Hopper,

No, actually not a change of heart at all. I would still much rather see a woman's race without any male pacers. However if there are male pacers at London - something which Paula started - I like to see an American win. I have not changed my mind about pacers, and I don't think women's records when they are paced by males the whole way to the finish line should be allowed. I also think pacers, especialy male pacers in a women's race makes for a much less interesting race spectator-wise and can lead to speculation that the male pacers, not just the women themselves contributed to the outcome of the race - not only not just the speed and records, if any, but position as well. I hadn't seen the race; I posted when I first heard the news on TV which just showed Deena coming in alone 2 minutes ahead of the competition. There was no world record set, no mention of an American record in the brief report I saw, and with a 2 minute lead, figured if there were male pacers (I didn't know at that point if there were or not) they weren't as much of an issue as there was with Chicago.

Truthfully, if I had read the following report first, while I still like seeing an American come in first, I would have omitted the smiley face. I think elite runners should be smart enough to be able to pace themselves; that should be part of the race. My own personal preference, I would like to see the pacers out of the races for both both sexes - I do think it detracts from the sport, especially men pacers for women's races who can pace them the whole way - an advantage the men don't have. Aren't these elite athletes smart enough or experienced enough to be able to pace themselves without assistence? Some have said the athletes are doing the running themselves; the pacers don't really make that much difference, then why have them there at all? And there certainly is some concern that the pacers DO make a difference in the outcome. See this report from IAAF NEWS:

quote:<HR>The outcome of both men's and women's races had been strongly influenced by pacemakers, who in both cases were male... While Kastor had the benefit of the constant attentions of two pacemakers, and the chasing group with the two Russians and Adere also had the benefit of a male "minder", Chepkemei might have cause to feel a little aggrieved, since for the tough final 10km section of the race, she had only herself for company.<HR>

http://This message has been edited by maryt (edited Apr-24-2006).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by hopper3011:
Are you saying you didn't get out of bed to watch the race? Shame on you. So what you are saying is that, as long as Americans are winning, it doesn't matter if they are stretching the rules?
If we accept for a moment that Paula "started" the male pacemaker trend (which isn't exactly true) I think you will find that Deena went a step further than Paula. She brought her training partner with her, and he acted as pacemaker. He definitely took Chepkemei's ground a couple of times, preventing her from settling into a rhythm. I doubt very much that it changed the result much, but it still happened.
I can't say that I agree with you about pacemakers (and I think that you are stunningly ill-informed as to their actual role) but I do agree that male pacemakers in female-only races is not a good thing. <HR>

No, I'm no saying that as long as Americans are winning, it doesn't matter if they are stretching the rules. I'm saying that as long as the rules are being bent, I'd rather see an American win than a non-Ameican - being an American myself after all. However, I would MUCH prefer to have no pacers, regardles of the outcome. I watched the elite women at the Boston Marathon live from the 20-mile point, and watched again on what I had recorded when I got home. It is so much more exciting (to me at least) to watch a race when the only people on the course for the women's race are the women racers themselves regardless of what country they represent - not the women and their male pacers. In fact if Boston were ever to ever allow male pacers, my volunteering days and watching days would be over so far as the race is concerned, regardless of whether or not an American woman was likely to win. It just really turns me off. I agree with you completely in your statement above that

quote:<HR>male pacemakers in female-only races is not a good thing.<HR>

quote:<HR>Originally posted by hopper3011:

I'm saying that as long as the rules are being bent, I'd rather see an American win than a non-Ameican<HR>

Doesn't that stance presuppose that Deena had no choice in the matter?

Well obviously she wouldn't pass up the opportunity to use pacers if allowed, there is too much at stake. I agree with Mary, I hate men pacers being used in women's races. I would like to see none allowed in the series, and a seperate start like Boston.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by laker:
Well obviously she wouldn't pass up the opportunity to use pacers if allowed, there is too much at stake. I agree with Mary, I hate men pacers being used in women's races. I would like to see none allowed in the series, and a seperate start like Boston.<HR>

This will come as a surprise to you, but I wasn't actually discussing Deena's use of rabbits, I was simply pointing out maryt's inconsistent and, some might say, ill-informed opinions.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by cowardlylion:
At least into the early 80s a women's track record couldn't be set in a mixed-sex race (I don't know how it is now since the elite never run in those anymore).<HR>

A mixed-sex track race still isn't allowed. I ran a track 10K a few years ago, and had a women draft off me for awhile (unplanned) and she ran what would have been the yearly US leader at the time (per T&FN), and an easy auto qualifier for USATF nationals. However, the time didn't count for either.

I personally don't like the idea of rabbits, but they are here to stay. On the women's side there simply aren't the same wealth of quality rabbits available as the men. It is still pretty rare to see a female rabbit. To match what the men have, there really needs to be male rabbits, but why the inconsistency between road and track races? And once you have a male rabbit, why not just use a motorcycle or a car? Or have rabbits start part way through the race? Without rabbits at all, there is the risk of races like the 15+ minute mens 5K at the Goodwill games a few years ago. And there is no way to enforce what is intentional rabbiting vs. someone just taking it out (someone always has to lead!). But if there was a way to get rid of rabbits completely, I think it would lead to better racing, and make it more exciting to watch once the fans got used to not seeing a fast time in every race.

------------------
About Me[/URL" target="_blank">

Sure. High school participation has exploded, too. But the elite side of track & field is essentially dead in this country. I mean, the rest of us aren't worried if our times are unduly affected by rabbits, are we?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by cowardlylion:
Sure. High school participation has exploded, too. But the elite side of track & field is essentially dead in this country. I mean, the rest of us aren't worried if our times are unduly affected by rabbits, are we?<HR>

I'd disagree with that as well. Just because it doesn't get on the TV as much as some other sports, doesn't mean T&F is dead in the USA. Take a look at the attendance figures for the Trials in Sacramento. Look at the attendance for college meets.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by janeywaney123:
hi i'm over here in britain. It was deena kastor, i think at 2h and 20 mins for the women and limo for the men at 2h and 7 mins. With rainy weather as usual but nice and cooling for the marathon. <HR>

I thought you were 3 hours ahead of us time wise not 3 days behind.