World Records Likely to be Reset [new proposal]

[ATL_Coach]

http://www.jamaicaolympics.com/archives/13574

This is coming sooner than later.

[gh]

read a fuller story posted to our home page... not sure "likely" is the proper word, as it requires the wiping of a lot of history.

[Conor Dary]

I read the article. 30 years ago when athletics was still popular it would have been a great idea. Now it smells of desperation. It will only confirm to the non track public and press that everything in the past was irregular. And piss off a lot of others and make the sport even more incomprehensible to the dwindling casual fans.

[aaronk]

One thing's guaranteed---
IF this happens, look to my blog where the records will be what they ARE---and not what the IAAF says they are!!
Things in our sport are confusing enough!
I try to make them less so!

[moreover]

At least they used the word "revolutionary". I hate year one revolutionary ideas - in this case year one being 2005. Erasing most records? Come on. So, only people in their 20s and 30s can have a record.
Also, I thought there already were rules about questionable tracks and meets that stir controversies from time to time. It's silly to limit world records to only international competitions and a little late to attack the Chinese short track/doping distance records.

[beebee]

I'll say it again...

This is the IAAF punishing clean honest WR holders for failing to catch the cheaters.

[Guest]

"Paula Radcliffe and Jonathan Edwards to lose world records after rules tweak"

That's the Guardian. Except that there hasn't been any rules change, just a proposal, and not from the IAAF.

[Guest]

I'll say it again...

This is the IAAF punishing clean honest WR holders for failing to catch the cheaters.

It might be, if and when the IAAF changes the rules.

Of course, one could be utilitarian and take the view that most records are likely dirty.

[norunner]

If they introduce this, it's going to be chaos. We would have NRs better than WRs, we would have WLs better than WRs, we would have lots of PBs better than WRs. And we would have lots of different record lists, the "old" ones, the official new ones, the unofficial new ones.

[26mi235]

How about Space Odyssey records [i.e., 2001, i.e., this (real) millennium since there was no Year 0].

[deanouk]

And what happens to the All Time lists per event?
Do they remove everyone's name from the lists, who set their performance pre 2005?

It's a ludicrous decision and will lose public support for the sport. There is enough cynicism and accusations about who is and was likely to have doped already. This just throws more fuel on the fire.
A much better course of action would be to remove anyone from the lists who have ever tested positive for any banned substance, regardless of whether their best times were set the same season, and to remove anyone who has openly admitted to having taken peds at anytime during their career. E.g. Koch's letter complaining about not having as much steroids as Wockel, that was recorded by the Stasi.

And what about performances in recent years from athletes in countries like Kenya, Jamaica and Ethiopia, where they haven't had the money to carry out their own national level testing? It's already clear to most, considering events of the last year, that many elite athletes from these countries (and others where the testing has been lacking) have been getting away with cheating.

Why should these largely 'untested' current athletes get the benefit of the doubt, despite competing in an era when many of their peers are subjected to far more robust and vigorous testing procedures, when those who competed in previous eras, where they passed all testing that was then required, are considered questionable! ?

There will be many hundreds of clean athletes who will basically have their names removed from the stats lists. If I were them I'd be steaming mad right now.

And how far back will they go? As there was no testing at all in the 60's, and steroids weren't even illegal! Should Snell's name be removed as NZ national record holder from 1962? Will Ryun's times be removed from the 1500 and mile lists? Neither had to be tested after all. Surely they cannot remove just the World record holder's time if it were pre 2005, yet let others lower down the lists remain?

The whole thing is a bad idea and hasn't been thought through properly. I hope the IAAF see sense if enough supporters and athletes themselves complain about the proposals. I always thought Coe was against this idea when it was mentioned a year or two ago, yet the Guardian is claiming he is a strong supporter of it. I hope this is not the case.

[Atticus]

If they introduce this, it's going to be chaos.

No only chaos, but litigation. On both sides.
If a 'former' world-record holder continues to use the term in official (i.e., money making) ways, is the IAAF going to sue them?
If stripped WR-holders sue the IAAF, don't they have a good case, since there is no 'evidence' backing up the claim that they are NOT WR-holders?

[gh]

if USATF tries to strip ARs in lawyer-happy USA, I would predict litigation galore.

[gm]

Where's Yosemite Sam when you need him...

[LopenUupunut]

If they introduce this, it's going to be chaos. We would have NRs better than WRs, we would have WLs better than WRs, we would have lots of PBs better than WRs. And we would have lots of different record lists, the "old" ones, the official new ones, the unofficial new ones.

Which was the case in the early IAAF era, when it took a long (long) time to ratify WRs and statistically valid WRs were sometimes not ratified; and WRs were legitimately broken much more often then, too. The news were full of WR reports.

(Admittedly, in that era there was no full set of "old" records, apart from the marks of early professional athletes which had mostly been broken by then.)