Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby dl » Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:31 am

Yes! I understand the need for rules, especially when it comes to records. Remember, if you GIVE someone a record, you're also TAKING AWAY a record from someone else.

But in this case, Paula would be taking the record away only from herself!

But that's not reason enough to overlook the rules, of course. The real reason is that we shouldn't be hypocritical. We've allowed rabbited races to be accepted as World Records for decades now. And yes, having men run with women the whole race is different from El G's rabbit's dropping out after 1100m.

But we have just witnessed one of the truly amazing performances in the history of our sport. Some would say it was cheapened by the presence of male pacemakers.

I say let's not cheapen it further by questioning its validity. Let's celebrate the fact that we are lucky enough to be fans while such an incredible athlete is at her prime.
dl
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:30 am

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby Bob H » Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:42 am

Remember, please, that you're not only giving a new record and taking an old one away, you're also setting up a new record barrier for the person who next tries to break the record, which (unlike the first two in this case) may not be Paula R.
Bob H
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby Sieg Lindstrom » Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:44 am

True. But to avoid the hypocrisy factor GH mentions wouldn't the IAAF need to reconsider its policy of ratifying mixed races altogether? It certainly sounded like male pacers provided more assistance in at least one of Loroupe's WRs than Radcliffe got this time.
Sieg Lindstrom
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby gh » Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:59 pm

My take is that the Radcliffe mark should NOT be ratified....... but then, I'm also of the opinion that no men's 1500/mile WR should have been ratified since, say, Filbert Bayi's 3:51.0 at Kingston back in 1975.

Rabbits (and rabbited races) suck! I'm trying like mad to think of a sub-3:50 mile I've ever watched that wasn't boring as all get-out.

gh
(garry hill/editor, T&FN)
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby jlanza » Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:51 pm

I agree about rabbits, but then that's what the sport has come to all around, hasn't it? Even El Guerrouj looks for rabbits when he wants to run fast. It gotten to the point that you need to look to high school or college for a fast race without them.

AS far as Radcliffe goes, to ignore the time and deny the record would be a joke. Lets face it, who would regard anyone else as the reord holder? Ndereba ran 2:19:55 and no one even cares.
jlanza
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:32 pm

I agree in part. The fact that El G uses a rabbit does not invalidate the fact that he is fast on the clock. But in regards to him as a competitor? We can see he does not always favor in major competitions - which is another arena.

To the public it appears confusing and trivial to have just watched someone beat an established mark - only to come back and say it did not count? Or that it is not a record?

What we are watching (in a rabbited race) is a beat the clock effort. Than we are adding the mental realm to the mix when the general public can clearly see that the athlete was not physically assisted in any way. We are intentional making the sport confusing…
Guest
 

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby Guest » Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:24 am

And let's not forget, probably the one most famous race of all time, Bannister's 3:59.4, was blatantly rabbited by Chataway and Brasher, but no one really objected because they themselves were high quality runners that sacrificed themselves in this one race to help Roger out. But they were still rabbits, no question. But there was no "rabbit " talk after this race, like there was 3 years later when Blagrove rabbited Ibbotson's 3:57.2, which I believe was only reluctantly accepted by the IAAF if at all, before Elliott's 3:54.5 the next year. And I do not recall any "rabbit" talk about that race since so many guys ran so fast. Anyone out there have any recollections/comments about any of these 3 races I just mentioned ?
Guest
 

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby 1.97hjsteve » Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:57 am

this time, yes, but the rules need to be IMMEDIATELY clarified, so that in a "women only" race, such as this was, as a result of their slightly earlier start ( that's then a "women only " start ! ) there are no illegal participants, which MEN were in this women only start !

To repeat, clarify the rules immediately !
1.97hjsteve
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby maniacmiler » Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:08 pm

Yes rabits in races definatly make them a bore or annoyence, but just the fact that the person ran that time is good enough for me. A rabit does give someone something to chase but they still have the ability to run the time. Its not like Paula or anyone who ran very fast in a rabitted race for that matter was carried on a truck for part of the race, or even that they didn't run the length, they all ran the right length and all under their own power so i say its a record!


El G still rules......but Geb does it with out rabbits David Kiminai R.I.P.
maniacmiler
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby sl » Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:16 pm

I suppose the London organizers would argue that it was not a women-only race, but that it was a separate race from the main race that included just invited women and men runners. The invited men were invited to rabbit, but so what? Mixed-sex records are accepted on the road. Rabbits are invited for the announced purpose of pacemaking all the time on the track and road.

The way I see it--as much as rabbiting can take the excitement out of even WR-level 1500s/miles--things are pretty clear. Rabbits are OK with the IAAF and so are mixed-sex road races.

That could always change, but this is where things stand now.

>this time, yes, but the rules need to be
>IMMEDIATELY clarified, so that in a "women
>only" race, such as this was, as a result of
>their slightly earlier start ( that's then a
>"women only " start ! ) there are no illegal
>participants, which MEN were in this women only
>start !

To repeat, clarify the rules
>immediately !
sl
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby Guest » Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:11 am

I must agree with Garry. Although I did think the Brussels mile in 1981 when Boit chased Coe all the way to the line was a bit special.
And I know 3:39 doesn't translate to sub 3:50 but the Oslo 1500 that year was one of the greatest reasons for INCLUDING rabbits in a race, because the chief rabbit, one Tom Byers, ran away from the others and beat them all. Sadly it doesn't happen very often.

>My take is that the Radcliffe mark should NOT be
>ratified....... but then, I'm also of the opinion
>that no men's 1500/mile WR should have been
>ratified since, say, Filbert Bayi's 3:51.0 at
>Kingston back in 1975.

Rabbits (and rabbited
>races) suck! I'm trying like mad to think of a
>sub-3:50 mile I've ever watched that wasn't
>boring as all get-out.

gh
(garry hill/editor,
>T&FN)
Guest
 

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby Guest » Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:20 am

26.2 miles is 26.2 miles, amazing ....But should not be ratified .At this point guidelines need to be established. I was watching a tape of Fuoka (sp?) Japan, in this case the runners were as close to 5 meters behind a television truck running into a head wind. Jack Daniel's reported a 7 percent savings when tucking into a pack in distance races.

How fast would your great legend Joan Benoit Samuelson have run without wind resistance? I guess with the pacing issue, do people outside of the sport consider time trials
worthy of world records.

I've also raced against Paula, watching myself run a 33 minute 10k on a BBC re-run .... I looked like the "dudes" who justed walk a fun run. Was dropped in the first 300meters. She is the real deal.

Kate
Guest
 

Re: Should Radcliffe's record be ratified?

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:18 pm

Absolutely SHOULD be ratified. There are many variables in any race -- wind, temperature, humidity, rain, running surface, competition, pacing, etc. This is true on the track, and even moreso on the roads. One cannot "correct" for every factor and have a totally "level" playing field, even where records are concerned. Nor should one wish to reduce track and field conditions to total uniformity. A few concessions to excessive advantage are made in some events -- i.e. wind-aided sprints, hurdles, LJ, and TJ. (Also drug-aided marks, but this area still has a long way to go to get sorted out because what substances are truly "performance-enhancing" while being otherwise deleterious is not yet a matter of clear consensus. A big subject, but not the issue here.) But apart from these few recognized exceptions, if you run the distance, and make the time, you get the record. That's the deal. Paula's 2:15:21 is the new women's marathon record. Congratulations to one of the greatest runners of our time.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bushop, effable and 10 guests

cron