IAAF decides 'women's-only' marathon records will to count as records Read more: News - IAAF decides 'women's-only' ma

long sox wrote:

That page states that there will be: "separate records".

Which would mean that no one loses their existing record.

You missed an important part of the article:

"According to the second source, the IAAF Road Race Commission proposed separate records for women-only and mixed races; that proposal was rejected.

So yes, records would be lost.

While I understand the intent, the retroactive application of such a rule would be unfair. If you were a Paula or Deena and knew that your race time wasn't going to count, you would have skipped the race and found a women's only event to participate, and still had a smoking fast time based on your supreme fitness at the time.

Reading comprehension wrote:

While I understand the intent, the retroactive application of such a rule would be unfair. If you were a Paula or Deena and knew that your race time wasn't going to count, you would have skipped the race and found a women's only event to participate, and still had a smoking fast time based on your supreme fitness at the time.

Regarding the cases of Paula and Deena, it sounds as though you are unaware of pertinent background information.

In 2003, Paula was aiming for a world record in the London marathon. The race was scheduled to have a women-only start for the elite women, which would highlight Paula's expected performance. Dave Bedford, the race organizer, estimated that Paula could run 60-90 seconds faster with male pacers. Solely for the purposes of aiding Paula's world-record attempt through the use of male pacemakers, and over the protests of Paula's main competitor, Catherine Ndereba, the "women-only" race was converted into a "mixed" race, with the odd twist that the only males permitted in the race were noncompetitive pacemakers for the top women. I have little doubt that Paula had the power to nix the whole pacing arrangement and keep the race for women only, as Catherine wanted, so the suggestion that Paula "would have skipped the race and found a women's only event to participate" in is without support. Two years later, Paula did, in fact, run the London marathon without male pacemakers, setting the world record for a women-only race. There has been considerable confusion and inconsistency over the years about which of Paula's performances -- London 2003 or London 2005 -- should be considered the women's world record. If IAAF has now decided that the 2005 performance should be considered the world record, I have no problem with that, although my preferred rationale would be a forthright recognition that the 2003 performance contravened rules regarding aided performances, not because the race was "mixed." I don't think that the 2003 performance needs to be banished from running history, however, like Ben Johnson's steroid-enhanced world records. I think that it is appropriate to recognize Paula's 2003 performance as perhaps the greatest ever by a woman over the marathon distance, even if it doesn't count as a world record.

Deena also ran her fastest marathon in London with the use of male pacemakers. That was in 2006. I don't know how much say she had in determining whether male pacemakers should be used in that race.

I believe that London has returned to a women-only format for the elite women, which I think is a very good thing, regardless of whether IAAF allows records in "mixed" races or merely winks at the blatant use of male pacers in otherwise all-female races.

As I believe I said in an earlier post, I think it's unfortunate that questionable practices by some race organizers and competitors may have caused IAAF to toss some perfectly legitimate unaided performances by women in "mixed" races. But I can certainly understand the desire to have standards that are relatively clear-cut and easy to enforce.

uh_no wrote:

good.

they used male pacers.....that's like having a guy in a motorcycle pace the guys....if you want a pacer, it has to be someone of your own sex

The men's races have a media vehicle and motorcycle cameras, sometimes bikes, directly in front of them and in many ways pacing them.

Put a clock on a car and keep the speedometer locked on 21kph no one will notice!

Avocado's Number wrote:

But I can certainly understand the desire to have standards that are relatively clear-cut and easy to enforce.

1) Thanks for the clarification about the background of the 2003 London Marathon race.

2) While I agree with you on your quote above, the issue is balancing a 'desire' with fairness. If, at the time the record was set, rules were not broken, to take away the record later would not be just. (The swimming bodysuit example being an exception, which doesn't apply here.)

There is a way to have a win-win situation here. Establish the rules in a clear-cut and easily enforced manner as follows: deliberately allow mixed races and allow pacers of either sex. Rabbits are used in track, as has been pointed out, and I don't see that going away.

So, keep the status quo. It is easy enough to keep track of "women only races" records, just don't call them 'world records'.

this new rule could really hurt woman's distance running. If race directors don't change their format to that of New York, then elite women will be forced to sit out of the major marathons in favor of smaller women only events. The smaller events would bring less publicity for the women and consequently fewer contracts for women runners. I don't see what the big deal is about having women paced by men. Many major marathons have rabbits for the men for much of the race.

short end wrote:

this new rule could really hurt woman's distance running. If race directors don't change their format to that of New York, then elite women will be forced to sit out of the major marathons in favor of smaller women only events.

So why wouldn't race directors change their format?

Can men still have male pacemakers?

IF this is applied retroactively, then it is massively unfair to take away a world record based on a subsequent change in rules. Are all hand timed records now invalid because we don't allow hand timing? etc., etc.

Athletes can only compete based on existing rules, not a clairvoyant knowledge of what rules will be in the future. A WR should be a WR based on the rules in effect at the time and it should remain a WR. If the standards change, create a new category, make it pre- or post- something or whatever, but it's completely unfair to take a WR away based on a subsequent change in the rules.

Martin Offiah wrote:

They surely can't retroactively apply this and wipe old records; the same standard would mean getting rid of all track records before the current, tighter false start rule.

What about Bubka's records? They changed the length(depth) of the polevault-bar holders a few years ago.

Smells like segregation?

I don't see a problem with male pacesetters for women. Make a rule that says male pacesetters can only run to mile X, whatever X may be, and then it is no different than having a female pacesetter.

so they changed the american record...is Paula's world record now invalid too?

Well meaning but poorly conceived rule change - for several reasons. Right now, 'pacers' are allowed for records purposes - pacers = others entered in the race. Also, there is a scarcity of all women's races plus Championship races don't have pacemakers shooting for fast time - thus WR's will always lag behind WB's.

TheShane wrote:

so they changed the american record...is Paula's world record now invalid too?

If the Paul´s record is invalid i congrat the IAAF decision.

Men as pacers in a women run it´s wired, anti ethic of sports, anti fair play, a nonsense. Besides she is the one with that previligee on that London marathon among all female participants. It´s quite unfair.

Does the men might use motocycles as pacers since no human can pace from the start to the finish the marathon WR attempt ?

Of course that paula did an huge performance. it´s out of question. But an unfair illegal performance.

scotth wrote:

Well meaning but poorly conceived rule change - for several reasons. Right now, 'pacers' are allowed for records purposes - pacers = others entered in the race. Also, there is a scarcity of all women's races plus Championship races don't have pacemakers shooting for fast time - thus WR's will always lag behind WB's.

Big deal.

luv2run wrote:

Read it again, Joanie's time at the 84 Olympics, not Boston.

I can't work out if I should respect them for their consistency or deride them for being idiots.

If the course is determined to be short after the fact then you erase the record. If the runner was determined after the fact to have cheated in some way then you erase the record. You *don't* erase the record if the runner performed legally at the time but in a way that is a violation of the rules now. Athletes can not be expected to perform according to the standards of the future.

This is so awesome!

You just wrote that a man pacing a woman is equivalent to a motorcycle pacing a man...

The men's and women's world record marathons are 12 minutes apart. You realize the mph's are pretty close together on that. A motorcycle's top end speed is what, 200-300 mph?

You're an idiot.

wow lots of anal oldies commenting on here. IF A WOMAN RAN A MARATHON IN 2 hrs, 15 MIN...SHE RAN IT IN 2:15. IT DOESN't MATTER HOW!!!