THE PACING LETTERS

Jud Santos sent in the following note after the 1999 Corporate Challenge Series #1: "Stacy placed 2nd, but let me just say that I was really disturbed when I saw her, as was a Warren Street guy I was standing with. The Harriers are also bothered by it. I don't care how fast you are, but being paced by your faster teammate is called CHEATING. Yes, she was being paced again by Stuart.  And actually, the better you are, the worse an offense it is.  I think she would have placed 2nd anyway, but when she ran by us with a mile to go, cutting through the crowds of the previous race, he was leading her by 5 yards and yelling at the top of his lungs, 'Coming through! Coming through! Move over! Top woman coming through!' It was really obnoxious, and really disturbing. I mean, if Hans Parrado (one of Warren Street's top dogs) went and paced Kim Griffin to every race she won, don't you think that there would be several protests filed after a while? It's disrespectful to the other women, offensive to the sport, and an embarrassment to the club. It greatly disturbs me that it is tolerated, ignored, and a subject never brought up (or even hinted upon) on the web site or at the team workouts."

The website guy (Roland Soong) offered this response:

I was not present at the race and therefore cannot personally address the specifics.   I have asked the principals about the circumstances.  Here is what I found out.

Stuart Calderwood ran in the first Men's race and finished in 9th place overall with a solid effort.  After his race, he jogged backwards along the course for his cooldown.  When Stacy came along, he ran with her for a while.   He stated that there was no prior arrangement to pace Stacy Creamer, and I don't doubt that.

Stacy Creamer finished over one minute behind Kim Griffin and about 40 seconds ahead of third place.  By the time Stuart saw her, the outcome of the race was not in doubt at all.  She was not going to catch the leader, nor was anyone else going to catch her.

As for the race conditions, I understand that the first race (advertised as being for men running under 7:00 minute/mile) was crowded with many slow runners, and the lead women from the second race caught up to the back of the pack quickly.  I admit that I was not at the race, so I will have to speculate.  I assume that the NYRRC must have arranged for a lead vehicle for the race leader, which could have been anything such as a full phalanx of motorcycle cops, of a pickup truck with loudspeakers, of a police squad car with loudspeaker and flashing lights, of a police scooter, of one motor cycle cop or even a bicyclist with a whistle.   I assume the race leader was escorted through the back of the men's pack all the way to the finish line tape.  But what about the other women?  I suppose that we live in a capitalist society in which the rich gets police protection and the poor gets oppressed, but this does not meet any definition of fair play in road racing.  I think that it may not be unfair for the other women to receive some help in getting through, one way or the other.

Moving beyond the specifics of this particular race, the first question is "Does pacing occur in races on our club?"  The answer is yes.  As evidence, all I have to do is look at our photos for the 1999 Boston Marathon, 1998 Philadelphia Marathon and 1998 New York City Marathon, just as examples.  There are a number of photos of runners from our club running next to each other.  Let it be duly noted also that some of our runners were in the race and some of them did not have race numbers.  People not in our club may also engage in pacing, but I have no systematic knowledge since I pay attention primarily to our runners only.   But this photo of the race leaders at mile 18 of the 1998 New York City Marathon also appeared on our website and it is not unreasonable to conclude that these guys are pacing each other?

Why was the subject of pacing never discussed on this web site before?  Because nobody else has ever brought it up to me before.  Even if no one else has brought up the subject, why have I not done so myself?  After all, on the basis of my annotations to those photos on our website, I must be aware that pacing was going on.  The short answer is that I do not see pacing as an absolute evil, and I will explain my thinking in the following.

As a theoretical concept, 'pacing' implies that a runner is receiving external assistance to gain an unfair advantage over his/her competitors.  As such, it is indefensible.  But this theoretical construct can manifest itself in many ways under different situations.  I find the contemporary standards and opinions about some of these situations to be murky, arbitrary, absurd, inconsistent, contradictory and/or outright hypocritical (to wit, certain forms of pacing are okay but other forms are not).  Let me make a systematic classification of the situations.

Let me begin with the best known human interest story in the history of the New York City Marathon, when the founder of the race Fred Lebow ran his last marathon after undergoing brain surgery.  In that race, he was paced by his friend Grete Waitz to finish in over five hours (see photo ).   In this instance, pacing is regarded as noble.

A well-known example of sanctioned pacing is the Runner's World Marathon Pacing team.  At major marathons, Runner's World magazine organizes groups with different goal times (3:00, 3:30, 4:00, etc).  The group leader is an experienced runner who can normally run the distance faster, so that he/she will run this race at conversational pace.  For example, at the 2000 Motorola Houston Marathon, Claudia Malley, a Central Park Track Club member and an associate publisher at Runner's World, led the 3:40 group.  Her finish time was 3:37.:28, which meant that all those who ran with her exceeded their goal time by 2-1/2 minutes.

Another example of organized pacing is the following portion of an ad that was taken out by the LaSalle Banks Chicago Marathon in Running Times magazine, touting the 'hugely successful' pacing program offered in the race.

(advertising for The LaSalle Banks Chicago Marathon)

A press release from the Columbus Marathon in August 1999 reads:

"The 1999 Columbus Marathon will add a popular twist to this year's race-The Columbus Marathon Pace Team. Sponsored by White Castle System, Inc, the pace team, which has been dubbed the Striding Slyders, will provide pacers for 17 different groups ranging from 3 to 5 hours. Marathoners interested in being paced can sign up during the marathon expo Friday and Saturday, November 12 and 13. The race itself will take place November 14 at 9 a.m. For more information, visit www.columbusmarathon.com or call (614) 488-3632."

So we have organized efforts to assist runners by pacing to attain times that they may not be able to run themselves otherwise.  The organizers publicize what they are doing, the runners know what they are getting into and the running community embraces the concept.  So we should get in our heads that pacing is sometimes accepted, at least in the middle or the back of the pack.  The position in the pack is also a relative notion, for a 60-year-old woman may set a world age-group record if she can run a 3-hour marathon.

But what about competitive running?  In this country, through high school and college, cross country coaches always emphasize team running because the team score is based upon the top five (or however many) runners.  Sometimes, the team will run tightly together in spite of some obvious disparities in speed, as the faster runners drop back to tow the slower runners along.  That is pacing.  Not only is this not wrong, but it is absolutely the right thing to do.   It is the right thing not just tactically, but also in the sense of character-building and bonding.

Personally, when I saw the split times for my teammates David Newcomb and Gordon Streeter at the 1999 Boston Marathon, my reaction was, "Wow! What a wonderful piece of teamwork!" and I am sure that they share those sentiments.  This is the stuff that lifelong friendships are built upon.

Team racing is one thing, but pacing for individual honors by someone not in the race may be another matter.  Or is it?  When Roger Bannister broke the four minute barrier for the mile in 1954, pacemakers Chris Brasher and Chris Chataway towed him impeccably to three laps in 3:00.4 for the perfect setup and also guaranteed themselves places in the annals of running.  At major marathons today, professional runners are paid thousands of dollars under contracts to run the first half in specific times (say, 1:03:30 with scaled deductions for running either too fast or too slow by specific amounts) and then they may be provided with transportation back to their hotel from that point.  When the designated rabbit Paul Pilkington continued on to the win the Los Angeles Marathon, the second-place finisher got extremely angry because this rabbit 'had failed to do his job.'  Today, the elite runners are routinely debriefed that the rabbits may in fact press on if they choose to do so.

The fact that the 'rabbit' started with the group while wearing a race number may meet the narrowly technical definition that he was in the same race, but the spirit is cynically violated.  At track races, there are sometimes multiple rabbits at various distances (e.g. the 800m 'rabbit' and the 1200m 'rabbit' in the mile run).  Pacing in these situations is an accepted way of life today.  Why?  I think that the crux of the matter is that the winner/record-breaker must still get the job done himself.  (Or, in more personal terms, I don't care how many pacers you get for me, I won't be breaking any marathon records because they can't do it for me --- I'll have to cover that fixed distance on my own feet within that time.)  However, the world has so far drawn the line at having a 4x400m relay team of 'rabbits' for mile-record-breaking attempts.   Quite arbitrary and hypocritical, isn't it?

What about pacing by a member of the opposite sex?  Specifically, the pacing of the 'weaker' female runner by a 'stronger' male runner.  Thus, some people attach an asterisk to Tegla Laroupe's world record time at the Rotterdam Marathon because there were two Kenyan men with her on that day.   Based upon the existence of 'rabbits' in men's races, I would regard this sort of attitude as being extremely hypocritical.  We should also note that Lynn Jennings has said,  "What makes you think masters men aren't pacing off of ME?" which is an often ignored issue.

In most mixed races, the lead women will find themselves surrounded by men, who are clustered around them for various reasons (e.g. for the television exposure time).  Grete Waitz must have been tired of seeing our Fred Kolthay all those years at the New York City Marathon.  Of course, they can tell the guys to bug off; but the true professionals would have concentrated on their own races and not wasted any adrenaline on such distractions.  In mixed races, especially those with tens of thousands of runners, there will be men running next to women (and here is a photo of Stuart Calderwood running just ahead of the female winner Kim Griffin in the 1998 Club Championship).  Even so, opinions are mixed as to whether the men helped or hindered the women.

But what about men deliberately helping women?  One case that I know about someone being disqualified for receiving assistance  in the New York City Marathon was an Eastern European woman who received a cup of water from a male runner.  This apparently violated a specific rule in the rule book, which neither of the principals were aware of until afterwards.  My own thinking was that this rule was written in only because it can be unambiguously enforced.  That is to say, if you are caught in the act on videotape, there would be no ambiguity about your having received that cup of water from the male runner.  I found the rule preposterous, not in itself, but because the spirit of the rule is observed virtually nowhere else.  I believe that other more serious violations are disregarded because they are unenforceable (read: 'instant lawsuit' and 'negative publicity').   Here are two variations of the watercup situation:

-- Variation # 1: "You may receive a cup of water from someone not in the race."  Obviously, runners sometimes receive cups of water handed out by volunteers.  For years, Stacy Creamer has stood in the Bronx to dole out flat Coke to New York City Marathon runners (irrespective of their club affiliation, if any).  But at one New York City Marathon, I was standing by Cleopatra's Needle and I observed the lead woman coming through.  Her husband was waiting for her right in front of me, nice and warm in his track suit.  As she came by, he handed her special drink to her and ran with her for 50 meters while describing her lead and giving her strategic advice.  Apparently, this is not an disqualifiable offense or at least no officials saw it, even though the advantage gained is likely to be much more significant than receiving a cup of water from some unknown guy in the same race.

-- Variation # 2: "You may receive a cup of water from a female runner in the same race."  It does not matter if the other runner is a countrywoman, a teammate, a coach, a cousin or a training partner, as long as they are also entered in the race.   In fact, you can probably hire your own female domestique to pace you and fetch you water without fear of sanction, but you should make sure that you get her a race number.

From the television coverage of the 1998 New York City Marathon, the lead woman seemed to be conversing with a Costa Rican male runner who ran with her all the way to the finish.  (As it turned out, they did not know each other beforehand.)  After the race, another woman suggested that the winner may have received illegal assistance.   The general response was something like, "Get a life!"  Why?   Because the fact of the matter was that the winner pounded out sub-5:30 minute miles in the hills of Central Park while the women behind her folded.  It was all about mental and physical toughness.   The other women had every opportunity to follow suit and even counterattack, but they cracked.  The ensuing case of post-race sour grapes tarnished a magnificent effort.

Finally, what about women being paced by men not in the same race?  At this year's Boston Marathon, I remember seeing on television two Ethiopian men running alongside Fatuma Roba and waving a large Ethiopian flag.   

So here were two men not in the race, pacing the lead woman and offering significant moral assistance as judged from her smiling reaction.  To me, that sight was exhilarating and inspiring.  Once again, this dignified woman brought glory and honor to a country rived by civil strife and also showed how Ethiopian women were just as worthy as their men.  This flag-waving account was also widely circulated by the news services.   Please see the story in the Boston Globe and make sure to read that description carefully in terms of intent (Did they intend to help her? Yes, they said so themselves), deed (Did they run with her? Yes, and it was captured on television) and effect (Did it help her? Yes, she said so herself).  Would someone say that they found the sight disrespectful to the other women, offensive to the sport, and an embarrassment to her nation? Would anyone call for sanctions against her?  No way!

And why not?  I can think of two reasons.  Reason # 1: running should be about spectacle, celebration and joy, otherwise races would be held as individual time trials in isolated areas devoid of other people to ensure absolute fairness; or, better yet, on a programmable treadmill in a windowless, constant-temperature, constant-humidity room.  Reason # 2: ultimately, the runner must still run that fixed distance in that time, because no one else can for it for him/her.  That just about sums up my thoughts on this subject.

