-
Last edited by gh; 01-12-2016, 05:49 PM. -
I laughed out loud when I saw that this would take the m3000 record away from D. Komen and give it to Saidi-Sief. Great to get those "drug cheats" off the record books! Oy.
This does "cleanse" the women's books of many of its most blatant absurdities, but some clearly ridiculous things are still there.
Bottom line: I continue to believe that the "old" record list--with astericks and all the "local knowledge" we bring to it--is the best way to go. Does anyone believe this hypothetical "new" list would do any PR good with ANY casual fans or media types? I sure don't. -
I'm with Kuha. Apart from the injustice it would wreak in some cases, there is the image problem. If we had done this in 2000, every time anyone had a mark that was recognized as a WR but that was not as good as the pre-2000 WR, most good journalists would have mentioned the fact that the new record wasn't as good as the old one. This would confuse a lot of people. This would not have helped the effort to make our sport and our numbers more understandable.
Worse yet, many of these stories would have mentioned drugs as the reason for the decision to replace all of the old records. That would have given the public numerous reminders of the fact that there has been a drug problem in our sport. W need fewer such reminders, not more. It might also have generated discussions about (a) whether a given past athlete was really dirty (and whether his/her successor is really clean) and (b) whether the decision to wipe out past records meant that the IAAF thought that it had wiped out doping, and whether that conclusion was accurate. Again, these discussions could only cause further harm.Comment
-
Coe and Kipketer wiped from the books too. :?
But, is this less about fairness and more an academic exercise to rejuvenate interest?Comment
-
The idea is so absurd it makes me laugh.
It would just reinforce the false idea that everything in the past was tainted, but somehow we have cleaned up the system and all is well.
For example Geb's pre-2000 records would all be gone, but his marathon WR would be fine. That is a great idea.Comment
-
Seems like the logical demarcation would be post WADA circa October 2000. No?Comment
-
No matter what date, it is still a stupid idea.Originally posted by bhallComment
-
True dat.Originally posted by Conor DaryComment
-
I don't see this as all that much different from other competition rules changes that impact performance like implement changes, scoring table changes, false start rule changes, or the "save Bubka's WR for eternity" PV changes.
The record book rewrite would be more far reaching but it is no more arbitrary than any of the other changes mentioned above and it actually seems based on reality when compared to some of them.
I'm not sure I'm for or against the rewrite but we already draw a lot of lines in the sand in the sport and this seems no different to me.Comment
-
Choosing an arbitrary date for wiping the record books clean is pointless. There would have been record holders before this date who took something illegal, just as there will have been "dirty" record holders since.
Just because there was no EPO test until the 2000 Olympics, casting a question mark over many exploits in the mid and late 90's, does not mean that all those who continued with its use have been caught since.
Are some people really naive enough to think that Ramzi (for instance) only took EPO once before the Beijing Olympics; especially after coming from almost obscurity to double World Champion in a couple of seasons earlier in his career and after 2000?
If HE managed to get away with it, you can bet that other times since 2000 have been aided illegally.Comment
-
Originally posted by bhall
We're safe since this won't happen anyway....But the major point is that this hypothetical change is VASTLY more sweeping and important than "simply" changing the false start rules, or even changing the javelin. One can say that all these things are "arbitrary"--but some have a more solid rationale than others, and need to be judged accordingly. The idea of beginning with a new 'year 2000' set of WRs creates far more problems than it even begins to solve. It pitches out records that should be considered 'blue-chip' in quality, while admitting others that are stinking, steaming cow-pies. There would be fewer cow-pies, for sure, but we would NOT have a "clean" set of records, period, and so the huge and overriding rationale for the whole concept is essentially false.
All facts require some measure of interpretation to be meaningful, and our existing record books require a good deal of interpretation (and asterisks). No cut-off date will eliminate that need for intelligent appraisal--and for value judgments.
I do think, and have said before, that throughout a year's season, more emphasis should be given to a given mark's place on the year-to-date list, AND, for particularly good marks, to the all-time list. To say, for example, that a given 800 is the 6th best (or whatever) performance in history is worthy of notice and celebration. There just aren't going to be many WRs set anyway, and most "WR talk" just gets people primed for disappointment.Comment
-
Kuha-
Generally I agree with you. The issue is outlier rule changes like the PV changes. Or the still unaddressed lack of standards around pressure/acceleration sensitive blocks.
With regards to the PV changes - You make a rule change that is designed to change the nature of the event but you leave the existing record in place? That lack of consistency in rule making is what makes the idea of sweeping WR changes less bothersome to me. The governing body has already sent obvious signals saying that "solid rationale" is only important to them when they want it to be.Comment
-
Just looking at the PV issue only, much ado about nothing. If you want to break the PV record, just clear the damned thing without any touches, kisses, etc. and the record is yours. As Nike says, Just Do It.
As for all this other stuff about "new" Records, I'm with the majority here... it's stupid. No need to build our sport around WR's.Comment
-
If one looks at the men's list this argument is moot for most events and, except for Komen's 3000, will probably be true for all the running events sometime in the near future.
On the other hand, some of the women events will most likely never be broken. And it is not primarily because of drugs. These dubious records, of course, are Flojo's 10:49, which most likely was wind-aided and the most worthless records of all, the Chinese 'women' onslaught in the early 90's.
What to do with these dubious marks, is I agree a problem. But to toss everything out at this point would be, in my opinion,a serious mistake.Comment
-
Why does'n't WÅ‚odarczyk's HT mark have the * indicating it is also an official WR?Comment
Tweet
Comment