Athletics Weekly | New IAAF ratification rules will result in scrapping of most historical records - Athletics Weekly

New IAAF ratification rules will result in scrapping of most historical records

This topic contains 115 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of dpickup dpickup 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 116 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #60537
    Profile photo of

    I think some are focusing too much on the year 2005. That’s just when they stored blood tests. It doesn’t automatically mean they will ratify every post ’05 time. And it would seem if blood tests from prior were not discarded they could be valid too, so I’ll ask again, can Radcliffe find her blood tests from ’03 and petition to keep her record?

    As far as allowing certain record to stand based on a vote of credibility that would be problematic legally. This proposal withstands any legal challenge because they are not singling out any specific marks.

    As I said before all records prior to FAT timing were also essentially thrown out, so think of this as the same sort of reset. There may have been an outcry then, but it blew over.

    #60550
    Profile photo of occasionalhope
    OccasionalHope
    Participant

    I’m not sure I can see this happening any time soon.

    I do think that the new (proposed) stricter criteria are a good idea for new records set from now on: but not jettisoning all past records willy-nilly.

    #60556
    Profile photo of occasionalhope
    OccasionalHope
    Participant

    It’s still just a proposal atm – the IAAF still has to approve it. Will they?

    https://www.si.com/olympics/2017/05/01/iaaf-world-record-rule-change-paula-radcliffe-hicham-el-guerrouj

    #60557
    Profile photo of peterwill
    peterwill
    Participant

    Radcliffe has every right to complain, but in the big picture I think it will help her legacy. She’ll gets lots of attention and sympathy and whatnot and casual fans will be reminded how great she was. She can keep laying claim to the true fastest ever.

    I disagree. I think many of the general public, who are less informed and who will not be bothered to research the reasons into the wipe out of records, will see what she has had her record “taken away” and will just assume that she was a cheat and that’s why her record has been erased…

    #60558
    Profile photo of

    Radcliffe has every right to complain, but in the big picture I think it will help her legacy. She’ll gets lots of attention and sympathy and whatnot and casual fans will be reminded how great she was. She can keep laying <span class=”vm-hook-outer vm-hook-default”><span class=”vm-hook” style=”color: rgb(0, 153, 0); border-color: transparent transparent rgb(0, 153, 0);”>claim</span><span class=”vm-hook-icon” style=”display: inline-block;”></span></span> to the true fastest ever.

    I disagree. I think many of the general public, who are less informed and who will not be bothered to research the reasons into the wipe out of records, will see what she has had her record “taken away” and will just assume that she was a cheat and that’s why her record has been erased…

    That’s a valid point. It could happen. Hope it doesn’t.

    #60560
    Profile photo of larkim
    larkim
    Participant

    I can’t help feeling they’re missing the point here. The anger and frustration is usually about dopers winning races, medals etc and displacing the achievements of clean athletes. As athletes are fond of telling us, someone will beat a record, but you can’t take away my Olympic / World / European medal etc etc.

    So singling out record achievements retrospectively is unfair as it can only ever target a small number of athletes. If they were being courageous they would simply wipe the results from major championships for any athlete that didn’t meet their new record criteria all the way back to 2005.

    And as ludicrous as that would be as an idea, I think they certainly have to have these sorts of criteria applied to future medal winners, so make a clean record and sufficient OOC tests a criteria for being on the podium from now onwards.

    #60571
    Profile photo of geoff
    geoff
    Participant

    This really has divided the athletics community and I’m not sure it will be approved by the IAAF in its current form. The main criticism is it punishes innocent athletes who set their records legitimately who had already had to compete against cheats who deprived them of medals, recognition and funding. Surely, that can’t be right! Collateral damage should be avoided and instead look at ways to remove as many dubious records as possible such as Koch from the record books. Some may survive but there are other more important issues in our sport to concentrate on.

    Do UKA agree with the European proposals?

    #60573
    Profile photo of connor1781
    Connor1781
    Participant

    Interesting that Coe is open to the idea of cleaning the records slate and innocent athletes losing their marks for the credibility of the sport but when there were calls for a clean slate in the administration of the sport for its credibility he kept his job.

    #60590
    Profile photo of kermit
    kermit
    Participant

    Here is a new proposal

    Just as we saw with times recorded at altitude the record book should note which records are pre-2005 with an asterisk.

    Furthermore

    ALL athletes invited to compete at global and regional championships should be made to sign a contract that they agree to the immediate handing over of all medals, times expunged and any subsequent funds gained from said accomplishment should they fail a drugs test.

    If they fail to sign said contract they will not be invited to compete.

    Furthermore

    ANY country who does not comply with out of competition testing will not be able to send teams to global games.

    Think that covers it

    • This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by Profile photo of kermit kermit.
    #60592
    Profile photo of stevek26
    SteveK26
    Participant

    Not sure about the asterix stuff , Kermit.

