[/b][/QUOTE]Never mind that. Any word on Normandy?[/B][/QUOTE]

Normandy? Slow down, I'm still waiting on the results from Hastings.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
Anyone know if it will go into the record books as an aided record?<HR>

Wah, wah, wah. No offense but this is dumb question. For one thing for offical purposes there is no such thing as an "aided record". A USATF/IAAF record is either allowed or it isn't. Also if paced records were recognized as "aided" don't you think race organizers would know this and not bother shelling out $$$ for pacers?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
Personally I think it's set back women's athletics.<HR>

True, fans are much less interested in women's marathoning now that winning times are 2:15-2:19. You never hear a word about how great these runners are...just constant talk about how their records are tainted.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
http://b]To demand men to help her seeems like a big step backwards, despite the good result.;/b<HR>

Yes, I am sure Paula held a gun to David Bedford's head and that he had no interest himself in the male pacers concept until he got sick of being pestered by Paula.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
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.<HR>

Then go edit it and put in a and you'll feel better.

You seem like someone who is extra good at complaining because you purposefully stay unaware of background info.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
I don't think women's records when they are paced by males the whole way to the finish line should be allowed.<HR>

I assume then you do not want Kastor's new American record to count or would at least like to see a * next to it?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
I think elite runners should be smart enough to be able to pace themselves

Aren't these elite athletes smart enough or experienced enough to be able to pace themselves without assistence?<HR>

Their intelligence has nothing to do with it although yours is obviously an issue in this thread.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
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.<HR>

Now there is an endearing statement.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
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.<HR>

Yes, let's all wait in fear for the day the BAA brings in pace makers for a record ineligible course.

quote:<HR>I'm sure you could avoid events like the Goodwill games fiasco (didn't the men run slower times than the women for some of those events?) by adjusting the money to finsihing time. So much for a win, more if the time is under whatever...<HR>

What a great idea, I'm surprised that nobody thought of it before! ... Oh, wait ... That comment really reveals your ignorance of high level athletics and the real role of pacemakers. Let me see if I can help you. Elite athletes don't need "help" to work out which pace to run, and that isn't the pacemakers job. Pacemakers are employed by race directors, not athletes, their job is to ensure that the race director gets the best and fastest race possible out of the elite athletes that he has employed. To do so they discuss the best pace that the elites feel they can manage for a distance, then the pacemaker ensures they follow that pace. The carrots are the time bonuses, the stick is that the rabbit is entered in the race and is at liberty to go on and win if the elites don't follow his lead. That is the distiction between men pacing men and men pacing women, and why I'm not in favour of the latter.

quote:<HR>As for not seeing a fast time, it's not the absolute speed that makes a race exciting to watch, it's the competition.<HR>

That is a complete fallacy. From the point of view of interesting competition, if you didn't think the men's race at London was waaay more interesting than Cheruiyot's solo run, you have a strange idea of what "exciting" means.
From the point of view of what the public wants to watch, evidently they want world records. If they didn't, they wouldn't go (and if you think that athletics meets are hurting for attendance you need to go to a European meet, where they invariably use rabbits for every distance above 400m) and meet directors would stop employing rabbits. It's simple, meet directors want ticket sales, if they didn't get them they'd do something different.

quote:<HR>London, on the other hand, was ho-hum compared to previous years.<HR>

Of course it was, its never fun to watch 7 really top guys eyeing each other after a blistering first half. It's also pretty ho-hum to see two really top guys go head to head for 3 miles. It's always more fun to know who the winner is with 10 miles to go. I thought the point was that time trials aren't fun to watch? That was certainly mary's point.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:
I did not see London as we're not fortunate enough to have coverage over here, but it seems that it was clear fairly early on that nothing special was going to happen time-wise...<HR>

Wah, wah, wah. I was watching online thanks to BBC (1 a.m. start locally) and near the halfway point there were 10 guys on about 2:05:10 pace. That seems pretty special to me. Once it became clear around 17-18 miles that chances of a world record being set were slim, the pack more or less started half assing it and was moving at 5:05 pace. This allowed the stronger guys to regroup and mount a ferocious charge toward the finish over the last 4 or so miles. So, this race had a little of everything. Sorry you missed it but the picture was **** anyways.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:
I have no idea what maryt's point was, when that series of posts turned from discussion toward personal I skipped to the end.<HR>

My points are simple.

Legal or not, accepted or not, when you have male pacers in what are supposedly women's races, it really turns me off.

The chance that the rabbit may help determine not just the speed but the actual outcome of the race turns me off - a lot.

In this case, Deena's own personal training partner was out there as her rabbit, an advantage not shared by all the other women. Did that affect the outcome? Probably not, but he certainly wasn't just a pacer for the field.

Hopper pointed out that in men's races:

quote:<HR>Originally posted by hopper3011:
the stick is that the rabbit is entered in the race and is at liberty to go on and win if the elites don't follow his lead. That is the distiction between men pacing men and men pacing women, and why I'm not in favour of the latter. <HR>

That's another good point, and one that we both agree on. If Deena had fallen off the pace, would her training partner pacer have continued on at the designated pace, or maybe taken advantage to get ahead and race to beat her to the finish line? Of course not.

Obviously, Deena is a fantastic runner who can run exciting well -paced races without men around - just look at the Olympics. I much prefer to see that kind of race when the outcome is determined soley by the runners themselves, with no question about the outcome being influenced by who they might have as their pacers.



http://This message has been edited by maryt (edited Apr-29-2006).