Running a risk of credibility

Ithas been referred to as ‘simply an obscene marketing stunt’ while the organisersthemselves call it ‘a fascinating study in pushing the limits of human physiology’.

Whatever your viewpoint, the recent attempt to break the two-hour mark for the marathon wasintriguing, if for no other reason than the extensive efforts made with the aim of achieving perfect conditions and support forrunners hand-selected for the job.

A leading sporting equipmentmanufacturer, aiming to publicisethe launch of its new controversial long-distance running shoe, has been preparing for monthswith an Eritrean, Ethiopian and Kenyan marathon specialist, even to the extent that they were paid to withdraw from blue-ribbonevents such as the London and Berlin marathons.

The venue was selected as the F1 track at Monza in Italy, a 2.4km circuit with flat terrain and few tight bends, which also benefits from cool conditions and light winds, perfect for this ground-breaking attempt.

In addition pace-setters, who could be replaced with fresher ones, were provided to shield the runners. Bizarrely they were even brought fluid and energy supplements by staff on scootersso that the athletes did not have to slow down!

Even though EliudKipchoge (Kenya) fell 26 seconds short of the mark, he still set a personal best by nearly three minutes in a run that Paula Radcliffe referred to as ‘truly inspiring’. To put this into perspective, his time was the equivalent of running the 100m in 17 seconds a remarkable 422 times … or every mile in 4min 35 seconds – 26 times!

Yet, while this still registers as the fastest time recorded to run a marathon distance, the time remains unofficial due to the favourableconditions and assistance provided to the athletes.

Remarkably, this was in the very same week that a taskforce established by European Athletics has controversially proposed that world records set before 2005 be scrapped, the onlyones permitted to remain being those that can meet strict new criteria (primarily ensuring that the athletes have been regularly tested for performance enhancers while leaving a blood sample for testing up to ten years after the event).

This proposal, which has now been sent to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) for ratification in August, is deemed to be required in an attempt to ensure athletics ‘regains control ofits rules and records’, partly due to the threat of legal action.

The McLaren report, which uncovered widespread doping in sport – and Russian athletes in particular (resulting in a large number being banned from international competition) – has resulted in the credibility of the sport being raised into question again. This resulted in the re-testing of samples taken at the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games and more than 100 participating athletes being retrospectively sanctioned.

“These are records in which people in the sport, the media and the public do not have complete confidence,” claimed the chairman of the taskforce, Pierce O’Callaghan.

Unsurprisingly, affected athletes have already been contacting their lawyers. Mike Powell, who broke one of the most memorable records of all time (Bob Beamon’s long jump of 8.90m which had stood for 23 years), stands to lose his distance of 8.95m,which has remained since 1991. He is threatening legal action as, rightly I believe, his own reputation is now being brought into disrepute.

Other world records have stood for longer, including the shot put (1990), hammer and discuss throws (both 1986). Florence Griffith-Joyner still holds the women’s records for 100m and 200m, both set in 1988.

If this recommendation is ratified then there will be slower times and shorter distances recordedas world records in nearly half of the 146 men’s and women’s indoor and outdoor records. Famous names to be impacted include Michael Johnson and HichamEl Guerrouji, the latter of whom could lose five records. His name could effectively be deleted from history!

There are some athletes who support the proposals. British sprinter Darren Campbell believes that it is for ‘the greater good’ and that the pain of loss is worthwhile to help the sport restore its credibility.

Except that re-writing history simply won’t achieve that. If anything, it is simply painting an even more bleak picture of athletics’ past and generating officially sanctioned ‘alternative facts’!

This would be just the tip of a quickly melting iceberg. While focus is currently centredon the existing world records that were set before 2005, it would not belong before the natural extension would be to eradicate any landmark set before a time when officials could properly test the results.

It is, therefore, somewhat ironic that an unsanctioned attempt to re-write history at a state-of-the-art F1 track in northern Italy was held on the 63rd anniversary of the day that Roger Bannister broke the four-minute barrier for the mile. 

Perhaps he will also be erased from the records … Roger who?