The IAAF has made its recent decisions on world road records, focusing on a few key criteria. Out of the eight rules detailed, two seem reasonable. The first is that the course must be measured by an “A” or “B” IAAF/AIMS approved measurer. The second is that the course must not have an elevation drop exceeding 1 m/km. Both of these rules are sensible, as they help maintain the accuracy and fairness of the courses used for record-setting performances.
However, the doping control rule raises some concerns. The regulation states that “no new world bests will be ratified from 1 January unless the athlete has undergone doping control on the day of the race.” The issue with this rule is the January 1, 2003, cutoff date. This effectively “grandfathers” many past performances into the record books, even though they don’t meet the current anti-doping standards. While it’s true that, over time, new performances should eventually replace the old ones, the reality is that drug-aided performances have a way of persisting. Records set through doping are notoriously hard to surpass, and some could remain for decades. This creates a troubling situation where athletes of the past who may have had unfair advantages continue to hold records, while modern athletes are subject to stricter regulations. The lack of retroactive enforcement leads to an inconsistent standard, making this rule appear more like a compromise than a step forward.
A separate issue arises with the rule that defines a “record-quality” course. Specifically, it requires that “the start and finish points on a course, measured along a straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance.” This rule has been heavily debated, and for good reason. The key question is, why has the IAAF adopted this 50% start/finish separation rule? The reasoning appears to be more political than technical. It has been suggested that one member of the committee behind the decision insisted on this rule because races in his country—and, in particular, records set by nationals from his country—benefit from it. If the rule were stricter, say at 30%, some of these performances would no longer qualify as world records. This decision smacks of political interference, rather than an attempt to improve the fairness and accuracy of record-setting standards.
Another glaring oversight in the new rules is the absence of a validation process. The United States has over two decades of experience with validating race courses, and this process has uncovered numerous issues that can cause a course to be short. Even if a course is accurately measured and certified, it is essential to validate whether the race was run as it was certified. Were the start and finish lines in the correct places? Were all coned areas and other restrictions properly followed? Without validation, there’s a real risk of incorrectly announcing a new record, only to later retract it, which can damage the credibility of the event and the governing bodies involved. It’s easy to see why politicians might oppose such a process, but without it, the list of records could be filled with questionable performances. A proper validation process, independent from the race organization, should be mandatory, especially for world records. The measurer should also have no affiliation with the country where the record is set or the nationality of the record-holder. The lack of this key step is a serious misstep.
Another controversial decision is allowing women’s records to be set in mixed races, where men and women compete together. Currently, this is allowed in the United States, but it’s not the best direction for the sport. There are many benefits to having elite women start separately from the men, as has been shown in major marathons like London and New York. When elite women are given their own race, it allows their performances to be appreciated on their own merit, rather than being overshadowed by male competitors. By failing to make this the standard, the IAAF is discouraging other marathons from adopting separate starts for women. Instead, race organizers may be incentivized to allow male pacers in the hope of setting records, which ultimately undermines the quality of the women’s race. This decision represents a lost opportunity to give women athletes the recognition they deserve.
The IAAF’s decision to allow intermediate times to be used for record purposes also raises several concerns. Intermediate distances are often not as carefully measured or documented as the full race distance. For an intermediate time to be legitimate, it should be held to the same standard as the overall course. This includes being measured twice, fully documented, and marked with location indicators. Additionally, verifying that intermediate times were taken at the correct location is much more difficult than validating a finish line, which is usually well-documented and photographed. Without clear, indisputable evidence, using intermediate times for records becomes unreliable.
There are also practical issues with using intermediate times for records. Some athletes may miss out on records simply because race organizers didn’t provide timing at the corresponding points. For example, while Naoko Takahashi is credited with world records for 25 km and 30 km based on intermediate times during the Berlin Marathon, it’s highly likely that Paula Radcliffe ran faster during her record-setting marathon in Chicago. Unfortunately, because no intermediate times were taken, she wasn’t given credit. This creates an uneven playing field where records depend more on the race setup than on actual performance.
Moreover, allowing records to be set for distances like 30 km during a marathon discourages runners from participating in standalone 30 km races. Similarly, records for 20 km can be set during half marathons, which reduces the incentive to organize or compete in races at that distance. Over time, this could lead to the disappearance of these distances from the racing calendar altogether. In the past, there were many 25 km and 30 km races, but today, these distances are becoming rare. By allowing intermediate records, the IAAF is effectively promoting a narrow range of race distances, which reduces variety in the sport.
Then there’s the issue of pacers. What if a pacer goes through 30 km at a record pace but drops out before finishing the marathon? There’s precedent for requiring that a runner must finish the entire race for their intermediate time to count, but the new rules muddy the waters. Is the race a 30 km event, or is it a marathon? You can’t have it both ways.
The inclusion of ekiden records is another decision that seems politically motivated. Ekidens are relay races that are primarily held in a few countries, mostly in Asia. There are many more 10-mile races held globally than ekidens, yet the IAAF gives priority to ekiden records. Furthermore, there’s a lack of standardized rules for ekidens. How many legs should the race have? What are the required distances for each leg? The few ekidens that have been held outside of Asia haven’t gained much popularity. This decision feels arbitrary and disconnected from the broader racing community.
The IAAF also missed a chance to adopt fractional timing in road races, similar to what’s already done in track events. Including tenths of a second in record-keeping would add a level of precision that is currently lacking. However, expecting this kind of forward-thinking decision from an organization that seems intent on undermining road racing is probably too much to hope for.
The standards for record-keeping need to be determined based on sound technical principles, free from political interference. In the early 1980s, the USA developed rules for road records that have stood the test of time. These rules included course certification, post-race validation, limits on elevation drop, and start/finish separation. While these standards were later modified, they remain highly reliable. The IAAF, rather than adopting these proven methods, has allowed politics to drive its decision-making, resulting in a system that is less fair and less credible.
The IAAF’s latest decisions do little to improve the sport of road racing. Instead, they introduce inconsistencies and political biases that weaken the integrity of the record-keeping process. Going forward, it’s essential for organizations involved in the sport to prioritize fairness and technical accuracy over political considerations.
This article appeared as an editorial in the “Analytical Distance Runner” for week 940, and was written by Ken Young.