Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

I don’t usually follow competitive running that carefully (although I did once run a 5K in a blazing 25 minutes once- be jealous, folks) but even I know when to call bullshit.

The International Association of Athletics Foundation (IAAF), the world governing body for track and field, recently decided to change the rules regarding women’s marathon records to require that a woman’s time can only qualify as a world record if she runs in a women-only field.

That means that Paula Radcliffe’s world record 2:15:25 at the 2003 London Marathon — so widely considered to be one of the greatest running performances in history that even I had heard about it — no longer qualifies as a world record because she ran with male pace-setters.

The IAAF’s thought seems to be that a woman couldn’t possibly perform that well on her own, she’d need men to help her — so it shouldn’t count.

What a crock.

Now interestingly, it appears to be true that elite women runners DO run faster when there are men running nearby. There could be several reasons for this, but one obvious one, in my view, has nothing to do with gender: EVERYONE runs better when there is a pace group around them. Not a lot of women can run as fast as Paula Radcliffe. So pretty much by definition, for her to be running in a pack, that pack is going to be populated by men.

Does that really make her accomplishment any less extraordinary? I mean, come on. No one suggests that Paula Radcliffe did not run the 2003 London marathon on her own two legs. Instead, the IAAF seems to think that merely by running alongside men, her performance was somehow not worthy of a world record, and instead must be referred to as “world’s best.”

In addition to being completely annoying and patronizing, this decision has another problem: the vast majority of marathons are mixed-gender fields. This means a woman can no longer set a world record at New York, or Chicago, or Berlin- because men run those marathons, too. Instead, world record status will be limited to those few (and much smaller) marathons that feature only women.

The good news, if there is any, is that everyone except the IAAF seems to recognize this is total BS. The race directors of World Marathon Majors and the Association of International Marathons have already gone on record as saying that they refuse to accept the IAAF’s decision, and Nike has started a facebook campaign arguing that the 2003 time should stand as the world record despite the rule change.

I mean, what’s next? No world record if the course was too flat? If the weather was too perfect? If you had too many people cheering you on and giving you that extra boost at the end?

Paula Radcliffe did something amazing when she set the World Record in 2003- and it should stand. Period.

Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

• Marathon
• Running
• Sports

This post is related to an ongoing story:

• IAAF Bans Male Pacers in Women's Marathons

View Original Post at draftdaysuit.com

View GoonSquadSarah's Full Profile