Should WR's have a life span?

ecoli

Sounds a little crazy I know but hypothetically speaking would putting say a 25/30 year life span on World Records. Obvious criticism would be that how could you classify it as a World record without being the fastest time ever but there are a few reasons why there could be some positives in this approach.

- Improvement of facilities, equipment, coaching methods means that times for the most part are always progressing. If you look at Coughlan's 1980 Olympic 5k final this was slower across the boards than a regional US race last of what would be considered second tier 5k runners (i.e non Diamond league level). As a result many top level athletes of there time are easily forgotten in the grand scheme of things. This sort of sub division creates more discussion of different athletes across different era's (a bit like many of the boxing debates etc)

- This gives testers a chance to reset the clocks every so often as testing procedures improve. There are numerous documented cases where athletes had eluded failed tests only latter to be reprimanded leaving the question are there some who weren't caught. As there is only an 8 year window for the testing to retroactively detect then this sort of approach means that these athletes wouldn't tarnish the record books forever. Getting to the stage now where people reference efforts as "best non-X time ever"

- This sport is built on fast times. People want WRs and lightning fast times moreso than head to head tactical affairs for the most part to the point where the majority are time trial affairs. By resetting it there is more chance of Championship efforts being WR efforts creating more Usain Bolts and David Rudisha's in the process for each generation

walshb

Don't most WRs occur in meets where good money is on offer? If real good money was available then I would think athletes would be breaking WRs more frequently. Even top WRs like 3 mins 26 and 12 mins 37 would be under threat. Maybe the 2 hrs marathon would go if real big money was offered to the first person to do it.

If I was very wealthy I would offer big cash to an athlete to break the 2 hrs marathon.

Finnt

What sort of money would need to be on offer for someone to have a serious crack at it?

rainbow kirby

I would argue for extending the testing window beyond 8 years (possibly to as far as 30 years in the case of record breaking performances and Olympic/world medallists) more than I'd argue for putting a life span on world records. Detection methods are improving but will always lag a little behind the best available drugs, and sometimes 8 years isn't long enough for these substances to be detected.

That said, I would happily rip up the entire women's record book right now and start again.

ecoli

walshb wrote: »

Don't most WRs occur in meets where good money is on offer?

Rieti is probably one of the tracks with most WRs and being a IAAF challenge meet it doesn't really draw top dollar. Similar Dubai has thrown money at the marathon and though it attracts quality fields majority of these are debut Ethiopians, it fails to attract top names.

walshb

Finnt wrote: »

What sort of money would need to be on offer for someone to have a serious crack at it?

I would offer 5 million.

Not sure the exact earnings, but London's prize-money for the marathon is 1 million. Not sure what the winner gets. It has to be less than a million.

ecoli

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I would argue for extending the testing window beyond 8 years (possibly to as far as 30 years in the case of record breaking performances and Olympic/world medallists) more than I'd argue for putting a life span on world records. Detection methods are improving but will always lag a little behind the best available drugs, and sometimes 8 years isn't long enough for these substances to be detected.

That said, I would happily rip up the entire women's record book right now and start again.

Not sure but I would imagine there may be a legal issue with regards having samples that long in storage and the risk of contamination etc which could be exploited

tomdempsey200

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I would argue for extending the testing window beyond 8 years (possibly to as far as 30 years in the case of record breaking performances and Olympic/world medallists) more than I'd argue for putting a life span on world records. Detection methods are improving but will always lag a little behind the best available drugs, and sometimes 8 years isn't long enough for these substances to be detected.

that sounds good in theory

but the authorities have no real interest in major clearouts out of dopers from old samples as it is bad for the business of athletics


as you may be aware the IOC hadn't even bothered to re-test the 2004 olympic samples until they were embarrassed into doing so

rom

Clearly WR times are questionable. I personally little faith in watching wr times any more. I found Boston this year great as there was a race on or the great north run last year. It is clear to me who the cheats are because they respond in a certain way to pretend that they are annoyey when someone is caught. they fall quiet a week later once they have acted the part. It is clear from human behavuor that say o Rourke is a clean as u can get as she does keep harp on about losing medal to drug cheats. Why bother mentioning at ever possible moment if you are not 100% clean like she is. Most women's records should be gone I agree but there are a lot of men's records that are suspect also.

walshb

rom wrote: »

Clearly WR times are questionable. I personally little faith in watching wr times any more. o.