As for Stacy Creamer, this non-scoring, no-prize-money fun run is another personal best in her amazing year of rejuvenated running as she edges towards her 40th birthday.  I hope this side discussion has not diminished her sense of achievement and her joy for running.

**** Postscript (5/10/99): After the above was published, I was asked why I did so.   I felt that I had to reply to the statement, "It greatly disturbs me that it is tolerated, ignored, and a subject never brought up (or even hinted upon) on the web site or at the team workouts."  This is a fair question to ask me.  If this question were posed to me in a private manner, I would have responded privately.  As it turned out, the e-mail had a cc: list of a dozen people.  I would have restricted my response to this circle, except I was getting inquiries from people outside of that list.  In this Internet age, the existence of that 'forward message' button makes it too easy to distribute messages not marked as private.  I therefore felt that I need to address this matter in a public forum.

I want to state that both the decision to publish and the contents of my response were my own, and the Central Park Track Club Executive Board and everybody else had no prior knowledge or influence.  It was my personal responsibility to answer a question addressed to me.  In my response, I have clearly indicated that I was not an eyewitness on that day.  Therefore, I can only relay what is legally known as hearsay, which cannot prove or disprove anything, and I have clearly positioned those comments as such.  With respect to the central question as to why this website has never brought up this subject, I have offered what I believe is a logical and dispassionate analysis.   It is not that I advocate pacing, but I would personally feel that I would be hypocritical to stand on a soapbox to rail against one special instance or aspect while many other manifestations enjoy broad acceptance worldwide.  Reasonable people can continue to disagree on this controversial subject, but I hope that you will respect my point of view.

For other perspectives on the pacing issue, here are some links

• Association of International Marathons and Road Races (AIMS) recognizes Tegla Laroupe's Rotterdam time of 2:20:47 as the fastest time in history
• Full Circle.  By Janet Heinonen for Runnersworld.com, May 27, 1998
• Road Runners Club (UK) has several articles denying the validity of Tegla Laroupe's time

The following response came on 5/9/99 from Stuart Calderwood himself:

Making a Mountain Out of a Cat Hill

It’s no light matter to accuse someone of cheating, so I’ll cover this area as succinctly as I can:

1. Stacy Creamer doesn’t need any help in her races. She has no interest in being paced, and has never asked me or anyone else to pace her.

2. In the recent Corporate Challenge, Stacy established herself in second place in the race’s first half-mile, and lengthened her lead on the third runner until, when I first saw her at two miles, it was more than thirty seconds. Her place in the race was 100% her own accomplishment.

3. Unless there’s a diabolically strict new interpretation of the rules, I didn’t pace her in the Corporate Challenge. I was trying to watch the race, not help Stacy—except during a period (described later) when I tried clear a lane for the women’s race, so that they wouldn’t be slowed down by crowds of men running at the back of the preceding race.
   
4. Stacy had no idea, before she saw me, that I would even get back from the end of my race (which started half an hour earlier) in time to see her at all. She had no responsibility for anything that I did, and (perhaps obviously) she’s as far from being a "cheater" as anyone that you’re likely to meet.

Now, since I feel it incumbent upon me to provide something more than brass tacks (applied strategically, we hope), I reveal the shocking truth in

I finished my first-ever Corporate Challenge feeling as good as one ever feels as the winning Master in a Rubenless race. I kept a meager jog alive through the refreshment area, albeit forfeiting a can of cut-rate grape soda; looped back to the course, and jogged up the dirt path alongside Cat Hill to watch the women’s race, in which I had a favorite. The vast men’s field was still filling the whole road. I passed Audrey Kingsley standing at 90^th Street and thanked her for her earlier hysterics, and continued north on the sidewalk, looking for the 2-mile mark; the speed-demon triumvirate of Alan, Gordon, and Joey, all temporarily at rest, kept me from running right past it.

We watched the clock and waited for the leaders. The pace-truck came through with its siren whooping intermittently and an official’s amplified voice out of Soylent Green reading instructions to the still-thick crowd of men: "Please stay to the left, women’s race coming through." In its wake, Kim Griffin cruised past in 11:02 with a huge lead; she was out of sight again before anyone else had appeared. My interest in how big a lead she had was replaced by absolute elation when I saw that the second woman was Stacy.

It was her highest position in a Central Park race in more than ten years. She was past halfway, no one else was within a hundred yards of her, and she looked like she could run another ten miles! I sprinted off ahead of her down the asphalt sidewalk to tell Audrey what was happening. I was so happy that even my legs forgot that I’d just run a race.

Audrey materialized again and I yelled to her to look behind me. When she saw Stacy, she produced an indescribable shriek of glee; I think wineglasses broke in Italy. I went on past her to try to catch Stacy’s 3-mile split, and to see how close she might get to the PR that she was shooting for—21:28, which she had run in—really—1987. (She was in her 17^th consecutive running of this race.)

Soon I realized that the sidewalk lane I was running in was the only place where I had room to pass the men’s field, and I thought "What are the women going to do when they get to this?" These were men who had entered a race in which the cutoff standard was 7:00 miles. Very likely they had wanted to avoid waiting for the slower-than-7:00-pace men’s race to start an hour later at 8:00 PM. They were now running about 18:00 miles (they finished in over an hour), and because the truck and Kim had gone through about two minutes earlier, they weren’t thinking about anybody behind them any more. To my mind, the clear right-of-way belonged to the women, rather than to walking/jogging men who had likely entered a race whose standard they knew they hadn’t attained. In a necessity-is-the-mother-of-vigilantism state, I tried to do for Stacy and the other leaders something like what the truck was doing for Kim: I shouted ahead of me (in these exact words) "Please watch the course! Leaders coming!" (Jud’s paraphrase isn’t as nice—I’d never yell "move over!" at a runner; it sounds rude rather than official.) None of the men was anything but helpful; I didn’t get any glares or insults until Thursday night’s electronic ones.

Stacy says now that she still had to run wide a lot, and that I was too far ahead to really keep a lane open, but I tried my best. I stopped at the 3-mile mark, told her as she passed that she could PR if she really hammered from there (she loves downhills), and then ran like hell around the outer trail to the east of Cat Hill, trying to watch Stacy from the back without tripping over roots. At that point, course marshals were splitting the road into men’s and women’s sides. I never caught up to Stacy again, and she didn’t see me after the 3-mile, but I do admit to yelling things like "You look fantastic!" at her; I couldn’t help myself, and it’s so true.

Stacy ran her last half-mile in 2:49, sprinted impressively, and exactly tied her PR with another 21:28, 12 years later. (Running through the men’s-race crowds definitely cost her an outright PR.) It was one of her best efforts in a long career full of them, and she had almost precisely 24 hours ahead of her in which she would be able to enjoy what she had done.

<> I knew quite a bit about pacing even before reading Roland’s publishable treatise. I often pace friends, both men and women; I’ve been paced to a 10-mile PR by a 2:20 marathoner friend of mine; and most of us know that virtually all distance-running world records have been set by people using pacesetters. Three of the recipients of Jud’s e-mail (which he copied to 12 people, Stacy and I not among them) are people whom I’ve paced in races, and I would’ve gladly paced Jud if he’d ever wanted me to during the year-plus that I was his coach. As for the Warren Street opinion, WS coach Rick Pascarella called pacing "by your husband, your girlfriend, whoever" absolutely legal at a recent NYRRC council meeting.

<> I got close enough to Stacy to say something sentimental to her once—maybe for about as long as it takes to hand a Power Gel to a passing Boston Marathoner. Other than those few seconds, I never ran alongside her on the course, or directly in front of her to be used as a rabbit. I kept dashing far ahead at a considerably faster pace to get to a later part of the course, except for the approximately 500-meter-long section where I tried to get the back-of-the-packers to clear a lane, during which time Stacy says she could only see me occasionally amidst the men’s field.

<> I’ve run with Stacy twice in races. Neither time was planned, and both were on occasions when she was ill and running far slower than usual: the 7-Mile Reversible Run (she had chills and a pulse of 180 before the start, but insisted on racing; Paul Stuart-Smith and I ran the last mile with her, trying to get her to slow down) and the Brooklyn Half (she was quite sick and had to stop twice; I kept her company for the last half-mile.)

<> The Corporate Challenge’s status as a no-prizes fun-run, completely outside any connection with CPTC, and scored by the runners themselves (who record their own times using the honor system) might make Jud’s outrage seem inexplicable to the uninitiated. So might his singling-out of Wednesday’s comparatively innocuous case among the many instances (I can think of eight in the last year) of CPTC members running unofficially with teammates. But Jud’s screed is identifiable as a new case of a syndrome that I’d hoped had subsided in him: a desire to maintain feuds from a distance; to attack, from unpredictable angles, people by whom he feels in some way betrayed. I’d thought that, after more than a year of such treatment, Stacy and I had been given a reprieve, and this proof to the contrary is a real disappointment.

But let’s concentrate on the unexpected upsides of all this: Roland has been goaded into producing the gold standard in essays on the propriety of pacing; we’ve received a very pleasant and often hilarious spate of supportive e-mail (Thanks—some of you should be journalists), and, feeling obliged to reingratiate myself to all of New York’s running women, I volunteered today at the Women’s Half and 5K and learned how to cut Champion Chips off running shoes—sometimes while watching Peter Allen’s two sons running a truly remarkable, seemingly endless series of out-and-back relay-races against their creaky-legged Dad. (And PS—Carmine!   Get away from those women!)

Frank Handelman sent in this (relatively) short note on 5/10/99:

It strikes me that there are four positives to reflect upon in the wake of the ill-considered and seemingly bitter attack published the other day in this forum.

1.  This website is a rich and vital and open line, and increasingly contributes to the strength and diversity of the Central Park Track Club.

2.   Roland's discussion of the pacing and race-aiding issues is deep and thoughtful and balanced, and can only add to the positive dialogue.

3.   Stuart's response demonstrates his love for, and commitment to the sport.

4.   Stacy's race was great - I was there at East 90th Street when she powered by.  I only wish I could match a time, any time, from ten years earlier (although I'll keep trying).

John Kenney asked us to publish this e-mail from him to Jud Santos.  John is the President of the Central Park Track Club.

Jud:

I have spoken with Stacy and Stuart to share with them my discomfort with "pacing" during a woman's- only race. Men don't belong in a woman's race.   Period.  That being said, this clearly had absolutely no material bearing on the outcome of this race, as you yourself allude to.  The women's winner was a minute or so ahead of Stacy, and the 3rd woman was 40ish seconds behind Stacy, so I'm not sure this merits getting "really disturbed" over. 

The issue of pacing involving CPTC members in a "mixed" race was brought to my attention last fall by a club member following the New York Marathon. My response then and my response now is that I personally find this argument rather disingenuous and, I daresay, sexist.   After all, no one denigrates the accomplishments of track and road runners --- predominately men ---  who have drafted behind and been "paced" by highly paid "rabbits" who drop out halfway through races.   Indeed, this is strongly encouraged by athletes, spectators, organizers and governing bodies. 

The difference between a woman runner keying off the pace of men she does not know versus someone she does know is a distinction not worth drawing in my mind.   It's also hard to enforce.  In the final analysis, she has still made the effort and run the entire race on her own two feet.  The innuendoes and snickering that seek to somehow negate and nullify these accomplishments are inappropriate and ignore the fact that the athletic differences between men and women are overstated.  They smack of the "old-boy" attitudes which labeled women as the "Weaker Sex" and impelled Jock Semple to try to drag Kathrine Switzer off of the Boston Marathon course in 1967.

I suppose reasonable people can disagree over this, but I would suggest that this is hardly a black and white issue. It's also not worth getting "really disturbed" over.

One thing that does disturb me, however,  is the general tone of your note and the public forum you have chosen.  The next time you have a concern, please consider addressing it directly to Stacy, Stuart, or me.  Gossip is hardly constructive, and actually undermines the sense of community both within our Club and the general running community that you have purported to value.  It's a shame to see Stacy's best finish (2nd ! ) in a Corporate Challenge Race overshadowed by the comments of a fellow Club member.

John

Michele Tagliati wrote this note on 5/12/99:

Today, my buddy Luca Trovato alerted me on the long "Addendum to the 1999 Corporate Challenge Series #1." After reading it in one sweep I'd be tempted to simply agree with Frank Handelman's 4-point comments. The website is truly vital and rich, Roland's discussion would find adequate space on The New York Times, Stuart response is passionate and intelligent, and we all know how great Stacy is ...

I don't know - and probably don't want to know - what prompted this "public" attack.  Opinions can differ and discussion - I guess - is always welcome. But style and respect should never be left behind. I have little to add to the thoughtful and balanced analysis of the "subject of pacing" already provided by the web-site guy. All I'd like to share is the concept that pacing has more to do with loving than cheating. In both the 1997 and 1998 NYC Marathon, I paced with my brother Marco in what I consider one of the most truly "bonding" experience of our lives. Pacing together for almost 3 hours requires patience, compromise, emotional support and caring. Isn't this a definition of love? (editor: see photo of Michele and Marco in perfect synchrony waving to their families and children who are watching from the apartment on First Avenue).

