Paula Radcliffe to lose Marathon world record as she was helped along as she ran it with men

[DrNortherner]

sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=trackandfield&id=7009372 The year she set the world record they put a few male pace makers in the woman's race, despite the fact she ran 2.15 (amazing) they are not calling this a world record as she probably would not have achieved this time without the men.

Sexism at it's worst surely?!

Hang on. So, are they suggesting somehow that she wouldn't have run that time if she hadn't had pace makers? Did they carry her? Give her a backy half way along? Push her in a trolley? What utter toss.

Does ayone know if a man can get a world record in a marathon with pacemakers?

munster you don't get a gold medal in the London Marathon. She was the winner of the womans race. She ran in 2.15, no woman has ever beat this. This should be the world record.

Incidentally, Paula is still the WR holder with 2.17 that she did in a marathon with no male pacemakers.

either pacemakers are allowed for both male and females, not banned from female events and allowed at male events

I am confused (am admittedly not very knowledgeable about marathons ).

Paula Radcliffe has the current fastest marathon time (the one in dispute) - 2.15

the second fastest time, apparently a 'woman only' time, is also held by her, and is 2.17 - this was run during the London Marathon. which is not a woman only race. I get that she did not have specific male pacesetters, but she was still running against and amongst men, surely? so how come that one is 'allowed' to stand? she would still have been gaining whatever advantage there is from running against faster people, wouldn't she?

but that one is deemed woman only, despite it being the same race (isn't the disputed world record also a london marathon time?). the difference is specific pacemakers.

and there are a whole load of world records that have been set using pacemakers, and not just in marathon running...

Yes. New male world record holder here At berlin marathon, with pacemakers.

I do think there are a couple of issues with ways in which pacemakers are employed in these sorts of races but that's frig all to do with what Paula Radcliffe achieved.

Bloody disgusting.

silverfrog in London Mathon the elite women race is set off after the menm but nefore the masses, so in effect they never catch the elite men, and the masses never catch the elite women, so although men run it, the elite woman effectively run a women only race IYSWIM!

In 2003 male pacemakers ran with the elite women.

The year Paula Radcliffe set the world record, she was the fastest person over marathon distance in the country. No British man matched her.

Unfortunately this decision doesn't surprise me. Look at how the IAAF handled Caster Semenya (and Oscar Pistorius for that matter - their discrimination isn't just limited to women). As the Guardian article points out when Paula was a child women weren't allowed to run more than a mile at the Olympics FFS. That is within most of our lifetimes.

And this isn't limited to athletics. Women in my sport spent 56 years campaigning to be allowed to compete at the Olympics, and then had to campaign to compete over the same distance. And there still isn't equality as 8 less women than men can be invited to the Olympics due to the disparity in events offered.

Women aren't given equality, we have to fight tooth and nail for every little thing. And for every two steps forward there is a step backward.

That's really bizarre. Maybe there's an argument to be had over whether pacemakers should be allowed or not, but it does seem like she's being singled out unfairly here, if other records set with pacemakers are being allowed to stand.

I don't know a lot about how this works either (only ever run for the bus personally!), so maybe someone more expert can explain what's going on, but it seems quite unfair. Is it because of the gender of the pacemakers - if they'd been women would it be OK?

Unbeliveable.

Yes, if the pacemaker had been female it would still stand. But Paula is so good, a female pacemaker is no incentive to her. The argument is she was at an unfair advantage to woman who run a marathon without male pacemakers.

how come that one is 'allowed' to stand?

apparently due to the fact the woman started half an hour before the men

I don't think there is anyhting worng with distinguishing between records set with pacesetters and records set without.

but that should hold for men and women.

and the first (and arguably the most famous) to topple would therefore be Roger Bannister's four minute mile ('only' achieved through use of pacesetters). somehow don't think that will happen...

Oh and pacemakers aren't paid to lose races - they are paid to pacemake. They are "allowed" to win the race if the rest of the field doesn't match them.

thanks for the expalnation, DrN. whole thing is still a mockery.

presumably (getting fanciful here) if she had had a whole team of female pacesetters - ie loads of sprinters - faster over a shorter period, and therefore a challenge - the record would stand?

nothing takes away the fact that she ran the bloody time.

1 Patrick Makau (Ken) 2hr 3min 38sec

2 Stephen Kwelio (Ken) 2:07:55

3 Edwin Kimaiyo (Ken) 2:09:50

4 Felix Limo (Ken) 2:10:38

5 Scott Overall (GB) 2:10:55

6 Ricardo Serrano (Sp) 2:13:32

7 Pedro Nimo (Sp) 2:13:34

8 Simon Munyutu (Fr) 2:14:20

9 Driss El Himer (Fr) 2:14:46

10 Hendrick Ramalaa (SA) 2:16:00

how many of the above records where set without a pacemaker? I doubt one of the above was set without a pacemaker - which all of a sudden the men realise that Paula set her 2.17 record without a pacemaker which would infact make her better than the men....oh shit

the problem with this decision, as some here realise, is not as simple as the "she ran on her own legs" argument. There is no doubt that running with other fast runners and/or pacemakers gives you an advantage when compared with other races. It's been proven and any one who runs (as I do) knows it. And it's an advantage for both men and women.

The problem with this decision is its laziness. An issue (a real one) has been identified. But they've used gender as a substitute for actually addressing the real issue. Many many sexist policies have this kind of laziness at their heart - it's quicker and easier to pretend the issue is about gender.

DrNorth I agreed with you she should hold the world record. I disagree with the use of pacemakers in races.

did that sound like I run races with pacemakers? No, I just know that I get a real spurt on when I try to catch up with the guy 20 metres in front of me. and even more of one if I can hear someone breathing down my neck about to overtake me. even if we're both right at the back.

Whilst this is clearly outrageous, I do understand a bit more having read some of the comments on the Guardian article (assuming that they're true). Aparently PR employed her own (male) private pacemaker for this race, outside of the official pacemakers, and that person was not officially entered into the race, so even if they had come first, they wouldn't have 'won'.

Not sure about Deena Kastor though.

I don't understand the logic because I don't know much about Athletics, maybe someone can explain.

If it's giving a female athlete an unfair advantage by having a male pacemaker (because men are generally faster), then why don't they just allow all female athletes to have a male pacemaker if they want one?

If a woman were running in a mixed race (ie. competing against men) would she be allowed a male pacemaker?

Sorry if these are dumb questions...

Yes I understand a bit better now, and it makes a little more sense. Surely though it would have been better if the 'rules' about pacemakers had been established and made clear before the race, rather than stripping someone of their achievement afterwards. Hopefully in future that'll be the case!

Not sure what the ideal solution is - I get that most female pacemakers would not have been much use to PR, but then having male pacemakers in women's races might not be the answer either as it might not suit other women.

As for PR setting the fastest British marathon record (I didn't know this before seeing this thread, that's quite an achievement!) - surely that is still valid, as the British men would have had male pacemakers so all is equal there?

orange - the race has a pacemaker, not an individual athlete. So all the women in that race had the same conditions. The issue is whether women in other races were unfairly disadvantaged, but that applies to men or women in pace maker races.

I am still not seeing the significance of whether the pacemaker was officially entered in the race and whether they were "private". If these offences were breaking the rules of the race then that should have been addressed at the time and is a separate issue. From the article (and I am sorry but I am not looking at the CiF comments - I am 8 months pregnant and value my blood pressure too highly) it seems to me that any race for women with a male pacemaker in it has been deemed against rules and this is a retrospective decision. It was not made because of any discrepancies to the rules of the race that may have occurred.