Unfair is Fair, and Vice Versa

The I.A.A.F is prepared to rewrite the record books. In late August, the world governing body of track and field decided that records in women's road races will not count unless they are set in a women's-only race, the New York Times reported yesterday. Talk about the rule change has been circulating since the decision was made - but yesterday's article by the Times (one) adds more context and (two) brings news of the change to people who are not regular visitors to LetsRun.

What does this mean? It means, for one, that the women's world marathon record will no longer be 2 hours 15 minutes 25 seconds, arguably the most impressive world record currently in the books. The world record, instead, will be Paula Radcliffe's third fastest mark: 2:17:42 at the 2005 London Marathon, a race in which elite women, as has become more common in major marathons, started 45 minutes ahead of the men's field. Radcliffe's 2:15:25 will now be known as the "world best."

This is interesting, though: Radcliffe told the Times that she intentionally ran next to the men in her pack, not behind them. She was not drafting, but racing.

Now, here's a quote from Mary Wittenberg, director of the New York City Marathon:

"The I.A.A.F. wanted to show that women can stand on their own two feet, that they don’t need guys to help them get to world records. There’s definitely a difference. Women run faster with men as pacers, about a two-minute differential on average."

That, in a nutshell, is what concerns the I.A.A.F. What put this rule change on the table, apparently, was Mary Keitany's world-record breaking half marathon run in February. Paced by a man, the Kenyan athlete lowered the record by 35 seconds.

But, back to Wittenberg's point of women running faster with male pacers. Well, of course they do. They do not, however, run faster because they are running behind men. They are running faster because they are running behind pacers.

Pacers, or rabbits, meanwhile, have become more than just ever-present in all word record running attempts; it has gotten to the point that they are considered entirely necessary to make them happen. We are not really talking about the affect of having assistance, then, so much as we are talking about how much assistance - and to what degree - is acceptable for a performance to still count as a world record.

What, however, is the reality? The reality, or the way things stand, is as Amby Burfoot of Runner's World wrote to the Times in an e-mail:

"We all understand that as long as you cover a fair, accurate course on your own two feet, then your effort should be eligible for a world record."

Should there be a distinction between mixed races in which women, unplanned, might happen to run within a pack of men, and "staged" world record attempts during which women draft behind a male pacer from the start? That, to me, might make some sense. As it happens, the argument against "staged" world records has become a fairly popular one to make; it's just that, for the most part, such races have involved men.

How can the I.A.A.F. be concerned about Mary Keitany but not about Haile Gebrselassie? More so, how can one possibly say that Gebrselassie's 2:03:59, set during a staged time trial, is legit and Radcliffe's stunning run was not? Perhaps it's time, then, to reclassify Geb's run as the "world best."