But pacing brings me back to another unforgettable experience. It was 1992 and it was raining hard in Venice. I was training for my second NYC Marathon (to be held one month later) and I offered to pace my good friend Pepito, 52 year-old and in love with marathon running, to a dreamt-of sub-4-hour race. We strolled along the Brenta River passing town after town where generous villagers would offer us a good glass of ... red wine!

When we came in sight of the breath-taking silhouette of Venice, the rain stopped. The weather seemed to be smiling at us. Two miles separated Pepito from his dream and we had 20 minutes to run them. I kept encouraging him, step after step, pant after pant ... "Come on Pepito, you can do it!". We turned around the train station and we were approaching the first bridges when disaster stroke ... cramps! Pepito stopped running as suddenly bitten by a puppy dog. I immediately pushed on his right foot trying to relieve the pain and at first it seemed to work. But the scene repeated itself a couple of times. I offered him some water and finally he took on running again. We were there, half a mile maybe, the cheers louder and louder, one bridge after another and then the final stretch ... The clock was showing 4h03' ... We hugged each other under the finish line. It was his PR after all and he was very happy to have mastered the marathon once again. Our friendship was strengthened. I was ready to face New York ...

I never saw Pepito again. I moved to the United States that same winter and heard from my family that he finally broke 4 hours in Turin a few months later. Then, an unexpected disease took away his running first and his life soon after. That "pacing" was our last moment together.

Mary Rosado wrote on 5/19/99: "As a MAC representative, I felt that it was incumbent upon me to advise you of Rule 66 'Assistance to Athletes' in the USATF Rules of Competition:

1. Except as provided in road races (Rule 132) and in long distance walking events (Rule 150), during the progress of an event a competitor who has received any assistance whatsoever from any other person may be disqualified by the Referee.  "Assistance" is the conveying of advice, information or direct help to an athlete by any means, including a technical device.  It also includes pacing in running or walking events by persons not participating in the event, by competitors lapped or about to be lapped, or by any kind of technical device.  It does not mean participation of an officially designated pacesetter in the race.
Note 1: Pacesetting by a person entered in an event for that purpose is permitted.
Note 2: Competitors may carry or wear articles of personal equipment such as wrist chronometers and heart-rate monitors.

2 (a) Verbal or other communication, without the use of any technical device, from an individual who is not in the competition area to an athlete who is in the competition area shall not be considered assistance.
(b) The use of athletes of video or cassette recorders or players, tv's, CD or CD-ROM players, radio transmitters or receivers, mobile phones, computers, or any similar devices in the competition area shall not be permitted.  In long distance running and race walking, this is not a mandatory rule, but is a strong suggestion as a guideline for safety reasons.

3.  In a track event, any competitor competing to lose or to coach another competitor shall forfeit the right to be in the competition and shall be disqualified.

4. In a field event, an athlete may not leave the immediate area of the event and engage in dialogue with persons outside the area.  NOTE: Example: athletes competing in an event on the infield may not, during the competition, cross to the outside of the track.

5.  Any athlete receiving assistance during a field event other than as specified in 66.2(a) must be cautioned by the Referee and warned that for any repetition, he or she will be barred from further participation in that event.   Any performance accomplished up to that time shall stand.
Note 1: For Youth Athletics exception, see Rule 242.5(i)
Note 2: Information conveyed to an athlete by an official is not considered assistance provided such information is made available for all athletes.

6.  Intermediate times and preliminary winning times may be officially announced and/or displayed.  Otherwise such times must not be communicated to the athletes by persons in the competition area without the prior approval of the Referee.

7.  No attendant or competitor who is not actually taking part in the competition shall accompany any competitor on the mark or in the competition, nor shall any competitor be allowed, without the permission of the Referee or Judges, to receive assistance or refreshment from anyone during the progress of the competition, except as provided by Rule 66.7, Rule 132 and Rule 150.4.

8.  Medical personnel authorized by the Games Committee or Referee to do so may examine any athlete who appears in distress.  If in their opinion it is in the best interest of the athlete's health and welfare, they may remove the athlete from the competition.  A hands-on medical examination during the progress of an event by officially designated medical personnel shall not be considered assistance.

9.  During hot weather the meet organizers may furnish competitors with water and sponging stations in races of 5000 meters and longer on the track."

Roland Soong offered this reading of USATF Rule 66:

"Here are the most salient points

• According to Rule 66.1, pacing is not allowed --- except for "pacesetting by a person entered in an event for that purpose."  What is the point here?  This cannot be about the wrongfulness of people being assisted to achieve faster times.  Evidently, it is alright to provide such assistance.  So the only rationale that I can see is one of fairness in the sense that all the competitors are aware that there is a designated pacesetter and will plan their strategies accordingly, versus the situation in which only some, but not all, of the competitors knew.  Thus, Kip Keino's Olympics victory in the 1500m at Mexico City would be nullified because his teammate Ben Jipcho's pacesetting tactic (see story) was known only between them.
• Rule 66.1 does not permit "pacing by competitors lapped or about to be lapped".  So they are not just looking for the fastest possible times, but there is a tension between faster times and the perception of fairness.  I just wished that they made up their minds one way or the other, and go all the way.
• According to Rule 66.2(b), the use of video equipment by athletes in the competition area is not permitted.  But we have all heard about athletes looking up at the stadium projection screen to check who is behind them.  So anyone who plays peekaboo should be disqualified?  Ah, I get it ... it must be the case that the screen is technically not in the competition area?  Puff, the problem vanishes ...
• Rule 66.3 states that "any competitor competing to lose ... shall forfeit the right to be in the competition and shall be disqualified."  'Competing to lose' sounds just like what the pacesetter does, doesn't it?  Everybody's favorite counterexample is Tom Byers, the rabbit who ran away to win a race.   But nobody seems to be able name another track race in which this happened.  Most pacesetters stop and step off the track after covering the required distance, making no pretense at trying to win.  Unfortunately, the supreme sanction of disqualification from the race is moot for someone who has just dropped out of the race anyway (and getting paid handsomely for doing that).
• Rule 66.6 states that "intermediate times and preliminary times must not be communicated to the athletes by persons in the competition area ."  Rule 66.2(a) says that "verbal or other communication from an individual who is not in the competition area to an athlete who is in the competition area shall not be considered assistance."  So your accomplice should bring a megaphone into the grandstand.  You can both learn to count in an obscure language (say, Hopi) so that no one else will understand.  Also, does anyone know how to define the 'competition area' in a 26.2 mile marathon going through different city neighborhoods?
• Rule 66.7 says that "any competitor shall not be allowed, without the permission of the Referee or Judges, to receive assistance or refreshment from anyone during the progress of the competition, except as provided by Rule 66.7." Isn't this quite circular?

I think that Rule 66 is fine for track and field events, in which the competition area is clearly delineated and can be monitored effectively by a small number of referees, judges and other officials.  But in a 26.2 mile marathon with 30,000 plus runners and one million plus spectators, it is simply impossible to enforce Rule 66 uniformly and equitably.  More importantly, it is recognized that any attempt to disqualify people selectively (against any form of "assistance whatsoever", defined to include "the conveying of advice, information or direct help to an athlete by any means" from any other person) would surely destroy the sport for competitors, participants and spectators alike.

AIMS, The Association of International Marathons and Road Races, is perhaps more sensitive to the pragmatic aspects of road race management.  AIMS has these four criteria for recognizing World Fastest Times:

1. AIMS Board of Directors must be satisfied that the event is organized to the highest standards according to AIMS road race management policies.
2. The course must not be less than the distance stipulated.
3. The course must have been measured and certified by an AIMS/IAAF approved measurer.
4. The race must be subject to drug testing.

Pacing is notably absent from this list.

ROTTERDAM MARATHON, 1999: WORLD BEST TIME FOR TEGLA LOROUPE

About Tegla Loroupe's 2:20:47 performance in the 1998 Rotterdam Marathon, this item appeared in Runnersworld.com on July 16, 1998:

Almost from the moment Tegla Loroupe crossed the finish line at last April's Rotterdam Marathon in a world's best performance of 2:20:47 there has been controversy over the particulars of that race. The latest issue of the IAAF magazine features a three-page story about Rotterdam with some critical comments by a leading IAAF official on that subject.

Tucked into a photo caption on the final page IAAF General Secretary Istvan Gyulai says, "It has been reported to the IAAF that the excellent Kenyan athlete Tegla Loroupe was paced by two male runners throughout the Rotterdam race and was also repeatedly advised by the elite race director [Jos Hermens] from a motorbike: a double infringement of IAAF rule 143. The IAAF regrets that this 'let's-have-a-record-at-whatever-cost' attitude casts doubts on Loroupe's otherwise admirable performance. Clearly, if there existed official world records in road races, Loroupe's time would not be ratified. So it remains only a world best performance, a questionable one, although this is not Loroupe's fault."

Pace-setting of female runners by male runners has had a contentious history, particularly in the United States. USA Track & Field has officially recognized American road records for many years and much legislation has been proposed and enacted to try and resolve various "unfair assistance" problems.

As pointed out by British running expert Andy Milroy, the Netherlands may be the scene of another pacing controversy this fall. Officials at the Amsterdam Marathon are proposing to use male runners to escort Irish star Catherina McKiernan in her quest to beat Loroupe's time at their race on November 1.

In the October 1999 issue of Running Times, Paul Gains writes about Irish runner Catherina McKiernan:

... McKiernan has definite opinions on topics of interest to her and her ilk --- specifically, on the controversy surrounding women's record-setting in mixed races.  Tegla Loroupe's world best of 2:20:47 was set in a mixed event in Rotterdam where she was unquestionably paced and assisted by two male runners.  The IAAF Secretary General, Istvan Guylai, has stated that this was a violation of IAAF rules and that "clearly if there existed official world records in road races, Loroupe's time would not be ratified."

In Amsterdam, McKiernan herself ran part of the way surrounded by men, as leading women frequently do in marathons.  While she admits that this tactic can help when concentration is waning, she firmly believes that is the only benefit.  She has no doubt which of the current crop of female "world record" runs is truly the world best performance.

"Tegla Loroupe's," she answers immediately.  "I mean, did anybody else run a couple of miles for her?  She had to run the 26 miles and whatever yards.  She had to cover every piece of that.  No, Tegla Loroupe has the world record as far as I am concerned."

This press release appeared in the  Association of International Marathons and Road Races (AIMS) Newsletter (N0. 157, February 1999)

Peter McLean issued a press release on 30 Jan 1999, part of which appears below:

"The Kenyan athlete Tegla Loroupe today (30/01/99) had her incredible performance [2:20:47] in the 1998 Rotterdam Marathon (19/04/98) recognised as the fastest ever time recorded by a female runner. AIMS, The Association of International Marathons and Road Races, which represents over 130 major road running events in over 50 countries, recognised 2:20:47 as the World's fastest time in history.

"Tegla received the AIMS/CITZEN WORLD'S FASTEST TIME AWARD from AIMS President Hiroaki Chosa at the opening ceremony of the Osaka International Ladies Marathon. Mr Chosa commented "Tegla's performance in Rotterdam last year was a special moment in athletics history. It is important that such moments of athletic achievement are properly recognised."

"Tegla Loroupe commented: "I am pleased my performance in Rotterdam has been officially recognised by AIMS. It is important for athletes to have goals to strive for. Recognition of the World's fastest time gives all top athletes a target to aim for and stimulates interest in the sport of road running."

"Loroupe's performance has caused much debate because she was 'paced' during the race. Mr Chosa commented: "Sport and its rules are constantly evolving. Pacing is an issue worthy of debate and analysis, as well as many other areas of sport. But Tegla's incredible performance must not be devalued or diminished. Her achievement was accomplished within the rules of the competition she entered."

"AIMS criteria for World fastest times are:

1. The AIMS Board of Directors must be satisfied that the event is organised to the highest standards according to AIMS road race management policies

2. The course must be not less than the distance stipulated

3. The course must have been measured and certified by an AIMS/IAAF approved measurer.

4. The race must be subject to drug testing"

Jos Hermens commented in Runnersworld.com on April 23, 1999: "Pacing is an American issue. I don't understand why it is an issue. It is not a problem.  It is going to happen as long as you have men and women running together.  We set up the race to run a record.  People want to see world records.  If we had a man who could do it [pace another man] for 40-K, we would do that, too."

Reader's Letters to Runner's World

• Bob Brenner (5/8/98): "Every woman who competed in the Rotterdam Marathon had equal access to the men who paced Loroupe. Only Tegla had the courage to stay with these men and forge a new marathon world record.

