aren't going anywhere.

I hate rabbitted races and would banish them in a second. Let the records stand as they are and if the records really matter start a new era with its own records.

Yeah, that'll work.

I'd just dump the pacemakers and leave the records as they are now. Really, what do the records mean? Many if not most of us doubt whether the records are legitimate anyway.

Go back to racing and letting records be the by-product of races.

HRE wrote:

I'd just dump the pacemakers and leave the records as they are now. Really, what do the records mean? Many if not most of us doubt whether the records are legitimate anyway.

Go back to racing and letting records be the by-product of races.

Considering the most famous event in running was a rabbitted race, I think the practice is going nowhere. (The event was the first sub 4 mile).

Old Runner wrote:

What do you think, should a rabbit be allowed under certain circumstances? If we went to having no rabbits, or limited their influence, what should we do with current world records? Should we put an asterisk by them and tout the new records as the ones to beat?

No, no rabbits any time, anywhere, for any reason.

We're stuck w/the records on the books. Moot point to ask what to do.

Well, at least Bannister's pacers finished the race when he ran the first sub-4. No, they didn't run fast, but when he previously tried to break it, one pacer dropped out and Brasher took up the pacing on Bannister's 3rd lap after he had jogged his own first lap.

So, while you are correct that the first sub-4 mile was paced, it is not like today's affairs.

I think there is room for both types of races. Obviously, to run very fast times, you have to be talented, focused, and very well-trained. In order to win important races, you need to be talented, focused, and very well-trained. The problem is I think too many meets are employing pacers these days. There are very few unpaced races outside of championship events. Kudos to Boston Marathon for not having them.

Those of you who are against rabbits are obviously not fast enough to need them.

I think they would be fine if used sparingly and primarily for world record attempts. But watching guys like Lagat, Kipchoge, and Shaheen follow rabbits running 61 second laps in a 3k is not remotely entertaining. Come on! They weren't even running 5k world record pace!

Sammy W. proved in Beijing that rabbits are not necessary for spectacular performances. Is he the exception? Who knows? Rabbits make it less entertaining for me. Granted, plenty of folks would argue that pulling the rabbits and watching a 13:30 5k with 51 second closers is also not very entertaining.

I don't think there is enough money involved to guarantee fast times by pulling the rabbits and offering time bonuses. How much would time bonus cash would have to be on the line for Lagat to push the pace instead of waiting to kick for the win? If there was enough prize money, they could even offer bonuses to leaders at intermediate stages of distance races.

some pretty good ideas on ways to reduces pacers but keep fast times. I'm not against pacers, and I think there's no way a WR in 800 or longer ever falls without pacer(s) any more. Time bonuses would be cool to see, though, so that the racers who intend to finish will push.

The most exciting race I've ever seen is probably the 2003 WC 5000m where Bekele, ElG, Kipchoge, and others just kill each other on the way to 12:52 was "holy shit!" exciting. No pacers, different tactics, great racing, FAST time.

I know that two or three years ago one of the Golden League meets (Zurich maybe?) decided to have distance races without rabbits and all that happened was a ton of slow 5ks and 1500s. The next year the rabbits were back.

The key is to have a fast pace and competition, but unfortunately they are often, but not always, mutually exclusive.

NO.

people with pace makers should not run competitively.

yeah and have another 4:22i win at the Big Ten--fun last 1:54 last half, but come on. this sort of 'racing' will never develop competitive world class runners. US runners have to learn how to compete while running blazing fast.

Now you did it wrote:

truth is, with rabbits the meet directors can promote record attempts. This draws revenue. Rabbits aren't going anywhere.

I don't have a problem with rabbits. I would though like to see a rule that says a rabbit can't just decide to finish the race as if he's an entered contestant -- seems an unfair advantage for a guy if he busts out to agree-upon splits and no one goes with him -- he then decides he can die and still perhaps win. I don't like that. Any rabbit who doesn't bow out when they're supposed to should never get the opportunity again.

I was watching the Pre coverage last weekend and during one of the races, maybe the mens 5k, my wife commented that the guys were so far behind the leader, you could not see the leader. I told her that he was a pacer and had stepped off the track on the backstretch.

Funny that track does not have a bigger following? Not really.

And it definitely is not suited for TV. They cut to the shot put, show one throw and say 'and that throw wins the gold.' and that's it...

Flagpole wrote:

I would though like to see a rule that says a rabbit can't just decide to finish the race as if he's an entered contestant . . .

According to USATF rules (and I assume IAAF) pacers must be legal entrants to the race. With that in mind, why would you want to ban someone from winning the race if they run hard from the gun? That's kind of the point of racing.

A female friend from grad school who never ran track left a note on my facebook (ooooooh an old guy with facebook...how scandalous) about the Pre meet. She watched some of it, and then sent me the following question. "What is with the pace-makers? I thought the point of a race was to race each other and see who's the best?" Very well stated for someone who does not run.

There should be no rabbits, period. Do they have rabbits in swimming? Do they even talk about it?

Races without rabbits are slow? Tough. These guys and gals can't run fast on their own? Learn how.

Surely there needs to be a balance!

I remember in the late 70's/early 80's, the likes of Ovett & Coe might have a go at a WR 2 or 3 times a year, but most of the races (albeit on a more limited circuit) in a season were proper tactical affairs. Sometimes this would end up in quite predictable "home straight kicks" in slow times, but there was some variety in the sport and it was more exciting.

Fast forward 20 years and it seems like every 800, 1500 and 5k run in Europe in the big meets have not just one, but sometimes a whole host of pace makers; who have become extremely good in giving just the right pace. It's as if it's become an essential component. What makes it ridiculous is that half the time none of the other athletes are wanting to go with the pace, so the whole exercise is rendered pointless!

Another point is that perhaps this call for "banning" pace makers originates from a desire to stem the tide of the overwhelming dominance of African athletes in middle and distance events. Would they want to see the practise curtailed? I doubt it, as they know they have far more chance in winning if the pace is fast from the outset. Getting rid of "rabbits" will result in slower and more tactical affairs, which will definitely level the playing field for European & American athletes, resulting in more wins for them and the possibility of more youngsters from these parts joining in and believing they too could succeed in such a pursuit.

As much as I believe "banning" pacemaking would lead to a resurgence in western athletes' success, I do not think it would be the best thing for the sport and maybe almost impossible to enforce.

Apart from being about competition, isn't the core of athletics, how the individual should be encouraged to explore the limits of their own talent and ability? This would not be possible if pacemaking were banned, as athletes would be encouraged to hold back and run below their full potential.

Moreover, if you have 5 or 6 Kenyan sub 27:10 men in a race, and they all go to the front and run as a team (perhaps say in an Olympic final), who and how does one discern that they are pacing each other, when the legitimate claim can be made that this is how he/they run in order to win the race!?

I think the best solution is a "middle path" where promoters are encouraged not to use pace makers so frequently, and have perhaps a set number of races spread out over the year where athletes and promoters alike know in advance that "rabbits" will be present. One year let Oslo, Zurich and Rome have them, the next Stockholm, Brussels and Rieti.