YES!
Good choice!
Now if only they would count Boston as WR
But women are not allowed to use male pacers for future WRs, but they are allowed to use them to set NRs, but.....
What a mess.
I am happy they finally decided to let Paula keep the record. However the same rule that has been applied to Paula should be applied to all women. Maybe only Mary Keitany at the moment can run sub 2:17 without male pacers. It is not fair...someone should appeal!
Good for Paula, until Mary takes it away.
Daniel Komen wrote:
I am happy they finally decided to let Paula keep the record. However the same rule that has been applied to Paula should be applied to all women. Maybe only Mary Keitany at the moment can run sub 2:17 without male pacers. It is not fair...someone should appeal!
Yeah I agree. It is totally stupid. I figured this would happen when PR was meeting with the IAAF President.
Now everyone knows, that getting a record approved in a way that is not acceptable for any other woman is not considered to be cheating in her book.
But males can use male pacers. A pacer is a pacer. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.
J.R. wrote:
Daniel Komen wrote:I am happy they finally decided to let Paula keep the record. However the same rule that has been applied to Paula should be applied to all women. Maybe only Mary Keitany at the moment can run sub 2:17 without male pacers. It is not fair...someone should appeal!
Yeah I agree. It is totally stupid. I figured this would happen when PR was meeting with the IAAF President.
Now everyone knows, that getting a record approved in a way that is not acceptable for any other woman is not considered to be cheating in her book.
How did this possible become about Paula's ethics? Of course any athlete would have fought to maintain their own legitimate WR. The travesty here is that IAAF has allowed an aided (albeit legally) record to stand while simultaneously disallowing the same advantage to athletes in the future. Of course, the record SHOULD stand, but the IAAF needs to make up it's own mind. If the pacing is "illegal" then make it illegal for everyone, always. If the pacing is reasonable then make it legal for everyone, always. There shouldn't be special rules carved out just because someone runs for Nike. I think Nike and Paula were right to stand up to the IAAF, but the fight should be to allow pacing in all future events as well.
Bippy wrote:
Good choice!
Now if only they would count Boston as WR
No. Two totally separate issues and Boston should never be a WR eligible course.
But males can use pacers... wrote:
But males can use male pacers. A pacer is a pacer. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.
Males are paced by the lead cars that have the clock.
Well, they were planning on banning artificial altitude at one point too, and Paula kicked and screamed over THAT one too, and yes, she won that battle also, so I am not surprised she won this one.
In my book her record deserves a triple *
2:15:25 * # %
* Male Pacers
# Artificial Altitude Enhanced
% Blood Transfusions (could not be tested for, likely used)
The records were maintained because there is already a precedent for it otherwise Usain Bolt would not be the world record holder in the 100 and 200. Those records were set under a differnet false start rule!
And there are many other examples. The first one that comes to my mind is the men's pole vault. Bubka set that record when the pins that hold the crossbar were 75mm long, now they are 55 mm long...easier for the bar to fall off.
Half the people on this board obviously didn't watch the world record.
No one carried Paula during the record. No one dragged her using a rope.
Don't be afraid that a woman has run a faster marathon than most of the guys on this forum could run.
It's a course record as far as statisticians are concerned. The IAAF favors dopers and drug cheats.
No matter what rule the 2:15:25 world record will go down in two years. Mary will take it and if she can't she will change the way women run, setting the podium for crushing the record by others.
From NYC Marathon outlook, Mary is like Sammy Wanjiru in the women field. She attacked the distance with no fear!
She only need to work on her finishing strength.
The "Good for the goose..." comment is fair. Pacing and aid rules should apply equally.
The difference in males pacing males and males pacing females is that for the males, at some point you have to beat the pacer to set a record. At a bare minimum there should be limited distance that pacers can stay in the race on either side.
OK, here is a hypothetical question. Suppose a female-only race is conducted on a loop course, say 5 equal loops. A WR attempt is made, with female pacers leading for the first half of the race, at which point the first pacers drop out. Then suppose second set of pacers have jogged the early part of the race, only to be caught (lapped) by the leaders, and at the halfway point the second set of pacers take over the pacing role, and lead the WR-attempting women for the rest of the race.
No men involved. Is this legal?
cmyawn wrote:
OK, here is a hypothetical question. Suppose a female-only race is conducted on a loop course, say 5 equal loops. A WR attempt is made, with female pacers leading for the first half of the race, at which point the first pacers drop out. Then suppose second set of pacers have jogged the early part of the race, only to be caught (lapped) by the leaders, and at the halfway point the second set of pacers take over the pacing role, and lead the WR-attempting women for the rest of the race.
No men involved. Is this legal?
No. Pacers can not be lapped to "play the system" like that.
I am pretty sure somebody posted the IAAF rule regarding this on this forum a few years ago, when a very similiar topic arose. All I remember is that I am pretty sure it is illegal.