  The previous marathon record holders, Ingrid Kristiansen (London '85) and Joan [Benoit] Samuelson (Boston '83), ran both of their world records in mixed races. Men were present. Men finished in front of them. Therefore they also had "running targets" to help them. Samuleson was "aided" by world class marathoner Kevin Ryan in Boston '83. He ran with her from 10k to the finish. He even got her some water and relayed splits to her. Should these records also be nullified?

  Let's stop this pacing controversy crap! Tegla showed up at the starting line and ran with her own two legs; she was not carried!"

OTHER REFERENCE

• Boston Globe.  Kristiansen still standard for Boston (4/7/1999)

BERLIN MARATHON, 1999:  WORLD BEST TIME FOR TEGLA LOROUPE 

On September 26th, 1999, Tegla Loroupe bettered her own world best time by 4 seconds at the Berlin Marathon.  This time, she had three male pacers (namely, her countrymen Jacob Losian, Samson Negolepus and Clemens Kiprotich) with her through 23 miles, buffeting her against the wind and calling out splits.  The London Marathon, which lays claim to the world best in an all-women race, immediately issued a press release denigrating her time, citing a 'recommendation' by the IAAF.  Plus ça change, rien change.  This race was suspenseful because Tegla was behind schedule (34 seconds behind her Rotterdam pace at the 35km mark) and she dropped her pacers with a long sprint to the finish.  Her coach Volker Wagner said, "Tegla really broke the record in the last 100 meters.  I don't think even Carl Lewis could have beaten when she was sprinting at the end."  "It is not as if they're running the race for me," Loroupe said after the race.  "I still have to do the time."

Jeff Hollobaugh wrote for ESPN.com (9/28/99):

"Tegla Loroupe has done it again, and it's going to make some people very upset. The Kenyan marathon runner broke her own world best in the long run with a clocking of 2 hours, 20.43 seconds at Berlin on Sunday.

So why would that bother anybody? Perhaps it's the way she did it: Three male "bodyguards" ran in front of and beside her, breaking the wind, blocking other runners, and handing her drinks. This is an even more blatant example of the "assistance" that caused controversy last year when she ran her first world best, 2:20:47, at Rotterdam.

Expect the distance running community to argue about this for a while. The organizers of the London Marathon want the IAAF to finally set up world record standards for the event, ones that would exclude aided efforts such as Loroupe's.

The reality is that the IAAF's standardization of world records in the event is about the only thing that would put this fight to bed.  That's because the marketplace is at work here. No matter how much bad publicity such an argument creates, it won't match the good publicity that the Berlin organizers and their sponsors have gotten from hosting the fastest women's run ever.

Does this make Loroupe some kind of cheater?  If so, that judgment would be tough to explain to a woman who has seen more than her share of top-class track meets with the male distance stars receiving carefully choreographed pacing help en route to rewriting the record books."

In this photo, Tegla Loroupe is presented with the Association of International Marathons and Road Races (AIMS) World's Fastest Time Award by New York City Marathon Race Director Allen Steinfeld, in New York City on November 3, 1999 right in front of Fred Lebow's statue.  Loroupe, a two time New York City Marathon winner, was receiving the award to recognize her September 26, 1999 Berlin Marathon win where she recorded a time of 2 hours 20 minutes and 43 seconds.

Reactions from readers at Runnersworld.com:

• Running fast, especially in a marathon, is harder than hell.  It doesn't matter if you're chasing someone, or being chased by someone, be it male, female, cat, dog or maybe even an alien.  What Tegla Loroupe has done took guts, spirit, and determination.  I didn't see anyone carry her over the finish line and I am sure the guys who paced her were glad to break off when they did and be done with their hard run.   Tegla Loroupe has raised the standard in women's running and should be applauded for doing so.  Bill Patience
    
• I don't care how many people "help" a woman to a world record. Unless they literally carry her, she still has to move her legs fast enough to achieve the performance.  I know that I couldn't run a 2:20 marathon no matter who paced me.  Instead of finding fault we should be congratulating these fine athletes.  Michael Cordi
   
• Why is it perfectly legitimate - standard, in fact - for elite male marathoners to be the beneficiaries of paid "rabbits," while many in the running community look askance at elite female marathoners who are paced by men in the same manner? Would it make a difference if the pacers were also women? Why should it?  Kevin Beck
    
• Kevin Beck raises the legitimate question as to why it is all right for elite male marathoners to be the beneficiaries of paid "rabbits," while many in the running community look askance at elite female marathoners who are paced by men in the same manner.
    
       There is a subtle, but fundamental, difference, Kevin. When males pace males, they at least are competing in the same event; not so with male rabbits aiding females. There have been a few instances where male rabbits actually have gone on to win the race when those they were attempting to pace failed to follow them closely enough: Tom Byers in a mile race in Europe, Paul Pilkington in the Los Angeles Marathon.  Inevitably though, most male rabbits drop off the pace around 18-20 miles, because they are not quite as talented as those they are pacing. With the women (and I believe this was true with Tegla), they literally get paced to the finish line.
    
       And in many instances, male pacers give "illegal" assistance to the women they are pacing, offering them fluids and pace advice. Sometimes they do this even though there are unpaced females competing against the female they are helping.  So there is a difference, whether we want to recognize it or not.  Hal Higdon
     
• Hal Higdon's response to the difference between males pacing males and males pacing females is technically correct, but glosses over the main issue: In both cases the runners are receiving aid. The rabbits are not competitors 99.99% of the time, and the other runners know it.  If it is okay for males, it should be okay for females.  David Stempfly

NEW YORK CITY RECORDS

It is well-known that the course record for the New York City Marathon was set by Lisa Ondieki in a time of 2:24:40 in 1992.  Do you know which woman has the fastest 5 mile time inside Central Park?  That record of 26:09 was set by the same Lisa Ondieki exactly one week before at the Computer Run.  Among the result listings for that race, you will find the name Yobes Ondieki in a time of 26:10.  Yobes is Lisa's husband and is famous as the first man to ever break 27 minutes over 10K in a time of 26:58.38 in Oslo on July 10th, 1993.  Prima facie, this would be a strong case of an elite male slowing down deliberately to pace an elite female.

NEW YORK CITY MARATHON, 2000

In his November 7th, 1999 column about the New York City Marathon, Frank Litsky of the New York Times wrote:

"The men will have five designated rabbits, or pacesetters, who will try to run the first half of the race in 1 hour 3 minutes or 1:04 and maintain that pace until they reach 15 or 16 miles.  The women will have no rabbits because they will run the first eight miles on separate roads from the men and there are no women, aside from the contenders, fast enough to be rabbits."

What?  No women fast enough to be rabbits?  And this same explanation was offered by the television commentators.  What an extraordinary circumstance!  All they had to do was to pay a couple of elite runners enough to do a training run!  If the organizers can't do that, then they are either just too cheap or else they lack the will!

LONE STAR PAPER CHASE MARATHON, 2000

Report in the Amarillo Globe-News, May 29th, 2000 about the Seventh Annual Lone Star Paper Chase Marathon, won by 17-year-old Stephanie Sharp:

Sharp, a 17-year-old Amarillo High junior, finished in 3:50:42, almost 13 seconds ahead of the No.2 female finisher - 35-year-old Calissa McKinney of Amarillo. Sharp was the 10th overall finisher, beating 42 of the 51 males who entered the marathon.

"It was hard," said Sharp, the District 3-5A runner-up in both the 3200 and 1600 meters this year. "I didn't know if I could do a marathon or not.  It was really hard.  It was a challenge, and I wanted to try it.

Sharp said she made a first-timer's mistake by starting the race too fast.

"The first 10 miles felt really good, and the next seven felt even better," she said. "It really went downhill after that. The last four miles, I didn't know if I was going to finish or not.  I wouldn't have made it without my friends."

Amarillo High track teammates Taylor Coffey and Katherine Rhodes ran alongside Sharp to encourage her. They even donned t-shirts that read, "Support Team."  Sharp also got encouragement from friend Brian Tinder.

MASBACK'S DREAM

USATF CEO Craig Masback's hopes and dreams on the occasion when his daughter started to walk (November 4, 1999):

Hope/dream # 5: I hope there will be no more discussions about pacing of women's records. If someone runs a time and the course is measured accurately, it should be considered a record

ST. GEORGE'S MARATHON, October 2000

Jim Halley reports in the Salt Lake City Tribune: 

TEACHER LEADS START TO FINISH

ST. GEORGE -- Linda Huyck is a high school teacher by trade and a cross country coach by choice. Saturday, she gave her team a lesson on how to win the St. George Marathon -- don't let anybody pass you.

Her only concern came at mile 22, when her toes began to cramp. She asked a man who was running alongside to look back, but there were no other women in sight.

"He ran with me the last few miles and he was very encouraging," Huyck said. "It was good to have that, because when you start cramping, you can start tripping and think, 'Oh my God, they're coming after me.' "

NEW YORK CITY MARATHON, November 2000

In the New York City Marathon, the men and women have separate starts.  For the first eight miles of the race, the men and women run on different sides of the street, and then they merge.  In the November 2000 race, for the first time in the history of the race, the male pacesetter Leonid Shetsov was specially recruited to join the women at the eight mile mark.  For the next 13 miles, he would run in the lead, buffeting the women behind him against a 30 miles per hour northwesterly gale, and setting the pace that they requested.  At the 21st mile, when the lead pack and dwindle to just the few contenders, he peeled off because he felt that he was becoming too much of a factor.  The winner Ludmila Petrova said afterwards that Shvetsov's presence — and her slender build — helped her maintain pace through the wind.  "It's easier to be blown away if you're feather than if you're a brick," Petrova said, adding that countryman Shvetsov was like "a force" pulling her along.

RUNNERS WORLD COVERAGE OF 2001 NEW YORK CITY MARATHON

Pacing controversy takes Gaitenby out of New York by Mary Nicole Nazzaro

When is a pacer not a pacer? What's the difference between an official "rabbit" -- the pacesetter employed to squire the elite men or women to the 20-kilometer or 30-kilometer mark before dropping out -- and the teammate of a competitor entering the race to provide the same kind of pacing assistance?

This year's New York City Marathon has both kinds -- or had, until Jill Gaitenby was told by race officials that she couldn't enter the race as a pacer to FILA Discovery USA teammate Rebecca Wassner.

Gaitenby is one of America's new marathon talents. She was the first American to finish this year's Boston Marathon and represented the United States this summer at the World Championships. But when she decided, after a difficult time of training capped by a recent virus, that she wasn't in shape to contend for the U.S. women's marathon championship to be decided Sunday in New York, she still wanted to participate. She resolved to run with Wassner through perhaps the 25-kilometer mark, and then make her way to the finish line to cheer on her teammates.

But the New York City Marathon won't allow her to do that. Here's what happened.

David Monti, the elite race coordinator here, makes a distinction between professional pacers and athletes invited to contend for a national title whose expenses are being paid for by the race committee.

"Jill was invited and accepted to come to the race to compete," said Monti on Friday. "Her manager [Federico Rosa of FILA's Discovery program] told me that she was going to be running and everything was great. And then a week and a half ago, he told me that she wasn't going to compete herself, but was going to pace one of her teammates. And I said that her invitation was that she was being invited to the United States Championships as a full competitor. If she was not going to take that role, I didn't want to lose that funding that could be used for somebody else who could run the full race."

By all accounts, both Gaitenby and her coach Greg McMillan were completely honest with Monti regarding Gaitenby's intentions to run with Wassner. It was confusion between what Monti was hearing from the U.S.-based athlete and coach, and the Italy-based manager, that caused the problem.

Pacing has always been a hotly contested issue in marathoning, though the harshest criticism seems to come in when men pace women. Veteran track analyst Larry Rawson says "A women's marathon world record without a rabbit is extremely impressive. But!" Rawson pauses, smiling. "Having four men in front of you and a press truck behind you breaking the wind" -- an obvious reference to Tegla Loroupe's 1999 marathon world record -- "might be a mortal sin and might not fully allow you into heaven, in its purest form!" New York City Marathon referee Basil Honikman explains the official rules regarding pacesetters. "There are two kinds of rules that apply" to the pacing issue, he says. "First, official rules allow for pacesetters, as long as they are entered in the race as a regular athlete. It is well understood that these kinds of pacers are allowed, and that they are not usually going to finish the race. Now, once in a while, and if the other elite athletes are informed beforehand, a rabbit may be allowed to finish the race. Once in a while, the rabbit wins, if nobody else goes for it! So both USATF and IAAF rules allow pacers in marathons. But the second rule of pacing is that an individual race may set up any kind of rules it wants."

Monti explains the issue as it applies to New York. "The pack [of lead runners] has to have faith that the person is there to help them, and is not a competitor. When pacers win, that's normally considered bad form. I'd excuse what happened in Chicago this year, because Ben Kimondiu did the job that he was asked to do, then stopped, waited, went back, picked up the group, and then won. So it was a fair fight."

