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?!

[HandDivedScallopsrgreat]

Ephiny - PR was the fastest runner in the country only for that year (or 2 years I can't remember exactly - it was around 2002) I hasten to add. British men have gone faster before and since.

[orangeisthenewgreen]

Thanks HandDived!

[Pawsnclaws]

So how many of you knew that it's only been in the last 40 or so years that women have even been allowed to compete in marathons? The reason ...... concern that long distance running might interfere with their reproductive abilities!

Lots of very interesting stories on the internet about women running disguised as men up to about the mid-60s ......

[HandDivedScallopsrgreat]

It is shocking isn't it Pawsnclaws. There are sooo many stories of different sports where women have been deliberately excluded or certainly life made difficult for them.

From 1921 to 1971 the FA banned women from playing at League grounds.
"...the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged" Some attitudes don't change then!

Swimming, rowing, canoeing to name a few don't have parity of events at the Olympics between the sexes.

Golf - where do you start. Women only allowed to play on certain days at some clubs, only allowed in the bars at certain times (or not all until relatively recently) etc etc.

Rowing - the most prestigious rowing club in the country allowed women to be members, wait for it, in 1997.

Cricket - the MCC lifted its 211 ban on women in 1998.

Both the above two were to gain lottery/grant money rather than promote women's sport or offer equality!

Cricket also wouldn't let women play in teams around the turn of the century, I think (even though there are records of women's cricket matches as far back as 1745 so women in cricket has a history).

Athletics have had its own battles, getting women to race beyond a mile, introducing the marathon at the Olympics, still no parity in some events such as the heptathlon/decathlon, 100m/110m hurdles etc.

Women have had jump through so many hoops to be "allowed" the benefits of sport that they currently have. Male privelege and dominancy certainly still exist in sport (especially at elite/international level) and women can only do what men "let" them do.

[Dozer]

Shocking. Completely disgraceful. What about a petition? There's that online thing at No.10 I think where they can be set up and people can sign. Although presume it's not the government that sets the rules but the sporting bodies.

[MmeLindor.]

Bramshott
Is entering a race with an "unofficial" pacemaker not allowed generally? Do make athletes do this?

Unless this is generally not allowed, I don't see what difference it makes if she used her own pacemaker or an official one.

[MarginallyNarkyPuffin]

I am furious about this. It is absolutely, completely and utterly ridiculous. It is illogical and just stupid.

For all those who don't know, pacemakers have to start the event - they can't come in half way through. They are brought in to keep the race moving at eg a world record pace. They can run faster because they're not intending to run the whole distance. They are regularly used in track distance events. They are also used in road races. To be of any use they have to be physically able to run at the required mph for a good chunk of the race.

The reason Paula Radcliffe had to get her own pacemaker was because SHE WAS FASTER THAN ALL THE OTHER WOMEN. None of the other competing women could keep up with the pace she wanted to run at.

This ruling basically means that the fastest women in the world don't have the same rights to use pacemakers as the fastest men. It will hold back the advancement of women's athletics and is at best pathetic bureaucracy and at worst sexist shit.

[DrNortherner]

Well Paula's response is totally different to what the comments on Guardian say. She says the race director decided to put male pacemakers in the womens race as no one was anywhere near PR so it ws never going to be a 2 horse race for first place, therefore they thought lets put some guys in there and see how fast we can make her go. She might get a new WR. Pacemakers are entered in the race, you can't just rock up and run the London Marathon without a place (otherwise there would be some very happy runners from the running thread who have missed out on a place next year) So the pacemakers could have beaten her if they had wanted to.

orange women in general don't need a male pacemaker as female ones do the job, but because PR was/is so bloody fast she needed a male one on this occasion so they thought.

