Women's Marathon rules change

Did anyone see this? The IAAF came down and said any women's race to be considered for a world record has to be in a women's only race. So Paula's 2:15 is no longer the world record but a world best. Her 2:17 from London is now the world record because when she ran that it was women's only start. The 2:15 wasn't. Her Chicago 2:17 no longer counts either.



To me this is ridiculous. The fear is the women are paced by the men. Well Geb was paced throughout his marathon record run. The vast majority of road races are mixed.



The other question is how can they go back and pull her 2:15. They never went and pulled Bubka's PV record which was set with the old pole standards. They can't do one and not the other.

Agreed! Totally ridiculous! Are those the same rules for men? WR for men only starts!? I don't know about you other guys here, but I am super motivated by fit women runners! Probably aided in my PR!

I understand the logic but don't the men have pacers for the first 13-20 miles? What's the difference other than the women can have them for the entire race.

Yea, doesn't make sense. What the hell difference does it matter who they were running with? Paid pacers are a huge part of men's racing.

Taking back Paula's record is just insane.

So this means all 5 major marathons, actually almost all except Olympic or world champion is excluded from world record. How is that good for this stupid boring sports already to general public?!

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Pacer or not, you still have to actually run the time.

healdgator wrote:This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Pacer or not, you still have to actually run the time.

+1

I understand the rationale behind this, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic. It is a bit easier to run your fastest possible time if you've got somebody pacing you the entire way, but really, if you run the time, you run the time. Especially in a marathon.

When I saw this I checked my calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1. What a horrendous ruling. I'm even fine with banning male pacers in women's races going forward. But to invalidate a World Record after the fact, when at the time, it was completely within the rules? Totally insane.

That's like invalidting Wilt's 100 point game because the defensive rules are different now.

mul21 wrote:I understand the rationale behind this, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic. It is a bit easier to run your fastest possible time if you've got somebody pacing you the entire way, but really, if you run the time, you run the time. Especially in a marathon.

I don't see how this is any different than being in a race with somebody who sets world record pace for 24 miles then fades badly while another lady finishes strong and breaks the record.

I have to imagine the thinking is... to set a world record you must finish first. Period. I sort of get that. When a man breaks the world record there is no one to pace the finish. No one to follow or draft off of. No one to pull you through. Though, if that were the case, then the rule should simply state that to be a WR the female runner must be the winner of the race. That way, it would be possible for the female runner to win a mixed race and set a WR (though that would seem unlikely at that level).

I'm not agreeing with the change; just saying I think I understand what they're thinking. I'm certain there will be more to come on this rule change...

So now they can just get the press truck to do the pacing. Or maybe it will be someone on a bike. Seriously, I think that's what will happen. Race organizers want to see a record.

Stan

Does the IAAF sanction national records? Using their criteria, a lot of national records would look very different.

healdgator wrote:

I don't see how this is any different than being in a race with somebody who sets world record pace for 24 miles then fades badly while another lady finishes strong and breaks the record.

Pacing a pace slower than your max capability is a lot easier than pacing Haile at WR pace for 16 miles. Thus, hiring a 2:15 runner to pace a woman to 2:20 or so will provide a great pacing benefit - like Sell did for Deana before his own breakthrough.

I understand the rule. I just don't think you can retroactively apply it. I think there was a law school lecture about that...

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:

I don't see how this is any different than being in a race with somebody who sets world record pace for 24 miles then fades badly while another lady finishes strong and breaks the record.

Pacing a pace slower than your max capability is a lot easier than pacing Haile at WR pace for 16 miles. Thus, hiring a 2:15 runner to pace a woman to 2:20 or so will provide a great pacing benefit - like Sell did for Deana before his own breakthrough.

I understand the rule. I just don't think you can retroactively apply it. I think there was a law school lecture about that...

Go get em', Dave-O

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:

I don't see how this is any different than being in a race with somebody who sets world record pace for 24 miles then fades badly while another lady finishes strong and breaks the record.

Pacing a pace slower than your max capability is a lot easier than pacing Haile at WR pace for 16 miles. Thus, hiring a 2:15 runner to pace a woman to 2:20 or so will provide a great pacing benefit - like Sell did for Deana before his own breakthrough.

I understand the rule. I just don't think you can retroactively apply it. I think there was a law school lecture about that...

Why does it matter how easy it is for the pacer? Are they going to start calibrating times based on the effort of the pacer? That is completely irrelevant.

It's pretty simple. Did the person (in this case, a woman) run the fastest time ever for a marathon in the class at issue (here, women)? This is the epitome of creating an issue where none exists.

I simply don't understand how the IAAF can leave Bubka's PV record in place when they made big changes to the pole and bar standards, yet pull Paula's ratified WR when they make changes to the standards. Needless to say she wasn't happy about it. To me the IAAF loses all credibility here.

healdgator wrote:

Why does it matter how easy it is for the pacer? Are they going to start calibrating times based on the effort of the pacer? That is completely irrelevant.

It's about (a) the accuracy of the pacer and (b) the distance in which the pacer can stay with the pacee. If a male is pacing a female, his splits will be more evenly paced and accurate because the pace isn't daunting to him. And he can pace for the entire 26.2 miles. I believe studies have shown that being paced can save 2-3% of a runner's energy. That's clearly a major advantage.

On the men's side, the pacers are up against the edge of their own capabilities and thus won't be as accurate or be able to hang as long. Having to run the last 6-10 miles alone is a BIG difference.

