Women's Marathon Record No Longer?

I'm sure that this is old news to most of you, but yesterday the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) pulled a fast one on us.  They decided that in order for a woman to hold a "world record" for a marathon, it has to be in a race where the women aren't running with any men. What this means is that Paula Radcliffe's world record 2:15:25 time may be taken from her and given back to Joan Benoit Samuelson's 2:24:52.

You can read the full article at the New York Times but the bottom line is that the IAAF says that women, on average, run 2 minutes faster during marathons when they have male pacers. They argue that in order for the record to be a true women's record it needs to be run in a male-only race. According to them, it's all about gender equality. "The I.A.A.F. wanted to show that women can stand on their own two feet, that they don't need guys to help them set world records."

Okay, I sort of get it. I understand that women run faster when men are running but the IAAF has it all wrong. They're running faster because they have pacers. Anyone runs faster with a pacer. But if men aren't allowed, and you're the woman's record holder, how are you going to find a faster female to pace you? According to their logic, marathons should be solo runs if you want to set a world record time. It just doesn't hold up.

What this also means is that under the new rule the world record is being taken away from Paula! How insanely ridiculous is that? Imagine running your very first race or your hardest PR and then at the finish have someone say "oh, well, that race didn't count because you did X,Y or Z, so we're taking that away from you." Now multiply that feeling times 1000. I bet you that's how Paula feels right now. But man, oh man, is she handling this with class. Hats off to Paula, and thumbs down on the IAAF.