[PeachyWhoCannotType]

OMFG

that is ridiculous

So us females can;t do anything andif we do it is becuase men helped us right?

ha frigging ha

[MarginallyNarkyPuffin]

A pacemaker could be a remote controlled car FFS. It's a tool to allow the runner to see where they need to be at 5 miles, 9 miles, 12 miles etc to be at the finish line in WR time.

[Hatwoman]

just thinking about this and the whole sexism in sport thing. It's endemic. There's a girl in my village who likes football. she's reportedly been told she can no longer play with the boys anymore . This is despite a legal ruling (in another case) that doing so is unlawful. The problem is that it's a village - so her choices are: join the nearest mixed team, miles away and unfeasible for her (working, single) mum; kick up a stink in a small community; or give up .

from the most elite awesome runner like Paula to a nine year old who enjoys football

(resolves to incite the mum to kick up a fuss: it's NOT ON)

[SardineQueen]

This is terrible.

[theothersparticus]

That's so sad Hatwoman, I remember trying to play rugby as a child. I wasn't amazing, but at every point I was 'encouraged' to find something else to do. It really annoyed me that in my school there were the 'girl' sports, netball and rounders, and the 'boy' sports, football and cricket, and there was no option to swap. I was recently told that nothing has changed .

[SoupDragon]

There are girls in the younger rugby teams where DSs play. owever, I do think it would be inappropriate from a safety point of view for them to play mixed teams in the older age groups as it becomes so much more physical - single sex teams would be the safest way but there are never enough girls.

football makes no sense as it is not a contact sport.

[sportsfanatic]

I played in a mixed hockey team 50 years ago. In some respects things are going backwards.

[chill1243]

Soup...I know what you mean but footie is a contact sport if you played against Vinny Jones or Chopper Harriis.

[Hatwoman]

didn;t meant hi-jack the thread...the problem with mixed sport is complex. at our tiny primary many girls have been put off sport because there's no alternative to mixed sport: result - boys dominate; girls (well, some) hate it. dh gets all militant about it. I find myself defending the school - saying what else can they do? dh says I don;t know but they are failing the girls and it's outrageous. then, on the other hand you get the tomboy who loves football and is actually quite good, and wants to play with the boys, being told no. it's a nightmare.(I was put off hockey by playing in a mixed team captained by an egotistical male dickhead.)

[DrNortherner]

hat it is a nightmare, my ds is 9 and plays for a local club in the under 10's team. Their goalie is a girl. She is amazing. Fearless in goal, when we play other clubs everyone comments on how good she is. Sad thing is, she can play in the under 11's next year, then she has to leave and play in a girls team There is no local girls team.....

[rosy71]

I'm horrified! Surely if she ran 2.15 and that's the fastest time ever run by a woman then it's the world record?

[kickassangel]

isn't there a difference between winning the race & setting the record?

it was an officially recorded time. there should, presumably, be regulations for how the record is to be set & recorded.

she also won the race, presumably there are rules for that as well?

either she broke the rules, or she didn't. the wr & the race may have different rules, but for each one they should just have this set out?

rules for sports change frequently, they don't automatically nullify all previous record holders.

[DrNortherner]

Interestingly she is still showing 2.15 for LOndon 2003 as the WR on her website. I've just been looking at her unbelievable splits!

[trixymalixy]

I am absolutely Outraged about this. Unbelievable!!!

[DrNortherner]

picture here of Makau at berlin where he broke the mens world record, he had an absolute army of pacers. What's the god damn difference?

Anyway, Paula has tweeted she has a meeting with IAAF president on 12 Oct. Go Paula!

[SpawnChorus]

I still don't understand how a pacemaker works. Do they only run with their athlete for part of the race, so the athlete is left to run the end of the race by themselves? And why can't the main runner calculate their own pace?

Eitherway this decision is hugely insulting.

[BehindLockNumberNine]

Did they carry her? No! So she ran it to the best of her ability. Pacemakers or not, she ran at that speed.

If pacemakers can make you run faster than your natural ability we would all be olymic standard athletes, no?