Radcliff loses her World Record!!!

Not sure if you have all heard that Paula has lost her World Record or will do soon. It will now be declared as a World's best as she was running in a mixed event...

I was wondering if this had an influence from Pistorius's quarter. I understand the times he runs in the 400m able bodied do not count as 400m disabled records.

Its certainly an interesting situation, that has many grey areas. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

You can understand the decision, but ultimately I think it's a silly one. The time was after all run by a woman, so where's the problem? Now imagine if some girl were to set a WC in a 1500 (or 800) where that SA "woman" were running as a pace-setter...

My first thought was that it should stand as a world record since it was achieved before the rule change. Fair enough if future performances are handled this way.

I agree with you md_fan, it seems a bit unfair on her to tell her after that it can't count as a WR, but instead a WB. It's an odd situation. But if they do change the rules, it'd be unfair on anyone else - as they'd always be thinking, Paula was just keeping up with the men...

For these reasons, I'd forget it, and just leave it as the WR and let mixed races count. Afterall they've achieved the time. It is something that is already out of control, and will only help the women achieve better times.

How about on the track? Jeter can compete against a lot of male sprinters? Semenya against Rudisha? lol...

Semenya should be competing against Rudisha.

djlovesyou wrote:Semenya should be competing against Rudisha.

Semenya is a poor man's Rudisha.

Err..

If this does actually happen Paula will still be WR holder but with a slower time.

Rudisha > Semenya

I wonder whether male chauvinism has anything to do with this decision. Considering that marathons are non-standardised (apart from the absolute average distance) this seems like a strange decision.

ps will the Men's marathon record stand if the women are also racing and what about the wheelchair racers.

..... And in taking 1min 53secs off her world record on Sunday, Radcliffe ran more than two minutes quicker than Britain's legendary male marathon runner Jim Peters.

Peters set four world records between 1952 and 1954, bringing the men's mark down from 2:20.42 to 2:17.39.

Radcliffe bettered that by over two minutes on Sunday, in a time that would have won every men's Olympics marathon until 1960.

Despite the apparent ease of her Sunday best, Radcliffe did not enjoy the smoothest of build-ups to the race.

Five weeks ago she dislocated her jaw and suffered severe cuts to her knees, hands and shoulders after colliding with a cyclist on a training run in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2945709.stm

Radcliffe consistently clocked in the five minute region for each mile, with a best of four minutes 57 seconds coming in the third mile, reaping the reward for all her training in Alberquerque, New Mexico.

...... on reaching the Tower of London, where the crowd roared her on, Radcliffe again upped the pace, setting her second fastest split mile of the race of five minutes and six seconds after 22 miles on the road.

She bettered that by three seconds two miles later

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2943913.stm



How time flies! I can remember it like it was yesterday, the sight of Paula Radcliffe storming down The Mall like Allyson Felix looking as fresh as a daisy, like she could run another marathon at the same pace. A truly amazing performance.

World record / world best? It makes no difference. That performance is already legendary. In her own way she is the Flo-Jo of the Marathon. Actually, I do her a disservice. Flo-Jos (100m record at least) will be broken many times over before any woman gets anywhere near 2hrs 15.25.

Isn't it astonishing that the best that any other woman has managed to achieve since then is Noguchi's 2:19:12 in 2005, the best part of 4 minutes behind (about 1200 metres at Paula's 2003 speed)?

Hats off to the amazing Paula Radcliffe!

The only foot she put wrong on that day is when she said:

"But I think there are a lot of women out there who are capable of running faster."

Very humble, but just who do you think you are kidding Mrs Radcliffe?

I love how you always like to compare Radcliffe to the walking PED that was Flo-Jo.

It's very cute but oh so slightly embarrassing.

Flo-Jo and countless WWE wrestlers are an example to kids. Don't do lots and lots of drugs, because that can happen to you.

The only way Flo-Jo's 100m record will get beaten is if pharmaceutical technology got even better and maintained an undetectability. Even the current crop of science experiments are hardly that close. Life was so much easier in the old days when a woman could simply steroid up and turn themselves into men in order to run fast times, nowadays you've got to be a lot more sneaky. So unfair.

She's right about there being women who can run faster. I appreciate you are completely clueless about distance running, we've been over this in the past (I know an awful lot, you know very little, yadda yadda yadda). The likes of Dibaba, Defer, Masai, Cheriyot must have a case considering the times they are putting down on the track. Have you heard of those people icecold?

The faster time should've stood...not sure how you can talk of a wondrous WB, when there's an official WR. A WB is an unofficial performance, just like a wind assisted time might be. We can wonder at the unofficial performance, but we would know it no longer carries the same authority...

They've done Radcliffe and the event, indeed, athletics, a disservice

Rudisha = Semenya.

'How about on the track? Jeter can compete against a lot of male sprinters?'

Classic, a comedian without knowing why.

She had a male pace maker.

They didn't bloody carry her, total farce as per usual. Those who run the sport more interested in headlines and schedules than the truth.

Now if someone breaks the "world record" in the olympics, everyone will jump around and say it is great.

The thing is, Radcliffe's 2.15 is so well-known that say someone runs 2.16 and breaks the new record, then everyone will still know that's not the fastest that has been done and I think even the athlete concerned will not feel like they've broken the record. A case of 2.15 being the de facto record regardless of what IAAF say

Paula made a point of running alongside her pacemakers most of the way anyways.

Nothing like Geb who had 5 guys surrounding him for most of the route.

The whole thing is a joke really, as the marathon is totally different from every other event.
How many single sex marathons are run every year anyway, will they also ban world records from being set on certain courses too, just because they are perceived to be easier?
Maybe they should look at how many world records are set on the track when there is a pace setter in the field, isn't this an unfair advantage too?

Good to see Paula running a solid time in Berlin. 2:23.46 is some way off her "world best" but it's way under the qualifying time for London 2012 which is the important thing. If she stays injury free then I believe she is in with a last chance of gold at the Olympics.

bigjonatkinson wrote:The thing is, Radcliffe's 2.15 is so well-known that say someone runs 2.16 ........

Don't worry. That particular problem won't occur in our lifetime.

That 2:15:25 will be the last women's world record / best / whatever to go. Paula's in great company up there ahead of Marita Koch's 47.60, Flo-Jos 21.35 and Yunxia Qus 3:50.46 as the toughest record on the women's books.

Amazing.

It's like deja vu.....

Haha. But icecold thinks that Flo-Jo is the only one there who didn't take the drugs.

He has a bit of a crush on that bloke.