20th March 2003 PRESS RELEASE
.
RECORDS-AT-ANY-COSTS PHILOSOPHY FURTHER DAMAGES THE CREDIBILITY OF IAAF ROAD
RECORDS
In recent controversy over IAAF intervention over male pacers, IAAF Secretary Istvan Gyulai is quoted as saying “What are they going to do next? Put a car in front of someone? The rules have to be respected. It is very
clear.”
Well, they have already done that, the record claim was not investigated properly and the IAAF ratified the record!
So yet again major question marks hang over the new IAAF road records
Information on the running of the Doha 10K in Qatar in December last year has recently come forth. It turns out that a sizeable 4-wheel drive vehicle was used as the lead vehicle.
This, in itself, is not a problem, but reportedly the distance between this vehicle and the lead pack was around a metre or less and it was driven in such a manner so as to provide virtually continuous drafting for the lead pack.
Using a “lead vehicle” in a manner so as to provide drafting for the lead runners clearly constitutes assistance, and is in clear contravention of IAAF Rule 143 which states “no competitor shall receive any assistance
during the progress of the event.” `Assistance’ means direct help conveyed by any means including any technical device. In this case, the lead vehicle was used as a technical device to affect the nature of the race for some of the runners.
Based on his extensive database of running performances, running expert Ken Young calculates that WITHOUT this illegal assistance, Gebreselasie would have run on the order of 27:49 which is well off the accepted world record.
The IAAF was very quick to include this mark in its list of “world road bests” which underscores the flaws in the set of criteria adopted by the IAAF for recognition of world road bests. Such marks need to be validated by an independent and experienced person who is able to review the conduct of the race. In this case, a review of a videotape of the race would have immediately revealed this problem.
This is not the only recent example of race officials endorsing strategies designed to produce faster times in total disregard for the rules of competition prohibiting such strategies.
In the USA Men’s Marathon Championships held this past February, a special “relay” was set up to provide second half pacing for the lead runners using a “second-leg” runner who would start fresh at the half marathon mark and pace through the remainder of the race (the “first-leg” runner would pace for the first half of the race).
This too, is prohibited by the rules of competition. The “pacers” were not entered in the marathon race; they were participating in a separate event, a road relay. While “pacers” are allowed in races, they are allowed as long as the pacer is also eligible to win the race if he/she so chooses (and is capable).
In other words, the pacer must (1) be entered in the race, and (2) start the race at the designated place and time with the other runners. In the case of the USA Marathon Champs, the “second-leg” pacers would not have been entered in the marathon race and would not have started at the same time and place as the runners actually running in the marathon.
The rules of competition are designed to provide a “level” playing field, i.e., as far as possible, to provide a sound basis for comparing marks made by different runners on different dates in different locations. Records become meaningless when the rules are not applied uniformly.
END
Ken Young
PO Box 219
Petrolia CA 95558
United States
(707) 629-3430
www.mattoleriver.com
kcy@inreach.com
Riël Hauman
Author of Century of the
Marathon 1896-1996
Bellville, RSA 7530
South Africa
Phone & fax:
+27 (0)21 948-0293
Cell: 083 454-3498
riel@xsinet.co.za
Andy Milroy,
Trowbridge,
United Kingdom
a.milroy@virgin.net