• Puke you need to log into the New york times website to see whatever it is. Fancy copying and pasteing?
  • Really? It comes up for me. It's an IAAF ruling that womens road running records can only be set in women only races. S0, Paula Radcliffe's 3rd fastest marathon time set at London in 2005 is now the world record. Her two faster times set in London 2003 and Chicago 2002 are now "world bests"

    Lizzie Hawker broke the world 24 hr race record on Saturday at the Commonwealth Champs in Llandudno running 247k, she beat the nearest bloke by nearly 3k. What happens to that?

  • image That's mindblowing, Ladies out there do you think men hold you up at races more than women enough to justify the ruling? To me it sounds a little daft?
  • Ridiculous, particularly since if the women want pacemakers they (the pacemakers) have to be men.

  • There's another discussion here:

    The argument is not of hindrance, but that a female marathon runner could get one or more males to pace her all the way to a world record since plenty of men are capable of running around 2:15.

    To get the men's world record, as we saw on Sunday, you have to run a fair amount of the race on your own without help from pacemakers.

  • Interesting through but I can remember watching quite a few marathons in my time where men where paced by more than one pacer. It sounds a little silly to me?
  • Yes, they are routinely, on Sunday, Makau and Haile had about four or five surrounding them.

    The one thing you can guarantee in the men's race though is that those pacemakers have to drop out before the end otherwise Makau wouldn't have run a WR. 

  • I thought all road times were classified as world bests as no courses are the same - so nothing really new here at all - I remember the same discussions when she ran 2:15  at least when Steve Jones set his marathon record in 1984 in was in a true race, breaking away from the pack in the last 6 miles -
  • As of the 1st Jan 2004 the IAAF started ratifying road races as world records too.
  • Its ridiculous and there was an interesting piece in The Guardian about women marathon runners:

    And if you believe in conspiracy theories then think of the shambles that was the Berlin marathon coverage where they cocked the bikes up and had no coverge of the women's marathon.

    Not like the Germans to make a stupid mistake so it must all be a big consiparacy to keep women runners off the tele (please tell me you know I am joking.)

  • Lol GTC image

    It's a ridiculous ruling...I don't care whether Paula was paced by a man, a woman or a giant panda on a skateboard, she ran the fastest time ever by a woman, no one ran it for her!

    Doesn't matter whether you're paced or not, you've still got to run the bliddy thing.

  • I was going to link to that article GTC, I think it's a good one. I thought it looked a bit crazy conspiracy theory at first but I don't think it's that ludicrous having read it. Intentional or not, they've set up a system where men will always have a better chance of posting a WR. Imagine if next year a woman at Berlin does go sub 2.15 somehow, how do you explain to someone why that isn't a WR?

    My view is that WR should be a level playing field for whoever is eligible for them, a WR running a WR with male pacemakers is only actually gaining an advantage over another woman - who is then perfectly welcome to engage a male pacemaker in her next race. I'm very unsympathetic to arguments that it's not fair for women to have a relative advantage over men re the ease or otherwise of breaking the WR. 

    Can anyone point me to the actual wording of the IAAF ruling btw? 

Sign In or Register to comment.