    I’m pretty sure that any relatively serious athletics fan already knows which records are dodgy and why.
    Anybody watching with just a passing interest wouldn’t give a tinkers hoot about ‘dodgy’ world records, and probably think that most of the current top performers are on sweeties anyway.

    So I’m not sure why this idea is even on the table. Will it restore any confidence in our sport ? I doubt it. Too many drugs stories around, of which this is another one.

    I don’t see what purpose it serves, but I wouldn’t put it past Lord Coe to rubber stamp it.

    #60603
    Profile photo of sidelined
    sidelined
    Participant

    There’s a really interesting take on this issue here, including graphs showing how the advent of out-of-competition testing affected marks in the women’s discus (they dropped immediately by 5%), and how the introduction of testing for EPO affected marks in the 5000 and 10000. Guess what, times slowed down.

    On the recalibration of world records: Brief thoughts

    Leaving the old marks on the books makes it impossible for women to make world record attempts in many events because those marks – the 400, for example – are impossible to replicate without drugs. Given the obsession with world record attempts this makes it hard for women in the sport to get as much attention and as much money as men. That’s unfair.

    But I think the sport is far too obsessed with records attempts anyway – I’m more interesting in competition. I find those Diamond League races where commentators bewail the fact that no one is going with the pacemaker really annoying. The assumption is that winning the race isn’t enough.

    Whatever happens to this proposal if the EAA are going to demand a given number of tests, preferably OOC, on an athlete before they ratify a record that can only be a good thing.

    #60608
    Profile photo of occasionalhope
    OccasionalHope
    Participant

    I’m reasonably happy with the proposals if implemented from now on for new records, it’s the jettisoning of older records I’m not happy about.

    #60613
    Profile photo of larkim
    larkim
    Participant

    I agree OH. If even 1 current WR holder who is 100% clean loses their record through this then it is a kick in the teeth, as I suspect you’ll also find that the same WR holders have also had losses in major comps to athletes who have subsequently been caught doping. Missing out on your podium is one thing, but then having your record wiped because of the actions of others just seems to be doing the sport a disservice.

    #60628
    Profile photo of mrme
    MrMe
    Participant

    If we go down this path then we should erase all medals before 2005 as well. After all how can we be sure that those medals were obtained fairly? Why should Coe get to keep his Olympic champion status whilst athletes like Radcliffe lose their greatest achievements? Not fair.

    #60633
    Profile photo of stevek26
    SteveK26
    Participant

    It seems like the bulk of opinion is to leave well alone.

    Which is exactly where I stand.

    #60639
    Profile photo of

    couldn’t disagree more with the egotistical whinging of certain British athletes; but having just lost a long missive as to why I am appalled at the previous posts on this topic I will reserve further comment to the morrow.
    Life aint fair, and we have had to put up with crap WRs based on obvious or highly suspicious cheating for decades by numerous male and female East European, African and American so called WR holders.

    Just remember any clean Wrs are not dismissed but no longer WRs under a new definition… a little bit like the swimming costume saga :yahoo:

    #60640
    Profile photo of stevek26
    SteveK26
    Participant

    This is the opposite of the swimming situation, Jeremy.

    FINA has allowed all the non-textile records to stand, and quite a few world records still date back to Berlin 2009.

    The ‘whinging’ athletes as you call them have every right to complain. They neither cheated nor were they wearing any form of kit that gave them any advantage.

    Another point that seems to have slipped by you is that the marks that might replace their ones could be drug assisted. Or do you think, like Darkside, that all is fine and dandy with the testing procedures these days? I don’t. Far from it.

    #60642
    Profile photo of

    Those of us who follow swimming take note only of post-crazy suits times and a lot of those old suit times are always mentioned by responsible sites and journalists as old WRs in a bad time ,to be replaced by the currently acceptable suits times. Craig Lord, the doyen of swimming stats and Times correspondent, always makes the parallel look back comments as required when assessing new WRs

    Are you content then, for the sake of protecting certain complaining T and F athletes with WR performances to protect, (which we do not know are genuine anyway),to allow and accept the charade of Flo-JO, the cheat Randy Barnes, the wholesale cheating which the East Germans perpetrated, the East European cheats, the highly questionable North Africans of whom we lack knowledge as to their testing regimes, the Kenyans whom Letsrun have been calling out for a long time and now we know they were justified in large part,as representing a respectable World Record.
    Always thought a proposed recalibration of New World Records was the way forward with carefully thought out procedures as to testing.
    Some get hurt of course who MAY have been clean, but the parlous state of a drug infested sport demands action, not the usual hand wringing by egotist athletes and the bleeding hearts.
    One just knew for sure that the woolly minded so called liberal mindset would crawl all over this topic on this site.

    Personally, I reject a large minority of the current World Records which were by athletes who had not undergone todays better testing regimes and analysis, as exemplified of the standards of the more enlightened countries.
    The ability of todays science of testing for drugs and banned substances to sort out the lousy cheats in Russia and other countries has made a complete nonsense of performances of the last century at least.

