Radcliffe's marathon world record invalidated

Whoa SLA you have gone off the deep end. Women race in tight fitting apparel because they feel faster not because they are trying to get a rise out of you.

Go project your sexual insecurities on the men in half tights.

I think that race was lame. She had a flank of male runners isolating her from the wind. The aerodynamic benefits are unfair. It would be the same if bikers got in front of male runners. The draft alone would drop the time. I think it's a good move personally. When we nit pick over every little detail but craft races designed to produce nothing but fast times, it's anything but fair. How fast could men go if they had a similar advantage? Down with reverse sexism.

Silly Old Fossil wrote:

The trouble is it has gone beyond pacing. Said "pacer" is often used as a glorified personal assistant.

The integrity of women's marathoning increased when they went to that "women go off first" format.

Forcing women to RACE other women.....mano a mano.

You think "mano a mano" means "man to man," don't you hombre?

carrying out the logic wrote:

Now we'll have to erase all of Ed Whitlock's AG WRs also, because he had people younger than him ahead of him in those races.

This is probably the best point made in this thread. What about master's world records? Are they only allowed in "masters only" races? What about world junior records? Those should be tossed out too, since many were set in races with non-juniors, who are demonstrably superior and more fit to run fast.

The whole concept of having multiple "world records" is silly anyway. What does it mean to have the women's world record or the 40-45 world record or high school record?

All it means is you were faster than everyone...except the faster people who were not allowed to enter your race.

But if they are going to have women's world records, it doesn't bother me that they be women's only races. Sounds legit to me. But stupid to decide this now so many years after the fact! It's too late to pass this rule and upset the marathon record books.

anyone who isn't wearing shoes should be disqualified. less weight.

anyone under a certain weight should be disqualified. less weight.

fsdafsdafsad wrote:

You think "mano a mano" means "man to man," don't you hombre?

It means an academic decathlon. One day, ten events, testing all the knowledge one would gain in high school.

Also the IAAF is a pathetic excuse for an organization. Always has been, always will be.

anyone without all their limbs/artificial limbs should be dq'ed: less weight, more return energy.

had to get that in here somewhere. this issue is like the oscar p issue, he shouldnt be allowed to race due to that.

THere is an element of sexism here. Want to hear an outcry? If IAAF were consistent, male times in mixed races would be disallowed for World Record status, i.e, World Records for men must be in men-only races, as well.

Next: the record for a white guy must be in a white-guy-only race, the American record must be in a race without Africans, etc.

One of the worst rulings ever to come down the pike. It borders on criminal.

michael t. smith wrote:

THere is an element of sexism here. Want to hear an outcry? If IAAF were consistent, male times in mixed races would be disallowed for World Record status, i.e, World Records for men must be in men-only races, as well.

Of course you know that's ridiculus because men can run faster than women. Just the way it is. Women are aided by men in a way that men cannot be aided by women, unless the men are sub-elite.

That said, I hate to see the record go; it's one of the all-time best performances of the sport. The IAAF didn't ditch the performances with the old false start rules, so why erase the ones with different pacing rules?

I can see a rule change but don't make it retro.

By the way, shouldn't this effect any race on the roads or the track where pacers are involved.

MOST men can run faster that MOST women. As written this rule would disallow for record purposes the performance of a woman who led a mixed race wire-to-wire, and there are planty of marathons where a 2:15, a 2:17, or a 2:19 could do just that. If pacing is the issue, address that, if you think you can. Almost all elite runners in elite men's races run in packs, in the slipstream of whoever happens to be ahead of them. For that matter, who can name offhand a current men's WR on the track at any distance over 800m that was not made possible by pacers who made no pretense of being in the race for any other purpose?

I second your point about the new false start rule not invalidating marks set under the previous rule.

Again, there have been races where women won the overall competition outright. Should such a performance, run under the same conditions any man would face, be disallowed, should it break a record? Any rule that does not address that possiblity is courting hypocricy.

World record attempts nowadays always include pacemakers! Didn't Lauren Fleshman pace Meserat Defar last year in a 5k world record attempt? Had Defar gotten the record, would she have not been awarded the WR because she had a "pacer"?

A wave of rage washes over me. This is sacrilege.

Will there be a separate start for the elite women in Berlin next week?

Geez, you reflexive opponents of the new rule - particularly those who are crying sexism - are painfully logic challenged. Here, let me spell it out nice and slowly for the children.

1. Men who can't run faster than all women aren't setting any world records, so your point that some women run faster than most men is irrelevant. No-one cares about record standards for subelites.

2. A woman who soloed a world record in a mixed field would indeed deserve the mark, but we all know that isn't likely to happen. You can't just allow times set by women who win the race outright, because then women could hire a team of male pacers, enter some no name race, and have the pacers drop out just before the finish. In the highly unlikely event that such such records are set, they could be ratified on an ad hoc basis.

3. As everyone with half a brain has pointed out, men pacing men is different from men pacing women, because men are more capable than women. A man can't pace another man all the way to a world record, because then he'd be setting it himself. If he can pace almost all the was, he'll be maxing out, not to mention thinking about the win himself. Men pacing women is like cars pacing men.

I've paced female teammates in time trials with a group of other guys. The level of assistance you can offer with a group of guys running well within their ability is completely different from the level of assistance a pacer can offer someone who is faster than him.

Men racing in a pack is also irrelevant, because first, racing against someone is different than being paced by them, and second, in a pack of guys racing anyone who wants to set the record has to beat all the others, while a woman being paced by men does not.

4. You should look up hypocrisy. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

'How fast could men go if they had a similar advantage?'

They do have a similar advantage up to 20 miles or more. Does Rupps AR not count because he was effectively paced?

Part of the problem is on Paula's run they would struggle to have someone go even half way at her pace. If Paula had a pacer to 20 miles would her time be that different, she is as front runner and probably didn't need pacing for the last few miles anyway

All road courses are different anyway so any record should only really be considered a 'world best' Is everyone here going to add 2 mins to all their pr's as they were paced as that's what most of us get every race

At the end of the day everyone still knows the real world best: Paula Radcliffe 2:15.25