This past August, the IAFF decided that it would only recognize record-setting performances for women when they are achieved in all-women races. Furthermore, they would be reducing past World Records down to "world best" achievements. This decision would take down Paula Radcliffe's 2003 London performance - in which she ran a 2:15:25 marathon.
I for one was in disbelief. Plus it just didn't make any sense to me. Sure running with men may help pace you... but it's still her legs doing the work. I don't care if you run with a cheetah as your pacer... if you run a race time, that is YOUR time. No one can take that away from you.
After several months of outrage and backlash, the IAFF has stepped back from their initial decision to downgrade past performances. Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 will continue to stand as the ranking Women's Marathon World Record. In fact, it will likely stand for a looong time in history books, considering the new rule going forward.
Read more {here}
What are your thoughts on all this? Do you think its fair that future women can not overcome World Records if there's a man in the race (although they will be noted "side by side")? I think it's a huge step back for us lady runners, but perhaps I'm missing something? If so, please enlighten me. On the plus side, I guess we'll be seeing more all-women races pop up around the world!?
Is the same standard being held for men? Will men be able to overcome World Records if there are women in the race?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the best solution is to just allow both genders to have an electronic pacing rabbit of some sort; then gender isn't part of the equation at all.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, it's still your legs doing the work!!! This seems so unfair b/c men can continue to set world records in all the marathon majors, yet women cannot? Those races now become meaningless for women hoping to break the WR?! what i think is how at NYC the women start before the elite men? Does this count as women only? Can all major marathons have women start ahead of me and it still counts?
ReplyDeleteI agree. I always thought a marathon is a marathon. You have to get yourself across 26.2 miles! A record is a record!
ReplyDeleteI'm with the first commenter; if they say women can't set new records unless they are in an all women race, it should be the same for men. How many one-gender-only races are there? It's ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteI am with you. If she ran it then she earned it. It isn't like someone else ran part of it for her she did it on her own.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is the same as the first commenter. 1)that rule is stupid and 2)if that rule stands then it should be the same for both sexes. Not to mention: so what? Men use other men to pace themselves. Should we all run on our own to set a record?
ReplyDeleteWhy separate thing? Who is going to want to organize a men marathon and a women marathon? I thought we were going away from this.
Is it the same for men? Not sure how I feel about this :(
ReplyDeleteI think it's horrible. It's difficult for the elite female runners to find a pool of other fast women to help push the pace so the men are quite handy for that. It seems that they should just have a rule about pacing, for men included. But, I don't know how that would be possible unless everyone ran the race individually. It seems odd that they even trouble themselves with it unless they are scared that women are getting so close to the men? As long as there are enough "big" races with women-only start times so they have the opportunity to achieve a world record, I guess that's the best we can do for now.
ReplyDeleteBUT hey! If I get a PR and I was using a guy in the race to help push me, I'm still counting it as a PR! It's still my legs carrying me across that finish line!
ReplyDelete