Home› General running
Sign up to the Runner’s World newsletter to get the latest news, reviews and features sent straight to your inbox.

Radcliff retains her WR

[Deleted User][Deleted User] ✭✭✭
in General running
Radcliffe* sorry typo'd the thread title. * embarrassed*

Its good that they gave her the WR back, but the rule is still in place and i dont agree with it at all, why can men draft, but not women? you still have to physically run it at that speed, give me pacemakers all day long and i'm still not gonna go faster than my body allows.

thoughts?

http://www.athleticsweekly.com/news/radcliffe-to-keep-record-but-new-pacemaking-rule-will-stand/
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    The point is that men can't draft for the entire race (not that Paula did draft) whereas women can with men in the race. I agree with the new rule, but not with applying it retrospectively - especially as the IAAF haven't done that for previous rule changes.

    Either way glad Paula's got her record back.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • David Jones 39David Jones 39
    Good decision. Paula's marathon record is so superior to any other marathon run by a woman that it would have been a travesty if it was no longer recognised as the world record.

    The rule change going forward means it is even more likely that it will remain the record for a long, long time to come.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • John Pollock 3John Pollock 3
    I also thought the decision had been very unfair-retrospective legislation is regarded as bad law and in the athletics context would have set a very poor precedent - what next, records set with the aid of Garmins?!
    If ever an athlete deserves a time to stand in history it is Paula.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] ✭✭✭
    Good decision.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Helenmat26Helenmat26 ✭✭✭

    Nice one!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • knight riderknight rider ✭✭✭
    THey've made themselves (IAAF) look stupid saying one thing then changing their minds. Surely they should have known what reaction it would generate, or maybe they didn't.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Beware Of The FishBeware Of The Fish ✭✭✭
    Marc Stokes wrote (see)
    Radcliffe* sorry typo'd the thread title. * embarrassed* Its good that they gave her the WR back, but the rule is still in place and i dont agree with it at all, why can men draft, but not women? you still have to physically run it at that speed, give me pacemakers all day long and i'm still not gonna go faster than my body allows. thoughts? http://www.athleticsweekly.com/news/radcliffe-to-keep-record-but-new-pacemaking-rule-will-stand/
    Let's say you go into a race wanting to break 40 mins for a 10k: which is easier - being paced round by someone easily capable of running under 40 minutes or running with a group of people who are slightly slower than you? Organisers could hire any number of Kenyan men capable of running just ahead of the women's record, but that's not something they can do for the men. I've always thought the organisers of the fast marathons have missed a trick by not having a vehicle going round at just ahead of world record pace to give the leader something to aim at. Easily done, and given the number of course vehicles some of thee events have, easily denied.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • popsiderpopsider ✭✭✭
    I don't think they should allow paid pacemakers at all - races are far more exciting when they are proper races not a time trial.

    Having said that PR set the record according to the rules as they were at the time so she deserves to keep it - but they should also recognise the unpaced WR alongside it.


    If they do allow pacemakers then I can't see why men shouldn't pace women - I take the point that a man can't pace a man the whole distance but the strength in depth there means they can pace them a good part of it - unlike the women where very few could get to say 20 miles at world record pace - and those that could are unlikely to want to be a pacemaker.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    Common sense prevails.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] ✭✭✭
    they should perhaps say that pacemakers must not be used after say 20 miles? that way both men and women have the same equality.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • XFR BearXFR Bear

    The argument made in 2003 was that the men running with Paula weren't pacemakers but it was part of a mixed race.  Whatever the truth of that, it was accepted as not pacemaking, but like mixed races such as Chicago. 

    The ruling goes further in that it outlaws times set by women in mixed races too.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.