Some WRs may be questionable. Why tarnish all them? There has to be a WR, doesn't there?

Your having little faith sort of diminishes and weakens the sport. What are records for? They are there to be challenged. Why is it difficult to watch or accept that there are humans that are bettering humans before them? It's been happening since the dawn of man in every discipline on earth. Even Bolt's records will fall some time in the future.

tomdempsey200

walshb wrote: »

Some WRs may be questionable. Why tarnish all them? There has to be a WR, doesn't there?

Your having little faith sort of diminishes and weakens the sport. What are records for? They are there to be challenged. Why is it difficult to watch or accept that there are humans that are bettering humans before them? It's been happening since the dawn of man in every discipline on earth. Even Bolt's records will fall some time in the future.

you are very naive in your viewpoint

anyone who has followed the sport since the iron curtain days is entitled to be cynical

that cynicism doesn't preclude somebody from enjoying the sport

I enjoyed watching doped performances
at the time

walshb

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

you are very naive in your viewpoint

anyone who has followed the sport since the iron curtain days is entitled to be cynical

that cynicism doesn't preclude somebody from enjoying the sport

I enjoyed watching doped performances
at the time

I never said that ALL records were beyond question. It's a sad indictment on the sport if all records are suspect and thought to have come about through cheating.

drquirky

rom wrote: »

Clearly WR times are questionable. I personally little faith in watching wr times any more. I found Boston this year great as there was a race on or the great north run last year. It is clear to me who the cheats are because they respond in a certain way to pretend that they are annoyey when someone is caught. they fall quiet a week later once they have acted the part. It is clear from human behavuor that say o Rourke is a clean as u can get as she does keep harp on about losing medal to drug cheats. Why bother mentioning at ever possible moment if you are not 100% clean like she is. Most women's records should be gone I agree but there are a lot of men's records that are suspect also.

Not making any accusations but Lance Armstrong is the perfect counter to your argument here. Often it is the dog who barks the loudest that you need to worry about.

rom

drquirky wrote: »

Not making any accusations but Lance Armstrong is the perfect counter to your argument here. Often it is the dog who barks the loudest that you need to worry about.

I know what you are saying and there is another female athelete who falls into that caregory. No awards for guessing who.

morceli

Never mind World records should pb's or pr's have a life span too .

walshb

rom wrote: »

I know what you are saying and there is another female athelete who falls into that caregory. No awards for guessing who.

Who? Is it Marion Jones?

tomdempsey200

walshb wrote: »

Who? Is it Marion Jones?

PR

walshb

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

PR

Radcliffe? Do folks here suspect her?

rom

It is against charter to speculate on anyone.

IBTL

Chivito550

rom wrote: »

It is against charter to speculate on anyone.

To be fair you can't come out with that rubbish after making an accusation like that. One thing i'll say is don't believe everything you read on Letsrun!

rom

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair you can't come out with that rubbish after making an accusation like that. One thing i'll say is don't believe everything you read on Letsrun!

I named no names.

walshb

rom wrote: »

I named no names.

So you're going to hide behind that? Who did you mean?

ultrapercy

Evidence is important in proving a case. Sometimes other things can get mistaken for evidence by gullible people. Examples would be accusing someone of cheating simply because they are faster than everyone else and using that speed as proof. Another example would be the opinion of 15 year old American school children who post anonymously on another running forum, maybe or maybe not from their mothers basement.

ecoli

Mod: Another thread bites the dust.

Just in case anyone is not clear

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/speculation

Thread closed