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?!

Words fail me that we are still experiencing such blatant sexism in sport.

Well, pacemakers do give you the competitive edge but if everyone has pacemakers, it's still fair and as others have said - she's still run it on her own legs!

Pacemakers argument is pathetic. Athletes use aids to improve results (better designed personal running shoes for example), but unless these aids are illegal at the time (like performance-enhancing drugs), the result should stand.

What is Paula's comment on all this? I did not see it in any of the articles...

Wasn't there a case a few years ago where a woman got the world record and then had to prove that she wasn't born a man?

BB what does this have to do with marathon results?

Pacemakers are there to set a certain pace for the fisrt section of a race. They are usually not good enough to run the whole course at that pace. A runner who sets out to run 20 miles can run a bit faster than someone planning to do 26 miles. They can also help prevent tactical racing where someone uses a teammate to set off much quicker at a pace that the athletes can not sustain.

Paula says she will not stress about things she can't control. She has a meeting with the IAAF on 12th Oct.

Aaarrggghhhhhh........! Beyond

It just reminded me of it. Sorry, I didn't have anything else to add as others have all said it better than I could.

"Paula says she will not stress about things she can't control."
I respect her position and I would probably do the same tbh. However, I wonder if a man whos result/achievement was under threat would take the same stance. In my very male-dominated office they (the men) fought tooth and nail on every single performance-related issue... this is where women loose dispropotionately

Is she afraid of the negative publicity this may bring?

She has tweeted about it, and there is a facebook campaign, Plus she has a meeting with IAAF president on Oct 12, so it seems she is not taking it lying down, just not shouting to the press about it for now.

Paula's record that no longer stands

Makaus WR that will stand

There is no god damn difference. Both amazing athletes who ran that time and deserve the title of World record holder.

Write the IAAF and tell them what you think. [email protected]
use subject line: Restore Paula Radcliffe's Marathon World Record

Dear IAAF,

I am from __ and I think your recent decision to strip Paula Radcliffe of her world marathon record simply because there were men in the same race with her is a disgrace to athletics in general and to female runners worldwide. Historystands.

Watching that video still gives me goosebumps. What an amazing woman.

If it isn't an unfair advantage to use male pacesetters, Paula will be able to match her time using female pacesetters or no pacesetter at all.

But I imagine that will not be the case.

Don't really see the issue here, surely it's a good thing that women will have to race without male assistance?

"If it isn't an unfair advantage to use male pacesetters, Paula will be able to match her time using female pacesetters or no pacesetter at all."

Sorry, this is a rubbish argument. The result is a combination of various things, personal form and conditions being the main. One cannot just replicate it.

I'd be interested to see results and records with and without male pacesetters to see if it does make a difference.

Paula won london Marathon 2 years later with a time of 2:17:25, this is now the world record. This was with female pacemakers. So only 2 minutes slower.

In 2003 she was in the shape of her life and they knew she was capable of blasting the WR. That's why they put male pacemakers in, there were no women anywhere near her standard at that time.

I think bemybebe is right. The reasons PR may not be able to match the WR now are not because of any pacemaker issues but because of lack of form. That is the overwhelming reason why she got the world record. In addition, London is not reknowned for being the fastest marathon course out there. Chicago or Berlin are faster, yet world records stand from there (one having being acheived just a week ago!)

There are also plenty of other sports where equipment/conditions etc are used which give an advantage. Look at swimming - with the row over costumes at the Beijing Olympics. Plenty of world records were set using costumes that are now banned but they still stand.

Chris Hoy went to great lengths to try and get the 1km world record in cycling by going up to altitude in South America. If he had got it, it would have stood (he missed it by 0.005s!).

Yes, it was a calculated effort by PR to run as fast as she could, but she knew she was at the peak of her performance and wanted to take advantage of it. She ran within the rules at the time and should be credited as such.

Agree, just because she might never run 2:15 again does not take away the fact that she did, that's the nature of running, you strive for a personal best each time you race. And of course, with age, having kids, injuries etc, form on the day, sometimes you just can't beat your PB.

I am so disgustec by this.

just wrote to the iaaf

"I am shocked and disgusted to read in the papers that Paula Radcliffe's Marathon world record no longer counts.

What a sad and disgusting decision!

As she ran the distance on her own (was she being carried by the pacemakers?) I believe it is utterly unfair to discount her fair effort.

Was Mr Makau's world record not 'helped' by pacemakers as well?

Your decision would means that women will not be able to run a world record in the usual street running events, which puts an utterly unfair advantage on male runners.

A very sad female runner"

Yes Mousy, records are set all over the world in mixed sex road races. What does this ruling mean for women? That their times will only ever count in female only races?!

Their times still count, just not towards a world record.

Maybe women should just be allowed to race against men, and stop all the arguing.

They are allowed to race against men.

2:15 should still be the womens WR. When PR ran London again 2005 which was a women only race the female pacemakers didn't even make it half way, and Paula had burnt them off at just 5 miles. She ran the remaining 21 miles alone to get a time of 2.17.

So, for male marathon runners, finding same sex pace makers is not a problem, but as Paula was at the top of her game in 2003 finding a female pacemaker to o the job was impossible. And now, 8 years later she is being penalised. Madness.

As someone else has already said, marathon courses vary greatly. Has anyone said "ah no sorry, a record set at (for example) London can't stand because it's flatter than Boston?"

No of course not - courses vary, altitude varies, even the weather makes a difference where a world record is concerned and it may come down to a matter of seconds.

Obviously in the absence of cheating, once you start qualifying world records in this fashion you may as well tell everyone to run as fast as they can for 26.2 miles on a treadmill. Why don't they do that now? Because running a marathon is special, and doing that would suck the joy out of it.

The big name marathons are amongst the few occasions where uber-plodders like me get to run "with" the world's most amazing and talented athletes. They draw big crowds and big sponsorship for good reason. PR was on flying form in 2003 and she delivered. To downgrade her achievement now is a disgrace.

Dreadful thing to do. I wish her all the luck in the world at getting this overturned.

I remember being about 8 or 9 and really wanting to play footie at school...the boys were allowed a section of the playing field. I joined in one day, the boys didn't mind - I got told off by the dinner ladies.

I protested, one of them said Ok but I continued to be told not to play with the boys as 'it is dangerous for a girl', 'they are too rough, you might get hurt' and 'it's not a girls' game, find something else to do'

so I gave up.

I protested, one of them said Ok but I continued to be told not to play with the boys as 'it is dangerous for a girl', 'they are too rough, you might get hurt' and 'it's not a girls' game, find something else to do'

Stupid women like that make me want to throttle them and ask "is that rough enough for you?" GRRRRRRRR