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:

Why does it matter how easy it is for the pacer? Are they going to start calibrating times based on the effort of the pacer? That is completely irrelevant.

It's about (a) the accuracy of the pacer and (b) the distance in which the pacer can stay with the pacee. If a male is pacing a female, his splits will be more evenly paced and accurate because the pace isn't daunting to him. And he can pace for the entire 26.2 miles. I believe studies have shown that being paced can save 2-3% of a runner's energy. That's clearly a major advantage.

On the men's side, the pacers are up against the edge of their own capabilities and thus won't be as accurate or be able to hang as long. Having to run the last 6-10 miles alone is a BIG difference.

Still not relevant. The ability of the pacer is a variable that has NEVER been addressed in assessing records, it would be impossible to do so. Even if you tried to do it, what would be the cut off? 12 miles? 16? 22? What if you have a "better" pacer? Is the IAAF going to adjust your time? Throw it out altogether? Irrespective of the "pacer", you still have to actually run the time.

In any event, we aren't comparing men's records to women's records. We are comparing women to women. The difficulty for a pacer in a men's event has absolutely nothing to do with the women's record.

healdgator wrote:

Still not relevant. The ability of the pacer is a variable that has NEVER been addressed in assessing records, it would be impossible to do so. Even if you tried to do it, what would be the cut off? 12 miles? 16? 22? What if you have a "better" pacer? Is the IAAF going to adjust your time? Throw it out altogether? Irrespective of the "pacer", you still have to actually run the time.

In any event, we aren't comparing men's records to women's records. We are comparing women to women. The difficulty for a pacer in a men's event has absolutely nothing to do with the women's record.

By saying that males can only be paced by males and females can only be paced by females, you eliminate the need to have a cut off or try to quantify a variable.

Regardless, we're on the same page here that Paula's record should stand. I was just saying I agree with the rule change for future races.

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:

Still not relevant. The ability of the pacer is a variable that has NEVER been addressed in assessing records, it would be impossible to do so. Even if you tried to do it, what would be the cut off? 12 miles? 16? 22? What if you have a "better" pacer? Is the IAAF going to adjust your time? Throw it out altogether? Irrespective of the "pacer", you still have to actually run the time.

In any event, we aren't comparing men's records to women's records. We are comparing women to women. The difficulty for a pacer in a men's event has absolutely nothing to do with the women's record.

By saying that males can only be paced by males and females can only be paced by females, you eliminate the need to have a cut off or try to quantify a variable.

Regardless, we're on the same page here that Paula's record should stand. I was just saying I agree with the rule change for future races.

No you aren't. You still have the variable of the pacer. Not all pacers are equal. In fact, they are all different. The IAAF isn't eliminating that at all, apparently. Instead, they are saying that the pacing effect of other competitors (99% of whom have no interest in pacing anyone) is a bigger issue than an artificial, professional pacer. That makes no sense to me. I could respect the decision more (though not the completely idiotic retroactive application) if they said, "from this point forward, NO pacing will be allowed". They apparently aren't doing that though. Instead they are saying, "you can get artificial assistance, but only if that artificial assistant is working really, really hard."

healdgator wrote:

No you aren't. You still have the variable of the pacer. Not all pacers are equal. In fact, they are all different. The IAAF isn't eliminating that at all, apparently. Instead, they are saying that the pacing effect of other competitors (99% of whom have no interest in pacing anyone) is a bigger issue than an artificial, professional pacer. That makes no sense to me. I could respect the decision more (though not the completely idiotic retroactive application) if they said, "from this point forward, NO pacing will be allowed". They apparently aren't doing that though. Instead they are saying, "you can get artificial assistance, but only if that artificial assistant is working really, really hard."

Actually, I just think they're saying, "you can only be paced by members of the same sex." Its pretty simple.

Would you agree that being paced by a robot programmed to run exactly X pace at all times would be advantageous? Of course. Well, having a male pace at female at 90% of his max effort is closer to the robot. That's why its not allowed. I don't see what's so complicated about it.

I feel this may be politically motivated that IAAF wants to kick city marathons out of world record like FIFA tries everything in its power to limit best soccer players to Olympic games to secure its world cup fame and revenue.

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:

No you aren't. You still have the variable of the pacer. Not all pacers are equal. In fact, they are all different. The IAAF isn't eliminating that at all, apparently. Instead, they are saying that the pacing effect of other competitors (99% of whom have no interest in pacing anyone) is a bigger issue than an artificial, professional pacer. That makes no sense to me. I could respect the decision more (though not the completely idiotic retroactive application) if they said, "from this point forward, NO pacing will be allowed". They apparently aren't doing that though. Instead they are saying, "you can get artificial assistance, but only if that artificial assistant is working really, really hard."

Actually, I just think they're saying, "you can only be paced by members of the same sex." Its pretty simple.

Would you agree that being paced by a robot programmed to run exactly X pace at all times would be advantageous? Of course. Well, having a male pace at female at 90% of his max effort is closer to the robot. That's why its not allowed. I don't see what's so complicated about it.

Again, b/c men's records and women's records are completely unrelated. Hell, they are attempting to eliminate any possibility that a woman could break the men's record with this ruling. (Not to get sidetracked, that wouldn't happen anyway.)

As for the robot, if all the competitors are allowed to use a robot, I don't see how it is any different than have a human pacer. In both cases, the competitor isn't actually setting his or her own pace. Someone or something is doing it for him/her. If you are going to allow that, why is it important that the pacer be worse? That doesn't make any sense at all.

I like this robot idea though. Level playing field. No more relying on a human pacer to set a good pace.