Not according to the IAAF anyway, which is the sport’s international governing body.
They currently have a motion in place to invalidate all world records for women who ran in “mixed” races that included men.
For a very high profile example of what this means, it will raise the women’s marathon world record by over 2 minutes from 2:15:25 to 2:17:42. Paula Radcliffe will still hold the record because she’s the best marathoner in the world, but she’ll still be penalized 8 years after the fact.
For some reason, though, they don’t think that they should invalidate records for men that involved women. Sure, in smaller races where the men and women start at the same time and that would involve a world record there are rarely any women running up front with the men, but at other races the women get enough of a head start that they’ll finish separately than the men which gives the finish more excitement for the fans. In those races, however, the men have to catch up to and pass the women in the race that aren’t the front runners, which I don’t see as much different than a woman who has to pass a man during a race.
I’m not alone in my thinking; the race directors from the World Marathon Majors and the Association of International Marathons also think it’s a little ridiculous and have warned the IAAF that they won’t recognize the new rule if it is passed.
If passed, this ruling is a step back in time. What will they propose next? That women shouldn’t be running marathons because their uterus will fall out?
What do you think? Is this new ruling sexist, or do you think that women being allowed to run with men is an unfair situation and records shouldn’t be recognized from those races?
Leave a comment below with your thoughts.
More Info: World Marathon Majors – The Sun – The Sports Review
Update: The IAAF has a new name to fit their acronym: “International Athletics Against Females”
Join this facebook group if you think that the IAAF should reverse their sexist stance.
I think that this rule will come back to bite them. Eventually people will ignore “World Record” and look at the “World Best”. Just like the decision at the Boston Marathon; people that follow the sport know that someone has run 2:03:02 and Ryan Hall will be added to the top of the all time US list: http://www.usatf.org/Stats/All-Time-Lists/MarathonMen.aspx
It has no bearing what so ever who or what gender you are passing….if you run the fastest it is because you have put in the training and have the talent to be there. Actually I would suspect she might have run faster if there was a woman in front of her rather than a man ……assuming she was looking to beat the woman’s field.
How is this any different that putting a rabbit in track races to set a fast pace?
Where the *true* motive may never be known or admitted, it is clear that if the rule is gender limited races then pretty much we have a group rejecting the equality of women. If the rule was that any record must be in a gender limited race then most of the MALE records would have to be tossed out and we would start over and I just don’t see anyone making all the little boys run by themselves. This is not a short race, these are gruelling events of sheer determination and serious training. IAAF needs to get real and man up on the records.
Dear Blaine,
Thank you for sharing your views with me. I believe that any record involving a pacer is suspect. Gender is irrelevant. Even records like the mile in 1981, run by Sebastain Coe in Zurich, unforgettable run, he had to gut it out for the last 600 m alone, tremendous stuff, but suspect because he had a pacer for the first kilometer, who dropped out at that point. Basically, it should only count if it’s a race, and every one is in it to win.
Next point: in a marathon, everyone, regardless of gender, is in it to win. OK. Why not have mixed 10,000 meters races then? Why only the marathon?
The Olympic marathon race is not mixed gender, there are two separate races. That is the way it should be in my opinion for a record to count, so you compare apples w/apples. Honestly, I don’t know the circumstances of Paula Radcliffe’s records. Did she start at the same time as the men in one massive start? If so, she is likely to have been able to pace on the coattails of some male runners. And where did she place in those races? Thirtieth or so? (I’m guessing). So she might run the fastest ever for a women but finish way back. Yet she will be counted as finishing as the first woman. That seems like cake and eating it too. Which way do you want it?
To reiterate. I don’t believe in pacers for records, whether they are pacers by design, like w/Sebastian Coe, or by accident, like w/Paula Radcliffe (maybe, not sure if it was paced, but think so). Pacers are great for spectacle, and for allowing humans to run as fast as they possibly can. But if that’s what you really want, why not have a mechanical hare like the greyhounds do?
Yes, let the genders run together, by all means, just don’t expect a time to count as a recognized record if pacing is involved.
My two cents.
Best,
Stephen
wow! I almost don’t believe it because it is so ridiculous!
My opinion:
This rule must have been made up by “men” who are sexist, bias, and dumb.
Talk about double standards!!!!!
Thanks for letting us know about this; I feel so bad for the women who established those records…. I admire Paula R.!!!
Well there has to be more reasoning behind this decision. I mean if thats the only reasoning is what I read, well than that’s absurd. There just has to be more to the story then just one day the thought came and the ruling was made. Something happened to start the ball rolling I’m just wondering what it was. Me as a female, I believe it is like a punch in the stomach. Although I will be the first one to admit there are differences in stregth and abilities that a male can acquire.