"But," Monti continues, "I reduced severely the number of pacemakers in the race from previous years. I don't believe in pacemaking at the New York City Marathon. This race is a title to win; it's not a race to run any particular time. Pacemaking in Chicago or Berlin is critical because the race revolves around time. We have two men to pace the lead men's group: Joseph Kariuki and Godfrey Kiprotich. David Morris will pace the American men's championship race behind them. And we have a woman to pace the elite women's race -- Silvia Skvortsova. Leonid Shvetsov will be trailing behind the elite women to keep some of the recreational men to keep them from interfering with the women's race."

So there are two kinds of pacers -- "private" pacers who enter the race to help their teammates, and rabbits, who are hired to lead whoever is in the lead pack to a certain split time at the half-marathon, 25-K, or 30-K mark. Running teams providing their own pacers isn't anything new -- certain teams, such as FILA's Kenyan athletes, have done it for years, particularly at large marathons like Boston. In this case, the issue was twofold. If the marathon committee was going to pay Gaitenby's way, they wanted her to be a full competitor in the U.S. women's championships. And, according to McMillan, private pacers weren't allowed in a U.S. championship race.

"It was a mess," admits McMillan. "But when we learned that there could be no private pacers, we withdrew Jill's entry into the race. While she would always prefer to be running, Jill is very excited to be in New York to see the race, an event that she is definitely interested in running in the near future."

My small part of history
by Robert Johnson
(Editor's note: LetsRun.com co-founder, Robert Johnson, restarted his running career after a 7 year injury induced hiatus on September of 1997 and has gone from a 16:42 5k runner to a 2:23 marathoner in that time frame. He is now preparing for the 2001 Marine Corps Marathon.)

Last weekend I went to the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon to serve as a rabbit/guard for the top women in their world record attempt.

It all started when I contacted race director Carey Pinkowski a few weeks before the race about my brother, Weldon being a rabbit for the 2:10 group. In my email, I mentioned that I also needed a number for the race because I was planning on running 16-18 miles between 5:12 and 5:15 pace hopefully as my last final long, hard effort before the 2001 Marine Corps Marathon.  The key ingredient of my marathon training is always a set of long, sustained efforts (before I ran Las Vegas I did one of 12, 15 and 18 miles) at race pace or faster with the last one being 18 miles three weeks before my race.  Chicago was 3 weeks before Marine Corps and thus fit in perfectly.  

Also I'd always wanted to run Chicago as Weldon had said great things about the race. I had even debated running it this year but got a late start on training due to injuries and what not and thus chose a later marathon.

To my surprise, Carey wrote back and said he had jobs for both of us. He wanted me to run between 13 and 20 miles with the lead women at 5:20 pace (2:19:55) which at the time of our conversation would be a world-record.  While 20 miles was a little farther than I originally wanted to go, I agreed to do it as I figured it would be a lot of fun.  Moreover since the pace would be slower than on what I had planned on running, I figured that perhaps I'd feel good and try to finish the race with a sub 2:20 clocking which would be tough to achieve at Marine Corps race given the lack of a large number of people to run with.

Carey told me he'd never had anyone before employed to run with the women and each time he talked to me he seemed a little hesitant about the whole thing as he didn't want any women's record to be "tainted."  Over the last few years, there's been a lot of controversy in the sport about what the true women's world best is in the marathon and whether efforts aided by men should count.  

It all seemed like a bunch of hogwash to me because the men's record attempts always employ rabbits for large portions of the race so why did it matter if women had rabbits for large portions of the race as well? What does the genitalia of the rabbit had to do with anything.   

Anyway, I always thought the whole controversy was mainly being created by the London Marathon as a marketing ploy. In London, the elite women run separately from the men (which you may be surprised is the way I think is the way it should be done as the elite women often don't get the television exposure they deserve) and thus it's easy to see why they argued women's only efforts should only be employed for record purposes.

However, to me a world record is running is about one thing and one thing only - covering a specific distance on a legitimate (not downhill or downwind) course in the fastest time. I could care less about whether rabbits were employed or not and would even be for allowing rabbits to start mid-race in record attempts.

(That being said, I don't like how every race nowadays tends to employ rabbits.  I think the obsession over records is horrible for the sport.  I'd rather see no rabbits and just real competition instead of reading about how "Runner X won the _______ Marathon but missed the world record by _______.  That being said, my feelings weren't strong enough to keep me from agreeing to help the ladies out in Chicago.)

So as I was saying, Carey told me that I would be more of a guard than a rabbit - most likely running either ahead of them as something to focus on or to the side of them to keep publicity hungry people (whether it was male runners, crazed fans, people with a political messages, terrorists, etc) away from them and the TV trucks.  I also was supposed to try to do my best to stay on the opposite side of the TV trucks so I wouldn't a) mess up the coverage or b) look like a publicity starved male myself.

I thought this sounded pretty cool and kept imagining myself cold-cocking some fan running out of the stands and ending up on SportsCenter.  I mean every skinny male runner to some degree must subconsciously be a little jealous of his lack of a "masculine" build.  

Anyway, I was a bit nervous as my role wasn't totally defined and my biggest concern was what was I supposed to do if the women didn't run 5:20 pace with me.  I'd run with the Catherine Ndereba (defending Chicago champion and one of the two people expected to challenge for the record) two weeks prior at the Philadelphia Half-Marathon and beaten her by 1:16 (67:10 to 68:26), and I figured on a great day I was maybe in 2:19 shape and thus didn't really think she'd be up to the task.  On no conversion chart is a 68:26 equal to a sub-2:20 marathon.

I asked the race organizers this question and they seemed to be caught off guard by it - like they hadn't imagined the women might not go for the record.  "Uh.. If that happens, it's up to you. Do whatever you want," was the reply I got from the either Carey or Glen Lattimer - the person in charge of the rabbits.

The day before the race I met Catherine Ndereba's agent, Lisa Buster.  She didn't seem all that pleased I was there and not all that welcoming.  "I don't know why you're here.  We didn't ask for a rabbit."  Her comments didn't offend me at all.   I figured she was just doing  her job and protecting her athlete and thought that a more tactical race would best suit Ndereba.   However, her less than warm welcome was in stark contrast to the warm reception I received from the other expected contestant in the record battle, Lornah Kiplagat.  

Lornah was extremely friendly when she met me and seemed glad that I was there. I told her I was a little nervous as it wasn't clear what my role was after having talked to Lisa and asked her if she wanted me just to strictly be a guard or to also to try to run as a guard at 5:20 pace. She replied something to the effect of ,"Do what rabbits normally do. You know just run ahead a little ahead of us."  

These two conversations left me with the feeling that Lornah, who had pushed the pace for most of the race in 2000, only to be beaten by Catherine in the latter stages of the race, was glad that I was there as I could be used as an aid to help her push a blistering pace.  She didn't want the 2001 race to be a repeat of 2000 where she did most of the work only to see the victory taken by Ndereba.  I figured if anyone of them was to go for the record it would be Lornah Kiplagat as I didn't really think Ndereba was in shape to go for it based on her half-marathon in Philadelphia.

Boy was I wrong.

Once the race started, I immediately tried to find the lead women and settle into what I thought was 5:20ish pace. The first mile is the hardest to judge in the marathon so I tried to judge my pace based on how far I was back of Weldon - who I knew was aiming for 5:00 for the first mile.  After about 800 meters, I was starting to settle into my pace, but I hadn't found the lead women.  They were nowhere to be seen.  My first instinct was that they'd gone out really fast and were ahead of me as Ndereba had run the first two miles in Philadelphia at a blistering sub 5 minute pace and had been ahead of me there.  

I looked back again and finally saw Kiplagat way behind me - at least 50 meters.  Still no sign of Ndereba.  About 2/3rd of a mile into the race, I saw my friends Scott Anderson and Victoria Lynch cheering on the side of the road. I frantically asked them, "Is the lead woman way in front?" Scott replied, "No, way behind."

My nerves were calmed by this response and I decided to keep running my pace and reassess things at the mile mark (I thought that maybe all of the men rabbits including myself were going out really fast but it sure didn't seem like it).  I got to the mile in 5:20ish and the lead women's pack was nowhere close to me.  

I then stopped, turned around and waited for at least 20 seconds. They hit the mile in about 5:45. I then ran the 2nd mile in 5:20ish and yet again the women were nowhere to be seen. I waited another 20 seconds - another 5:45.  My biggest concern from the day before of, "What if they don't run 5:20 pace," had come true.  I then decided that I'd just slow up and run with the ladies at whatever pace they wanted to run and strictly be a guard.  I decided this for two reasons: 1) It was my job (even though they'd given me a free pass to continue on, I felt  like they'd want me to run with the ladies) and 2) I didn't feel like having to force myself to run 5:20 pace for 20 miles by myself in no-man's land.

Prior to my arrival in Chicago, I'd heard rumours that both Kiplagat and Ndereba were going to refuse to lead the race and would run as slow as possible to make the other lead and figured that's now what was unfolding.  We ran the 3rd mile in 5:40ish - for a 3 mile split of 17:11 - more than 1:11 behind record pace.  The pace then quickened. Mile 4 was run in 5:15 and all of the miles from 4-10 were run between 5:15 and 5:22.  

I was feeling great and having a pretty good time acting as a guard.  The crowds were great. Everyone seemed psyched to see the lead ladies. Tons of "Come on ladies," "Let's go ladies," and even quite a few educated fans yelling for Catherine and Lornah by name.  Given our slow start, we started passing a lot of men during this time.  Running about 15 meters ahead, I spent my time telling guys to stay to the left or right and watch out for the lead ladies/television trucks (one large press truck with both still and TV cameras and one four wheeler with just a TV camera).  I also served as a sort of traffic cop - running far enough off to one side to figure out which way were going to turn next and then signaling this to the women.  There were a ton of turns early in the course and the press trucks were making it hard run the tangents (which can add up on a marathon) so I figured I'd try to help out as I know I hate running extra distance when I'm racing.

I also helped give the television commentator a few splits as it was hard for him to see the mile marks with his back turned.  The press in turn would direct me to move to one side of the road to get out of the way of their picture taking.  Initially, I was full of energy and didn't mind running the extra distance but remember thinking after a while, "We've been going at sub-record pace (5:20) for a while now.  That's pretty fast and that can't be too easy for them no matter how slow they went out. What's going on? Are they going to slow down?"

Right after passing the 10th mile marker, I suddenly saw a shadow come up on me from behind.  I glanced over my shoulder and realized it was Ndereba.   I pumped my arms a little harder and picked up the pace. Shortly there after, the shadow came up on me and once again I had to run a little harder to stay in front  After a few minutes of this I remember thinking, "Damn, this mile had better be a lot faster than the previous ones as I'm working really hard.  I shouldn't be this tired at mile 10 if I'm going to make it to 20."

5:07.98.

Somewhat relieved to at least realize that I indeed was going much faster, I no longer felt even vaguely comfortable. 5:15-5:20 wasn't too bad but the sub 5:10 was tough (not just for me, evidently, as the other women were all immediately dropped by Ndereba's surge).  

I remember thinking, "I sure hope this is just a surge to get the lead and she slows back down to 5:17 pace as I can handle that, but it's going to be tough to keep this up until 20."   After a few more 5:10 miles (unfortunately my watch battery died shortly after the race and I don't have them any more), I remember coming up on the half-way mark and seeing it still say 69 minutes and 40 something seconds.  I didn't look at my watch at the exact half-way mark but figured at the time we were right at around 70:05 (when in actuality we didn't get there until 70:15) and remember thinking, "My God, We've made up all that time we gave away the first 3 miles.  What is going on here?  She's either going to smash the record or just blow up."  

As the sub- 5:10 miles continued, I remember still being perplexed. She was going so much faster than record pace I was a bit dumbfounded. Being such an experienced and accomplished marathon runner, I couldn't imagine that she was make the novice mistake of going at a pace way faster than she could handle especially since she was in the lead. Yet at the same time, I couldn't believe she was going as fast as she was.

Something wasn't right.

What wasn't right were the limits that I and others had put into our head as to what was physically possible for a woman to run in the marathon.  Catherine Ndereba was en route to totally destroying the women's world record - a week old record of 2:19:46 that in and of itself had marked the destruction of a supposed magical barrier in women's running, the sub 2:20 marathon.

What was happening was completely and utterly amazing - arguably the greatest accomplishment in women's running history.  A world record that had come down just 26 seconds in the previous 16 years (from Ingrid Kristiansen's 2:21:06 in 1985 to Tegla Loroupe's 2:20:43) was being taken down 1:56 in the span of 8 days as Ndereba would cross the line in 2:18:47.

Perhaps, I shouldn't have been surprised.  History was repeating itself.

57 years ago the destruction of the supposedly unbeatable 4 minute mile barrier by Roger Bannister had opened up the floodgates to previously unimaginable accomplishments in the men's mile and now Takahashi's sub 2:20 clocking (2:19:46) apparently was doing the same in the women's marathon.

