Womens Athletics World Records
LongBallPlease
Posts: 2,011 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Interested in peoples opinions on the world records in womens Athletics, basically all the womens sprint world records we're set in the 80's, the 10,000m was set '93 in suspicious circumstances in China, the heptathlon world record was set in the 80's along with the sprint relays, discus, shot put, long jump and high jump.
The 80's and 70's was a dark era in Athletics, it's been proven that East German women were on some type of performance enhancing substance, which would suggest they weren't the only country at it, as a result a lot of world records seem untouchable, either this is down to substance abuse or athletes were better back in the 70's and 80's.
I would suggest the IAAF reset any womens world record set pre '94 as they're clearly tainted.
Opinions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_world_records
The 80's and 70's was a dark era in Athletics, it's been proven that East German women were on some type of performance enhancing substance, which would suggest they weren't the only country at it, as a result a lot of world records seem untouchable, either this is down to substance abuse or athletes were better back in the 70's and 80's.
I would suggest the IAAF reset any womens world record set pre '94 as they're clearly tainted.
Opinions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_world_records
0
Comments
Some of our British men seem to struggle to hit 10:40s at the moment...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18697282
Looking at the UK women's records there's a huge range, some have been set this year, some go back 20 or 30 years. The oldest is the discus record set in 1981 by Meg Ritchie. One noticeable thing is a few athletes have more than one record, eg on the track: Paula Radcliffe 5, Kathy Cook 3, Kelly Holmes 3, and on the road: Paula Radcliffe 12 (out of 17).
So I don't know if it's too surprising that some records last a long time, where you have someone unusually gifted at a high point of their career who turns in an exceptional performance, or a few performances around the same time: (eg Kathy Cook's records were set within a fortnight).
So to me it's just the right athlete at the right time. I think David Rudisha could break his WR in the right race, and maybe Sally Pearson could break the 100mh. Or back to the Brits, Montell Douglas certainly found the right time when she broke Kathy Cook's 100m record 4 years ago, but she hasn't threatened it since. Kathy Cook was 21 when she set her records, about the same age as Montell Douglas, and that was it, that was her high point.
The problem with date based reset is it's arbitrary nature. For example, what about Inessa Kravets who set the triple jump WR in 1995, between failed drugs tests in 1993 and 2000.
May be just letting commentators point out when a record is questionable is all that we can do.
It could also be a stipulation that anyone who has ever failed a drug test is ineligible for World Records, just as wind-assisted times don't count. They can still win their medals, but to ensure as clean a list of records as possible, only always-clean athletes can set them.
I might suggest it from time to time in the future.
WRs are a matter of record rather than awarded like medals.
If an athlete that has failed in the past but is for whatever reason is widely held to be clean now breaks the record you potentially have an official and a de facto record which would be mentioned every time someone mentions the record. That would somewhat devalue the official record.
Wind assisted distances are still mentioned from time to time, but at least that is a clear cut off and an objective advantage.
Which is a problem because Kratochvilova never failed a drug test (as per the testing of the time, which was far from stringent and only took place during major competition.) So all we have is suspicious circumstance and conjecture, but no proof.
Interestingly and perhaps damningly, she was another one who seemed to vanish from the world stage once the IAAF started introducing out-of-competition testing.
.
Dunno about that, I think she is still involved in sports politics. She turns up to give out medals, at opening ceremonies etc so must still be in the good books.
But the records are already devalued. I believe there's doubt over the following current women's world records - 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, 3000m, 10000m, 100m hurdles, and a lot of the field events.
They should do a reset every 10 years, and anyone who has ever failed a test is ineligible to set a record.
Or here's another idea - how about giving world records a lifespan? They can only last for a maximum of 10 years.
Furthermore, there could be a web site devoted to the list of Current World Records, only listing the major athletic events competed for in Olympics/Worlds, and there could be a subsection of the site, in small print, with a list of what are just called best times, best distances etc, which lists the best ever recorded time where the person who set it wasn't caught, but these times are never displayed during major events or talked about officially, only the Current Records are spoke about.
They should at least do something, as part of the battle against drugs.
http://www.perelman-pioneer.com/?p=279
This is what bothers me. The glaring omission here is the marathon. That WR performance was almost unbelievable, far in excess of any other time ever run at that point. Percentage-wise a bigger improvement, I think, on the previous record than any of the above. But no-one seemingly questions that record.
Bigger percentage? Less than two minutes for a marathon run breaking your own world record - surely not? Also marathon courses vary so greatly that comparison on times is a little imperfect hence don't they refer to it as the worlds best?
When she set the current record she ran 2:15:25. The second fasted woman at that time ran 2:18:47. So in seconds that 8,125 v 8,327 an improvement of 2.4%.
Flo-Jo's equivalent was the 100m in 10.49s v the previous 10.74s. That's an improvement of just 2.3%.
But you should compare her previous and first world record with the time of the second fastest woman not her current one if you are going to attempt to argue that it was a rather startling jump in performance. Flo Jo broke Ashfords previous time by 2.3% whereas, and I won't do the maths, Radcliffe ran 2.17.18 to break the previous record - much less than 2.3%. Yes she went on to run faster again but thats progression.