    #60643
    Profile photo of

    Lets just call all the records pre 2005 or whatever date is set “Old World Records”.

    #60654
    Profile photo of ursus
    Ursus
    Participant

    This really is deckchairs on the Titanic stuff.

    Russia aside, state doping may not happen to the extent that it did, but the cheats go on and more corrupt records will be set, whatever controls are in place.

    Post 05, by my reckoning 21 athletics medals have had to be redistributed from Beijing (12 non Russian), 14 from London (5 non Russian). Those are just medal redistributions out of an available 141 medals at each meet, a ridiculously high proportion. But the scale of the problem runs far deeper.

    None from Rio….yet. An improving pattern? Let’s wait a few years to see. The cheats will always be a step ahead – only enforceable one strike and you’re out life bans will sort this mess out.

    #60672
    Profile photo of jford92
    JFord92
    Participant

    I can’t think of the right way to articulate this. Part of me agrees with Jeremy1 part of me wishes this idea was never suggested or entertained.

    My opinion is: if the records being ‘wiped’ is going to be actioned; then the ‘old world records’ need to still carry an obvious relevance to the sport today; like still having it showing below the timer on your screens. So where you’d have ‘CR’ ‘ER’ ‘WR’ etc.. you would have ‘OWR’ (old world record) which is also stated beside them.

    We can’t go on watching this sport lying to ourselves. If Andy Pozzi for example runs 12.99 over 110mh, it would be disrespectful and almost patronising for commentators and journalists, even fans to shout “New British Record” – when we all know about Colin Jackson.

    It’s so anticlimactic, Christian Taylor would automatically be the world record holder for the triple jump without jumping.

    Why battle with hindsight? Wiping the records won’t delete them from history, it plays no part in advocating anti doping. It’s the IAAF desperately reaching out for a clean slate to save the sport. It won’t.

    Records tell a story.

    PS: If someone could explain how this would work with National Records and Championship records that would be great – I don’t know if my Pozzi/Jackson comment carries any value.

    #60685
    Profile photo of occasionalhope
    OccasionalHope
    Participant

    Dame Mary Peters, who still holds the pentathlon WR, joins the voicces against the proposal: https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/uk-sports/2017/05/04/dame-mary-peters-calls-on-seb-coe-to-reject-plan-to-remove-pre-2005-records/

    #60738
    Profile photo of dpickup
    dpickup
    Participant

    How have other sports reacted re WRs?

    Swimning: some WRs, that were made with the faster body suits,still stand as WRs: 12m 6w, but with the new ruling the number of events with new WRs are 10m & 14w, so progress is being made. No WRs are older than 2008. Certainly a star athlete of earlier times, Hackett, was agrieved at losing WRs.

    Weight Lifting has changed their weight groups 2 times
    since 1992. Lists of the old WRs are kept. What the lifters of the past feel about being ‘old listed’ I don’t know. Now there is 1 WR left from ’99 while the rest are post ’06.

    Interesting that the WRs for women of the 1993-97 period, every one except 1 of the 27 records are held by China (remember CHN W MD runners of that period …). Now of the 24 W WRs CHN hold 9.

    Speed skating, like athletics, have 100-years+ continuous lists of WRs, with currently all the WRs set at high altitude, so statistician, have added separate sea-level WRs lists.

    In athletics what do for instance the PV & JT (W) & PEN (W) athletes of the past feel, who held WRs, with the significant change in apparatus/event choice?

    I confirm that I feel the athletics WRs should stay as they are. Current state:
    M 80s 02; 90s 8; 00s 5; 10s 9
    W 80s 10; 90s 1; 00s 5; 10s 8

    Just in the last 2 seasons 3 allegedly notorious W 80s WRs have gone: 1500, 10000, 100H. Things progress, if slowly. Yes we live with a compromised list.

    #60739
    Profile photo of

    This really is deckchairs on the Titanic stuff.

    Russia aside, state doping may not happen to the extent that it did, but the cheats go on and more corrupt records will be set, whatever controls are in place.

    Post 05, by my reckoning 21 athletics medals have had to be redistributed from Beijing (12 non Russian), 14 from London (5 non Russian). Those are just medal redistributions out of an available 141 medals at each meet, a ridiculously high proportion. But the scale of the problem runs far deeper.

    None from Rio….yet. An improving pattern? Let’s wait a few years to see. The cheats will always be a step ahead – only enforceable one strike and you’re out life bans will sort this mess out.

    Life bans sadly are not feasible whilst the lawyers on the useless CAS are in power.

    #60740
    Profile photo of occasionalhope
    OccasionalHope
    Participant

    I suppose if this goes through Rohler will get a WR for his Doha javelin throw the other day.

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 116 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Product Reviews View All
Don't Miss
Videos
AW Offers