At the time, my thoughts weren't so clear.  I just was running scared, trying to stay in front. No longer did I have the energy to move from side to side to stay off of television.  Around mile 15, I was running close to the t.v. truck and heard the announcer come back from commercial and say, "She's really dropped the hammer and Robert Johnson is struggling to keep up."

I smiled when I heard this for it most certainly was true.  I wasn't going to make it to the finish and wasn't going to make it to 20 miles.  I was being dropped by a woman.

Now anyone who has ever run a road-race knows that there are a ton of men who just can't stand to be beaten by a woman.  I'm certainly not one of them.  I wasn't ashamed at all. Why would I be?  She was accomplishing something truly amazing, raising the limits on what was thought to be humanly possible for female accomplishment, and I was helping her the best I could.  

I accompanied her to the 17 mile mark and then she was on her way, hesitating only with a brief glance to her side to see if I was still there.  She didn't fade after I left. Thus one should assume that almost undoubtedly she would have gotten the record without my help. I didn't pace her or break the wind (unlike Takahashi in her attempt), I was there more for her protection.  Nonetheless, I felt proud of having a small role in helping create history.  Even if I didn't help create history, at least I was along for much of the ride.

Congratulations, Catherine!!!!!

 (PS. Catherine was full of kind words after the race. "Thanks for your help, Robert," she said before posing for a picture and asking what became of me.  "What happened to you? I looked around but you weren't there.")

19th JACKSONVILLE MARATHON: FIRST RACE, FIRST PLACE  
by Laurie Cason, December 16, 2001, Jacksonville.com

Patterson, a Jacksonville resident running his first marathon, answered any questions about his ability to make the transition to a 26.2-mile distance with his 2 hours, 37 minutes and 35 seconds finish yesterday, claiming top honors in the 19th Jacksonville Marathon. More than 2,200 runners participated in the event that began and ended at The Bolles School.

"This is a war of attrition," said Patterson, 31, whose winning time secures his entry in the 2002 and 2003 Boston Marathons. "No one can be told what it is like [to run a marathon]. You could try to articulate it, but this is something you just have to go through for yourself."

Patterson, who has run in 5K and 10K races, yesterday benefited from the support of family and friends. His father-in-law, Rudy Nudo Jr., cycled alongside Patterson to offer encouragement and bottles of sports-nutrition drinks. Patterson was paced by Jerry Lawson, holder of the Jacksonville Marathon 2:14:33 men's course record set in 1992.

"He [Patterson] ran great," said Lawson, who finished just a half-step behind to accept second place. "This was all about helping Rick out today. Just to have someone out there helps immensely. Once you are out there by yourself, you're not only fighting the course but fighting the demons in your own head."

Patterson and Lawson, who both run on the team sponsored by 1st Place Sports, covered the course at Patterson's targeted six-minute-per-mile pace. They were matched for the first 18 miles by Mark Kathman, who then intentionally eased off to conserve energy for next month's Walt Disney World Marathon, where he will be appearing as an invited elite runner.

2002 CHICAGO MARATHON

The Telegraph:

In a city famed for its mobsters, Radcliffe ran most of the way shielded by a mob of male minders provided by the race organisers. Despite the fact that she was running at sub-world record pace from as early as the third mile, Radcliffe looked more like Madonna jogging in the park than an athlete set on making history.

For 12 miles, in weather much kinder than predicted, she looked untroubled and when she passed half-way in 1-09-05, she was already more than 30 seconds inside Ndereba's world record pace.

Radcliffe then increased the tempo and the phalanx of men struggled to keep up. There was never any question of the Briton being paced to this world record, however. They were hanging on to her.

By the time she turned into the wind on Lake Shore Drive, Radcliffe was clear from even her minders. With sweat running from her brow, she powered along Columbus Drive to burst through the finishing tape, 22nd in the race overall and with her own place in history.

The London Times

Unlike in the London Marathon, in which the women’s elite field is separated from the men, she had been assisted by running with men. From a big group around her early on, Radcliffe had a comfortable and helpful number around her over the second half. They included Weldon Johnson, a 28-minute American 10,000 metres athlete, who had been hired by the race as a minder to prevent those male athletes who could keep up with her from running too close. His job done, Johnson eased off, with just under two miles to run.

It is a mixed race policy of which the London Marathon disapproves. London will continue to call Radcliffe’s run in April the “women’s only world record”, an understandable distinction, bearing in mind the benefits she enjoyed from the men around her here. “Having people around you gives you something else to think about and it helped having Weldon especially,” she said.

Apart from the obvious benefits of cover from the wind, there was another. “I give Weldon a big thankyou,” she said. “He was calling out the split times to me. I don’t like having to look at my watch when I am running and it saves having to work out each split.”

Sunday Herald, Edinburgh

MARVELLOUS though her Chicago performance was, Paula Radcliffe was the first to admit that last Sunday's marathon world best time of 2:17.18 could not have been achieved without the support of male runners, and in particular her minder, Weldon Johnson. 'I give Weldon a big thank you,' the victorious Radcliffe said after the Chicago event, in which she obliterated the prev-ious women's world best of 2:18.47 set by Kenyan Catherine Ndereba. Johnson, a 28-minute 10,000m runner from the US, had been hired by the Chicago race organisers to ensure that Radcliffe would be protected from both the wind and other participants on the 26.2 mile course.

From early on, the British runner was kept secure by a phalanx of male runners. As the miles passed and the pace took its toll, the guard, under the direction of Johnson, was whittled down until he eased off with two miles remaining. (The runner she finished with, Shane Nankervis, was involved in a genuine run to the line with her and finished 21st in the men's event, although his proximity annoyed the race marshalls.)

Johnson's fee for ensuring that Chicago would milk the publicity of a world best time has not been disclosed, but for more than 100 years pacemaking has been part and parcel of athletics.

As Colin Shields, an athletics historian and statistician, points out: 'They had them in the mile races of the 1880s. They weren't officially known as pacemakers, but friends of the athletes who happened to enter at the same time. Then, as now, they were nearly always used in middle-distance races.'

The most famous track race of all time featured pacemakers. But before Chris Brasher and Chris Chataway pulled Roger Bannister to the first sub four-minute mile on May 6, 1954, the same trio had been involved in a controversial race which the Amateur Athletics Association decided was too overtly manipulated. On this occasion, Chataway provided the pacemaking for the first 660 yards before letting Brasher take over the duties for Bannister. The two Englishmen raced round the third lap and caught up with Chataway, who had been taking a breather by crawling round the final 220 yards of his second lap. Rejuvenated, Chataway took up the pace again in the final 440 yards before Bannister crossed the line in a British record.

'It went down in the rankings as a record,' says Shields, 'but it was refused ratification because the authorities deemed it blatant pacemaking.'

When the four-minute barrier was broken at Oxford's Iffley Road track, during a match between the University and the AAA, Chataway and Brasher were again pacemaking, but not in such a contrived manner. 'In any case,' says Shields, 'I doubt you would have found any official brave enough to withhold ratification of the first sub four-minute mile.'

However much it may have been frowned upon by the blazer-and-tie brigade in the 1950s, pacemaking has become the norm at Grand Prix meetings. With huge bonuses and publicity accruing from world records, those athletes who can provide top-class pacemaking are both in demand and well paid, because to fit the bill they require to be top-class runners themselves.

The modern practice, according to Shields, originated in America's indoor arenas just before and after the second world war. It spread to outdoor meets in Europe when US athletes stayed over to race after Olympic Games.

This, of course, was in the days of amateur athletics, but on the professional circuit packs of three or four runners would conspire to ensure that a middle distance race was run to suit the strongest in the group. The prize money would then be split between members of the 'team'.

In the professional sprints, as Shields points out, there was an even more powerful system in place to bring out fast times. Handicapping, in which the favourite starts off scratch and the lesser- ranked athletes are given staggered starts, meant there were genuine 'hares' to catch, and Shields says: 'Athletes posted better times in handicap races off scratch than they ever did with a level start because the natural instinct is to run harder to catch the guy in front.'

With athletics now open, the incentive at international track meetings and marathons is often not so much to win the race, and the prize money, as to set records. Breaking a record not only attracts huge bonuses but also triggers further payments in an athlete's contract with shoe and clothing manufacturers. It also ups the ante for appearance money and other contractual activity, in much the same way as the off-course benefits for a golfer winning a Major will be considerably greater than the prize money.

Occasionally, though, the pacemaker doesn't play by the rules. It happened in the men's marathon in Chicago 12 months ago.

Then, a Kenyan, Ben Kimondiu, was hired by the organisers to set the pace for his fellow countryman Paul Tergat. The plan was for Kimondiu to take it along for 18 miles and then drop out. Instead he didn't stop, and held off Tergat's finishing kick to win in 2:08.52. It was a lucrative decision -- instead of his $7,500 fee for pacemaking he collected the winner's purse of $90,000.

With Johnson guiding her round the Chicago course, there was no danger of Radcliffe being upstaged. But herein lies the most contentious aspect of her win.

If men are allowed to pace women in the marathon, why is the practice not also allowed on the track? Or, to turn the argument around, why is it allowed in the marathon in the first place? It doesn't happen in the London Marathon, where the men's and women's races are separate. Radcliffe, on her debut, won in London in 2:18.56 without the assistance of men.

Her world best (they are not officially called world records because marathons are run on such different courses) in Chicago will not be acknowledged by the London Marathon organisers, who only accept times run in women-only races and will continue to regard Radcliffe's time on their course as the world best.

This distinction did not dilute Radcliffe's joy in the aftermath of victory last Sunday. Johnson had fulfilled his role to perfection.

'Having people around you gives you something else to think about and it helped having Weldon especially,' she said. 'He was calling out split times to me. I don't like having to look at my watch when I am running, and it saves having to work out each split.'

She may have had assistance in Chicago, but Radcliffe's gutsy style has been entirely responsible for her other triumphs in 2002. Having won the world cross-country title in Dublin, the London Marathon, the Commonwealth Games 5,000m and the European Championships 10,000m, Radcliffe is now a certainty to add the BBC Sports Personality of the Year trophy to her bulging collection of medals and pots.

After her performances in both London and Chicago, few would bet against her taking down the marathon world best times further -- with, and without, the assistance of male pacemakers.

LONDON MARATHON PRESS RELEASE (March 3, 2003)

Following a request from Paula Radcliffe for a mixed Men and Women's race, the Flora London Marathon today announced a unique solution. The Men's and Women's races will remain separate but there will be male pacemakers for the Women.

The decision was ratified by the Marathon Directors who met this morning to discuss the proposal. "We already have the Women's Only World Record," explained Race Director David Bedford, "and knowing Paula is in the shape of her life we realized there was a good chance that we could capture the Mixed Race record as well."

In London last year Radcliffe sped to the fastest ever debut of 2:18:56 before demolishing the Mixed Race record in Chicago with 2:17:18. Last month she sliced eight seconds off the World 10km road record in Puerto Rico. "I'm really pleased that London has taken this step," commented Radcliffe. "It is obviously very difficult to find pacemakers who can go fast enough for me so this arrangement will help me discover my true worth over the distance." After consultation with the other elite women, the majority were in agreement with male pacemakers. The Marathon will now be seeking a selection of men who will cover the pace between 2:15 - 2:24.

Athletics: Radcliffe runs at a Wagnerian pace
(Independent, April 6, 2003)

One way or another, it would seem, the 2003 London Marathon is going to be a fitting memorial to the co-founder and chief inspiration of the great British race. It was one of the late Chris Brasher's prime objectives that the event should stimulate the improvement of British mara-thon running. The withdrawal last week of Mark Steinle, because of a blood disorder, means the fastest British runner lining up in this year's race next Sunday will be Paula Radcliffe.

Setting aside the chauvinistic downside of that factual equation, the upside is a measure of the marathon talent Britain happens to possess in the slender shape of the remarkable Radcliffe. Accord-ing to the Hungarian Scoring Tables, the statistical device used by the International Association of Athletics Federations to determine the relative merits of performances in different events, the 2hr 17min 18sec the Bedfordshire woman recorded in the Chicago marathon last October is the best mark by a female runner in the whole of the world-record book. It equates to a 100m time of 10.42sec, 0.07sec quicker than Florence Griffith-Joyner's apparently untouchable record, or a 10,000m time of 29min 26.10sec, 5.68sec faster than Wang Junxia's equally elevated performance.

The likelihood, however, is that Radcliffe can go even quicker. And to help her do so in London the organisers have turned to the running art at which Brasher was such a master: that of pacemaking.

Ten male runners have been hired to set five separate tempos in the élite women's race, which will again start ahead of the main race. The Kenyans Simon Lopuyet and an Eliud Lagat will set off with instructions to run at 2hr 16min pace, 5min 12sec per mile. The intention is that Radcliffe will accompany them and that, depending on her form along the way from Blackheath to The Mall, they might crank up the speed to 2:15 pace, 5:10 miling.

