The recent IAAF decision to only admit women's records when they are achieved in women-only events implies that women run faster when they are following a male athlete. The new ruling made Paula Radcliffe's two best times (2:15:25 in 2003 London and 2:17:18 in 2002 Chicago) ineligible. Fortunately, Radcliffe is insanely dominant in her field and has the third best time too (2:17:42 in 2005 London, this one eligible). I am certain IAAF wouldn't (couldn't) have taken this step if the name of the record holder had to be changed.
The running community, including Radcliffe, wasn't pleased with the change, because it made things more confusing. Radcliffe stated in a Runner's World interview that having pacers did not affect her performance. This recent paper somewhat backs her up on that.
Bath D, Turner LA, Bosch AN, Tucker R, Lambert EV, Thompson KG, St Clair Gibson A.
The researchers asked 11 non-elite athletes to run 5K time trials with or without a pacer and varying the position of the pacer (front, side or behind the subject) and measured heart rate, analysed the athlete's pacing strategy and got feedback on how hard the run felt. They found that the presence of the second athlete did not affect the speed, heart rate or strategy. Only effect was on the perception of effort. Most runners reported that the run felt easier with a pacer.
Obviously this is only a 5K trial, a marathon is much harder to pace, but then Radcliffe or any marathon world record holder will obviously have the gift of perfect pacing other mortals don't have. So, this confusion might be pointless at the end.
Finally, here is my suggestion for the next split in the world records book: "Red lead car" vs "Blue lead car"
Side note: Congratulations to Patrick Makau of Kenya for his new World Record.
No comments:
Post a Comment