Is Anyone Happy With the IAAF Decision About Women’s Records?
In a recent “Things You Should Know” piece, I mentioned the squirrelly decision by the IAAF to only recognize records set by women in women only competitions.
This decision seems odd to me and more than a little 19th century.
So-far, I have yet to see any really good argument for the IAAF decision. All the ink I’ve seen (real or virtual) has been critical of the IAAF decision. Has anyone seen any writing in defense of the IAAF? I’d be interested to see it.
I recently stumbled on a nice editorial the Chicago Tribune’s Philip Hersh wrote on the decision. (Okay, scathing is probably a better word than nice, but I enjoyed it.)
In it, Hersh asks the all important questions:
Why not have a women’s marathon world record category for days with 39 percent humidity?
Or another one for days when the sun shines more than two hours?
Or one for courses with fewer than six turns? More than 11? That run across the 49th parallel?
Why not indeed? Reading the editorial will be well worth your time.
An odd decision in any case, and in light of the fact that men are allowed to be paced, one that is completely nonsensical. I mean, at Berlin there were 6 pacers forming an escort for five competitors.
I have yet to hear a positive word.
1I could almost see the point of this if the intent was to remove all rabbits and pacemakers, but they aren’t. This will only impact women.
2