It is a plan that would have been keenly appreciated by Brasher, whoperformed half of the most famous pacemaking duties of all, leading Roger Bannister past the half-way mark before Chris Chataway towed the medical student on his way through the four-minute mile barrier in May 1954. Less famously, Brasher jogged the first two laps of a special mile race held in conjunction with the Surrey schools championships a year earlier before speeding up and helping Bannister through the latter stages. But the British Amateur Athletic Board refused to accept Bannister's time, 4min 2.00sec, as a British record.

Half a century on, there has been much talk about the IAAF frowning on the circumstances of Radcliffe's record attempt in the race that was Brasher's baby. The world governing body will raise no objections, though, if the male pacemakers finish the race, thereby keeping up with the appearance of what the IAAF insist on being billed as a separate "mixed" race.

The charade is necessary because Radcliffe is too quick for the rest of the women in the 35,000 field and because the London organisers, bowing to television demands for a detached women's event, have declined her request for the élite women to be included in the main race.

The irony is that London officials have long ignored performances achieved by women with the assistance of male pacemakers in mixed races – to such an extent Radcliffe will receive a £78,000 world-record bonus simply for beating the "women only" race best she set on her marathon debut in the English capital last year, 2hr 18min 56sec.

It is ironic, too, that the London organisers have turned for help not to Weldon Johnson, the Texan runner who paced Radcliffe so adeptly in Chicago, but to Volker Wagner, the man who masterminded Tegla Loroupe's world-record-breaking marathon runs in Rotterdam in 1998 and Berlin in 1999. Loroupe was paced by male Kenyan compatriots on both occasions, drawing criticism from many quarters, most strongly from London Marathon officials, who have now enlisted the assistance of her German manager and coach. Wagner guides the running careers of Lopuyet and Lagat, and is preparing them for their pacemaking mission in London.

Far from crowing, the affable Wagner applauds London for "doing it the right way".

"I think this is the best way to help Paula break her world record," he said. "I know from Tegla's experience that when you have the élite women running in a mixed race, many men can get in the way. They just want to be on TV. They overtake and then slow down and upset your rhythm. They also stop you getting to the water at the drinks station."

Not Lopuyet and Lagat. Their task will be to get Radcliffe to The Mall flowing as smoothly, and as swiftly, as possible. "She has run 30min for 10,000m, so she can run a marathon in 2hr 16min," Wagner asserted. "On a good day, 2:15 would be possible."

And what a great British run that would be in Chris Brasher's great British race.

London Marathon: Keeping pace with Radcliffe will have IAAF on their toes
(Independent, April 6, 2003)

While spectators line the route of next Sunday's London Marathon for a fleeting glimpse of the familiar bobbing ponytail and pained expression, one observer will not be getting carried away with the euphoria of Paula Radcliffe's eagerly awaited attempt on her own world record.

Riding on the lead vehicle, clipboard in hand, will be a delegate from the sport's world governing body, the International Association of Athletics Federations, who will be monitoring every inch of the race to make sure everything is above-board. If he notices anything "against the spirit" of athletics he will act. Any world record will be void.

Such a bizarre scenario is a result of the London Marathon organisers' decision to break with tradition and invite male pacemakers into the women's field - a compromise solution following a request from Radcliffe to merge the women's and men's events into a single mixed race. Without the competition of men, the 29-year-old Bedford runner knows that a world best would almost certainly be beyond her.

But the IAAF are not amused. They believe a race should be a race and not an individual time-trial and that supplying pacemakers for the benefit of one athlete is unfair. After threatening to refuse to ratify any record and warning that Radcliffe's public image would be tarnished by such unashamed favouritism, they have now softened their stance and made a deal with London officials.

The 2003 women's race will be formally designated a mixed race and the services of nine male pacemakers, all Kenyans, will be made available to the entire women's field, running at a pace ranging from 2hr 16min to 2hr 32min. They will also be required to finish the race rather than stepping off the road along the way. The IAAF delegate will be there to make sure the organisers play by the rules.

An IAAF spokesman said: "The London organisers are arguing that it's a mixed race and the observer will be there to make sure it is a proper mixed race. He'll be looking out to make sure that there is no theatrical pacing with four people running round one athlete - and we all know who - giving her drinks, shouting splits and then dropping out. But if you have 25 or so women and around nine or 10 men and they all run the race and finish it, it's a different ball game."

Despite the wrangling, David Bedford, the London Marathon race director, believes he had no choice but to break his long-standing women-only rule because of the IAAF's acceptance of women's records set in mixed marathons - the only Olympic discipline where such a concession is made. Given that there is not a single woman in the world capable of pacing Radcliffe in her current form, he believes that by adding men to the field she could smash the 2hr 17.18min she set in the mixed Chicago Marathon last autumn.

"If the weather conditions are favourable, I believe she'll break it," said Bedford. "I think that if Paula had had the benefit of male pacemakers in London last year she would have run a minute and a half to two minutes faster.

"This year I think she can run 2hr 15min to 2hr 16min in the right circumstances. It would mean we've got the men's world record, the women's mixed-race world record and the women-only world record, which the IAAF don't currently ratify but may well do in the future."

Radcliffe, who set a 10km world best in Puerto Rico earlier this year and reckons she is in even better shape than last year after a trouble-free winter training camp in New Mexico, knows the value of a little male assistance. After her stunning victory in Chicago, where she lowered Catherine Ndereba's world record by 89 seconds, she immediately paid tribute to American runner Weldon Johnson, who acted as her minder for much of the race, warning other athletes to steer clear and calling out her split times.

Although Johnson was hired to 'escort' Radcliffe, she actually dragged him to a personal best of 2hr 18.10sec - enough to qualify him for the American men's Olympic marathon trials but too slow to merit an invitation to the London Marathon. Instead, the main pacemaking role next week will fall to Simon Lopuyet, who was fourth in last year's Cologne Marathon and who has a personal best of 2hr 8.19min.

ESCORTING PAULA by Weldon Johnson (for LetsRun.com)

Much ado has been made by the decision of the Flora London Marathon to use male pacemakers in this year's marathon to help England's Paula Radcliffe try and break her own world record.  Since I escorted Paula for 25 miles of her world record run at the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon, I guess it's time for me to share my story.

I had been to the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon on 3 other occasions (running 18 miles of it as a training run in preparation for my Marine Corps Marathon victory in 1998, running an Olympic qualifying marathon time (and my previous personal best) of 2:19:52 (3 weeks after suffering food poisoning at the world half-marathon championships) in 1999, and pacing the group that included American Rod Dehaven at a sub 5 minute a mile pace for 20 miles in 2001.).  The Chicago Marathon is a first class event in a first class city so I'm always looking for a reason to go back.  Each time I went, even back in 1998 when I barely belonged, the race organizers and volunteers treated me like I was a star.

And rabbiting, although a difficult job in some aspects, pays very well in the world of running.  Outside of appearance fees (which I definitely don't get) it is the only guaranteed payday in the sport (assuming you do your job correctly).

So a couple months before the marathon, I emailed Glenn Lattimer, who is in charge of the rabbits at Chicago, and asked him about serving as a rabbit.  A few days later, I got a call from an excited Carey Pinkowski, the race director, about possibly using my services again in Chicago, but this time in the women's race as an "escort" for the lead women (more on the difference between escorting and pacing in a minute).  From talking to Carey, I could tell he was expecting something special in the women's race in Chicago.  Not only did he have Catherine Ndereba, the reigning world record holder who smashed the world record the year before in his race, but he also had Paula Radcliffe, the new superstar in track and field, who many expected to take women's marathoning to another level after her stunning 2:18:55 debut marathon in London. We didn't talk too much about the specifics, but I could tell Carey thought the world record would be smashed at his race.

I was excited Carey wanted me to be an escort in the women's race, and I never had any qualms about doing it. There are some out there who feel rabbiting or escorting represents the end of one's competitive career.  Well, I had rabbited the men's race the year before so I don't fall in that category.  And from what I heard, I guess some guys believe it's a blow to the ego to escort a women's race. I don't see why at all.  Sure men in general are faster than women, but what does that have to do with anything?  The women marathoners now are running incredibly fast and I was excited to be able to do my part to help them run faster. My brother had escorted Catherine Ndereba for much of her race the year before, until she blew him away over the final miles, and had thoroughly enjoyed it. So, I had heard from him how incredible she was.  I had met Paula Radcliffe in the spring last year and witnessed some of her training, when I was getting treatment from her physio Gerard Hartmann.  Let's just say I have never been more impressed with an athlete in my life.  If she really was going to take women's marathoning to a new level, I felt honored to be able to do my part.

So now I had to get ready for the event.  In a way I was a bit relieved to be escorting the women's race instead of pacing the men, because I had been injured for the entire year, and was a bit worried about my fitness. The year before I had done 20 miles at sub 5 minute pace, and figured that would be a stretch for me this year, although often the rabbits's contracts are set up for going half way with bonuses for going farther.  I figured that even if the women smashed the old world record and ran 5:15 pace (2:17:33) I could handle the pace since it was 15 seconds slower than the year before.

That's not to say I took the responsibility lightly at all. My coach, John Kellogg, told me that I had to treat it like I was preparing for a marathon of my own.  He stressed that I couldn't just go out there and expect to run that long, that fast without specifically preparing for it. So, we scheduled into the training 3 longer harder runs at "race" pace for 13, 15, and 17 miles.  These runs are never a lot of fun, and are the grunt work of the marathon, but I managed them reasonably well (although my pace on most of them was closer to 5:20 I believe (2:20 pace), but I was able to really drop the pace at the end of each run, so I figured I had a little something left over.)

The week before the race I had a bit of a scare. I had travelled to Dallas for a high school reunion (had a really bad workout that didn't help my confidence at all), and then screwed up my IT band on the plane ride home. When I went running the first day back, my knee felt bruised. I didn't think much of it, figuring I had hit it on something.  Then, the next day when it hurt just as bad, I knew something was wrong.  I immediately got some massage work on it, and started stretching my IT band more (which was puling on the knee causing the pain).  The question now was whether to call the race and tell them of my problem. If I was racing myself, I for sure wouldn't have called, but in this situation it was a bit different, as I could be jeopardizing someone's chance for a world record and they could find a last second replacement. I decided to wait another day and see how it felt. It felt better the next day, and I was confident by race day and the taper I was going to do, I would be ready to go.

Heading into the race, there was a bit of uncertainty on my part as to what actual pace I would be running.  But I think that will always be the case in Chicago with the men serving as "escorts" for the women, not as rabbits.  The main difference is that as an escort, one is off to the side of the lead women, while as a rabbit you are right in front of them, trying to hit a designated pace.  An escort no doubt helps the runner with the pace by helping set a rhythm, but is in more of a supplementary role as in some ways you are just reacting to the pace set by the women.  As Glenn Lattimer had emailed me some preliminary instruction about 6 weeks before the marathon, "We want you to run at the side (off camera) more as an escort to set a rhythm, and to warn men runners that the convoy is coming through. We want to stress  the ESCORT nature rather than the pacing. Don't hand the lead women water or start running alongside, coaching and encouraging." Glenn indicated he expected the race could be around maybe 2:17:30 (he was only 12 seconds off) or faster.

When I got to Chicago, I was still a bit apprehensive about exactly what pace I was to be running.  I saw Gary Lough, Paula's husband, and he too was wondering about the exact pace.  But gradually, I began to really understand that as an escort my role was slightly different than the year before as a pacer, and I was more responding to the pace set by the women.  Two runners from the Hanson's Running Team, Brian Sell and Richie Brinker, were going to help out with the women's escorting for 15 miles, and we had a pre-race meeting with Glenn. He reiterated that our role was to serve as escorts for the women, largely being off camera, trying to keep any male runners from getting in the way of the women.  He told us, we were in a way in charge of the women's race, and could decide during the race if we wanted to all stay with the women's leader or if we wanted to drop someone back to run with say a 2nd women's group off the back.  One wrinkle was thrown into the plans as the forecast called for 20 mph headwinds the next day and obviously the goal was a new women's world record.  Glenn said that if the wind was really bad we could get in front of the women to help break the wind a bit, but the decision was ours.

On race day, all the professional runners go to the basement of an enclosed building about 200 meters from the start line to rest and base their warm ups out of.  It's an amazing collection of talent in one little room.  My main concern was the weather.  It didn't seem as bad as everyone had predicted as it wasn't too cold, but there definitely was a strong wind.   The wind was out of the North and should be in our faces for the first 7 miles and the last 4.  Before I knew it we were all on the starting line.  Instead of hearing people cheering for Khalid Khannouchi, Paula Radcliffe or Catherine Ndereba, all I could hear were the 2 loudest voices in the crowd yelling, "LetsRun.com, yeah LetsRun.com".  I couldn't help but laugh.

The race itself was a lot of fun once we got going.  When pacing or escorting, I'm always a little bit worried about the how the pace will feel and how fast we'll go the first mile.  But the pace itself felt very relaxed and we did the first mile in 5:21 which is a bit over 2:20 pace, but the first mile is often the slowest in the marathon.

We soon started running quicker, and I was a bit surprised at how many men and women were around. Paula Radcliffe was in front of the women's race the entire way, but Catherine Ndereba and Yoku Shibui of Japan were in the back of the pack that surrounded Paula. Often times at Chicago, there are very few runners running between 2:10 and 2:20, but this year there were at least 10-20 guys in the pack with Paula, Catherine and Yoku. No doubt some of them just wanted their brief moment in the spotlight, but with the strong wind the first few miles, I was relieved that there was a group of men racing around the women because they were helping break the wind.

I stayed largely off to the side and a bit behind Paula,for most of the first few miles and let Richie and Brian do most of the work up front which at this point consisted mainly of reminding the male runners to give the women room and not knock them down. We tried to be as polite as possible, but the biggest disaster for the race would be if one of the women was tripped. So on a lot of the turns, we'd get next to the women to try and give them a buffer and we'd verbally remind the men to give them room.  I was a bit paranoid perhaps, but most of the men were just running their own races, doing their best to hang with the women (none of the men would make it the entire way).  Only a couple of occasions did we put our arm on anyone (we found out afterward one guy was German so perhaps he didn't understand what we were saying), and try and move them away.

As time went on, gradually more and more men fell from the pack, but both Catherine Ndereba and Yoko Shibui hung close to Radcliffe, well under world record pace.  I'm not sure if Radcliffe ever knew they were there because not once the entire race did she ever look back, but both Catherine Ndereba and Yoku Shibui hung around at the back of the group of men in contact with Radcliffe.  They never got in front of Radcliffe or even right next to here, but were within a few seconds for much of the first half of the race.  Shibui was the first to fall back right before half-way, but Ndereba was only 4 seconds back of Radcliffe at halfway, with both on world-record pace (1:09:03 for Radcliffe).

Soon after half-way, Ndereba fell back a bit more and we had a little bit of a dilemma.  We were running into a slight headwind, yet Ndereba was all by herself while Radcliffe still had us and a few other men as company.  I talked to Richie and Brian and we decided it would be best and fairer for the race if one of us dropped back to run with Catherine.  So, Richie dropped back to Catherine.  At one point I would guess she was at least 10-15 seconds behind, but by mile 15 when Richie and Brian's escorting duties were over for the day, she was right back on Paula's heels. (I'd like to thank Richie and Brian for doing an excellent job in their escort duties)

From about mile 15 on, there were very few men with us, and after around mile 18 or 19 no one at all. At one point, I yelled at one of the remaining guys to give Paula a little more room since I didn't see why he needed to be right next to her since there was no longer a big pack of people.  I'm not sure he understood what I was trying to get him to do, so I kept trying to talk to him, until Paula blurted out, "he's fine".  With that I never said another word to him.

Although we were already well under world record pace, Paula had been upping the tempo a bit since around the half-way mark (and we had largely a tailwind behind us from miles 6-22 although it was at our face at times), and slowly Catherine Ndereba began to drop behind starting on the 16th mile.  Starting at mile 13, I had the next 3 miles in 15:30, then 5:13.9, 5:09.5, 5:10.5,5:09.5, 5:13.3 up to mile 20.  Catherine was only 20 seconds back at 30k (18.6 miles) while the men's winner of the race, Khalid Khannouchi was believe it or not 20 plus seconds back at mile 23.

However, the difference between the men's and women's race was that Paula Radcliffe was pouring it on during the final miles of the race.  She never once looked to see where Ndereba was during the race.  If the 2nd half of the marathon really begins at mile 20, then Paula was in great shape as she ran 5:09.8 and 5:11.6 for the 21st and 22nd miles.  

I had originally only planned on going 20 miles with the leader, but I felt good at that point and wanted to make sure Paula got the world record, so I continued on with her.  All along I knew we were on world record pace, and figured we were well under it now as the pace had quickened considerably since the half way point when we were on pace to break the record by almost a minute. I didn't know exactly what pace we were on, but was definitely looking forward to a nice bonus (that I got if someone broke the record).

However, I had forgotten one thing, the wind.  It had been mostly at our back since mile 7 and had picked up some throughout the day (but you can't feel it when it's behind your back and forget about it). At the start of the 23 mile we made a turn to head north for home, and the wind hit us straight in the face.  The running got considerably tougher now, and I'm not sure what I was thinking except how difficult it was.  I knew in the back of my head it would be perfectly legal under IAAF rules to get right in front of Paula and help her break the wind.  But the race had stressed to us our roles as escorts, and plus at this point, I knew Catherine Ndereba was all by herself, so I didn't feel it would be fair to break the wind for Paula (although I guess rabbits generally only break the wind for the leaders to begin with).  As we approached the clock at mile 23, I guess I must have been perhaps just a teeny bit worried about the record now that we were running into this killer wind because I calculated in my head what time we would finish at.  We were around 2:00:30 for 23 miles and I figured if Paula slowed with the wind and ran 5:20 a mile all the way in (we had been doing 5:10 or better recently), she'd still run around 2:17:30 and smash the record.  

Paula asked me what the split for the 23rd mile and I looked at my watch and said, "5:23" thinking that was a perfectly reasonable amount to slow down running into a 15 or 20 mile an hour wind.  I was caught by surprise by Paula's reaction.  "Whaaat", she yelled, definitely upset.  I guess slowing down is not in the cards when you're Paula Radcliffe.  She proceeded to put down her head and push the pace down faster, running 5:09 for the next mile with much of it into the same killer headwind. It was truly incredible (and painful if you ask me).

Little did I know, but on the 23rd mile when we slowed a bit, Paula was having some stomach problems (but I still contend the wind could have accounted for the 13 seconds we slowed). After the race she indicated she thought she might even have to stop and use the bathroom.  Thankfully, she didn't tell any of this to me (and probably didn't say 10 words to anyone the entire race), as I'm not sure what I would have done if Paula has just stopped on the side of the road, dropped her shorts and used the bathroom, all while under world record pace.  If I didn't have a heart attack, I hope I would have had the decency to try and block the cameras from getting a good shot.

But now we were heading straight for the finish, and the world record was definitely going to be hers. Ever since mile 20, I had been wondering at what point I would quit escorting Paula. The end of the 25th mile is in an underground highway and right before we got there I decided that was it for me.  I had never planned on going the entire way and knew the race wouldn't want me near her the final half mile (although I felt a twinge of remorse when I soon realized the next half mile was the only "uphill" part of the course).  I quickly told Paula that was it for me, and wished her luck, truly amazed with what she was doing.  Once we hit the 25 mile marker, I started jogging with a big smile on my face. My job was done, Paula would smash the record, and I could enjoy the final mile.

And I definitely enjoyed it. The marathon is a lot more enjoyable when you can jog it home. Once I started jogging, I began to wonder how slow I'd run it. For I figured if I had gone this far, I might as well get under the Olympic Trials "A" qualifying time of 2:20:00, but I wasn't going to pick it up from my jog. The only good thing is after you've run 25 miles at 5:15 pace, a "jog" apparently is around 6 minute pace.  So I finished in 2:18:10 and got a marathon pr to boot.

As for my own "race", or whatever you want to call it, it was definitely the highlight of my year for 2 reasons.  First, 2002 had been very frustrating for me in terms of my own running and I thought my comeback from injury was progressing very slowly. But I was surprised with how good I felt during the marathon, and ended up even setting a pr. It confirmed to me that I can run a lot faster in the marathon. Plus, I had been wondering what I was training for in the fall season, and after Chicago I felt like my season was complete and ended up taking some time off.

And secondly Chicago was a highlight of my year, because I got to do my little part to help make history.  Paula Radcliffe is simple an amazing athlete. It's almost like she doesn't even get tired during the marathon.  I don't doubt for a second that she could have set the world record without any male escorts, that's how good she is.  But nonetheless, after the race, her and her husband Gary must have thanked me a thousand times for doing what the race had paid me to do. That meant a lot to me.  I had met Paula and Gary at Gerard Hartmann's office in Ireland and had seen first hand what an amazing athlete Paula is, but also her complete dedication, (and I mean total dedication that I honestly believe no other athlete in the world has) to the sport.  Plus, I had seen the team environment that surrounds her and how it is totally focussed on making Paula the best athlete she can be.  And now that means being the best athlete in the history of the sport.  It's hard to believe but a year ago this week before Paula won the London marathon, she was regarded as a gallant loser by all of Britain.  But those around her, never once doubted in her abilities, for they had seen her day to day dedication and talent.  Gerard Hartmann's office is really also an athletics museum of sorts. Its walls are covered with pictures and memorabilia from virtually every track and field star you can think of. However, when I was there, one athlete was conspicuously missing from the walls, Paula Radcliffe, the athlete Gerard works with more than anyone else.  I asked when he'd put her up on the walls. "When she wins a Gold Medal" was his reply indicating that's how good she was.  If I was a small part of Paula's team for a day, it means a lot to me.

And now I guess I have to say something about the "controversy" about this year's Flora London Marathon having male pacemakers. For years, London protested that a women's world record could be set with the aid of male pacemakers.  When Naoko Takahashi set her world record in Berlin in 2001 she had a group of male pacemakers that encircled her for most of the run. When Tegla Laroupe broke the world record in Berlin before that, she too had a group of male pacemakers. No problem, said the IAAF, male pacemakers are allowed.  So, now London which has a separate women's starts, says fine, we'll have male pacemakers too, and the IAAF objects saying they're not allowed in a women's only race.  This is ridiculous, hypocritical, and unfair on the behalf of the IAAF. Either women's marathoners should be allowed male pacemakers or they shouldn't.  

Now it looks like the IAAF will ok it, on a matter of semantics since London is calling its women's elite race, a small "mixed race", saying the pacemakers will finish the race.  Yesterday, the IAAF gave it's official ok to the male pacemakers, but saying it was sending a delegate to observe the race making "sure it is a proper mixed race". As quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, the delegate will "be looking out to make sure that there is no theatrical pacing with four people running round one athlete - and we all know who - giving her drinks, shouting splits and then dropping out."  

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I believe Naoko Takahashi had 4 pacemakers around her for her record run in Berlin.  The IAAF needs to stop the grandstanding. This is not going to be a "proper mixed race" and everyone knows it. The men are there for one reason only, to pace the women.  No one cares whether they finish or not, and to be honest I don't think many people care whether the IAAF ratifies the world record or not.

If Paula Radcliffe runs 2:15 with the help of male pacemakers, why should we care whether or not there are 15 skinny men ahead of her or not (which is what would happen if London just had one male and female race). She's still running 2:15.  As long as the marathon itself is comfortable with having male pacemakers (it might make for bad television if they block the camera shots of Paula), I feel it is their decision to make.

And now that we're talking about the time Paula can run, I guess I'm due for a prediction. Prior to Chicago, I heard rumors of Paula trying to run super fast there (looking back I can't remember whether I thought 2:17:18 would be a suicidal pace or not. Probably so). I remember thinking, "This is the marathon. One has to start somewhat conservative so they don't hit the wall.  It's not a good idea to try and smash the world record". Now I think a little bit differently. If anyone can smash the world record of 2:17:18, it is only Paula Radcliffe herself.  If it wasn't windy in Chicago, she definitely would have run under 2:17. And from talking to her afterwards and seeing how she ran that 24th mile into the wind, I think she had a little something in reserve. In addition, she'll have rabbits right in front of her instead of escorts off to the side which has to help some.  Plus, I get the impression that Paula wants to do something special at London this year (I can't believe I'm acting like 2:17 isn't special). She skipped world cross country this year to solely focus on the marathon, and this is her only marathon prior to the Olympics. So she might throw all caution into the wind and really go for it in London. What that mean's I'm not sure. I had seen talk of 2:15:00 pace, yet even I thought this might be a little fast, as her fastest half in Chicago was 'only' 1:08:15 (2:16:30 pace - although the last 4 miles of that were into the wind). Now, however, I see press indications saying the pace will be around 2:16:00.  This sounds more reasonable to me, as in the back of my head I figured the weather could be a little better than Chicago (getting her under 2:17) and then Paula could find a way to knock another minute off her time. Maybe we're all getting ahead of ourselves, as nearly exactly 5 years ago to the day of this year's London Marathon, Tegla Laroupe ran 2:20:47 in Rotterdam for the new world record, and now we're talking about Paula possibly running 5 minutes faster.  Amazing.

I for one will be staying up late next Saturday night to listen to the BBC's online radio broadcast of the race. It definitely won't be quite as good as being right off Paula's left shoulder the entire way.  But I'm still excited about the race.