Erase Athletic Records?

[Sand]

_Monday 11 August 2003 Updated: 11 Aug, 12:06_(GMT+1)_

Nordic call to erase athletic records
The Nordic countries want all athletics records set before the year 2000 stricken from the books. The proposal will be put forward on August 20 at a congress alongside the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) world championship in Paris.
"The records set in the 1980s and -90s are impossible to beat because they were set by doped athletes," said Norway's athletics president Svein Arne Hansen.
Hansen told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) that there was no secret about this claim after revelations and trials.
Norway and several European nations raised the issue as early as in 1999 but the proposal to wipe out existing world records and start fresh was not accepted. Now the Nordic countries want to give the idea another airing.
Hansen claims the proposal has the backing of many European nations but said that only the backing of the USA as the leading athletics nation in the world can guarantee the its passing.
"There are difficult issues here, because they (the USA) have different laws than us but I think the International Olympic Committee is working hard to get the USA to adapt the same regulations that we strictly follow," Hansen said.

(Aftenposten English Web Desk/NTB)

[GoodSpeak]

This may do better in The Alley...

[Pete C]

This may fare better in Mayfair.

[SinginSumo]

Whatever fare is fair, I guess.

[Uli]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
This may fair better in The Alley...

If not, fairwell!

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Uli
If not, fairwell!

Or farewell, even!

[Al in NYC]

I'm a member of that small tribe of big-time track fans, and I know many of my fellow members of the tribe feel differently, but this strikes me as a rather silly idea. While it's true that several records, especially on the women's side, have been set at levels that have been difficult to reach for subsequent competitors, it's also true that we don't have any idea which records were actually set by atheletes that were "juiced, " and that pretty much all of these record-setting atheletes passed the drug tests under the rules in force at that time.

Are we just to damn all of the pre-2000 record-holders, even those who were not "juiced," with the taint of drug usage simply because they happened to excel at the wrong time? Why should a Michael Johnson, who has passed every drug test that has ever been administered to him, lose his records because Florence Griffith-Joyner ran suspiciously fast? (And, incidentally, she also passed every test) Isn't he then being penalized for the suspected (and not proven) misdeeds of others, and the failure of the IAAF to set up a workable and reliable testing program? Who is going to compensate him for the lost value of his records, and the provably false taint of suspicion that would be thrown onto him?

Unless the IAAF comes upon some way to prove that these records were set "under the influence," it seems they are just asking for trouble with this dumb idea, while at the same time losing the very history of the sport itself. In the meantime however, the atheletes themselves, under the current more stringent testing program, are catching up with many of these records anyway, and eventually they will all be superceded -- that is, if the IAAF doesn't throw the known history of our sport out with the somewhat dirty bathwater.

[Tanager]

I'm also a member of that small tribe, and there is another problem with this (IMHO silly) proposal, albeit one related to the one Al points out. In certain events, substance abuse isn't even likely to help the competitors, namely the distance events (in which I competed a long time ago). Al's criticism of this as an unfairly broad condemnation of prior records (Al, I hope that's a fair paraphrase) is right on the money, IMHO.

[Vince Kargatis]

I find the romantic attachment of "unaltered" physical achievement to be rather quaint, at least in terms of thinking of probably inevitable future bio-engineering developments. It's kind of like distinguishing between "natural" and "artificial" flavors, when there's no operative chemical difference. I'd warrant in a century (or much less?) the concept won't even exist.

Now, discouraging dangerous substance abuse is one thing, but I won't mind too much when all old-style-human records are smashed by future altered individuals.

I do understand the implicit appreciation of "unaided" achievement, but what's "unaided"? Who decides, and why? The question will eventually fade into oblivion, I think, or just be transformed into achievement classifications, as men and women are divided now.

[walto]

How 'bout we just dump all those before 1980 and after 1999?

Also, we could randomly switch 1/5 of all those in that period. That would teach pretty much everybody not to mess around with those Nordics know-alls.

They think they're soooooo righteous, just cause they ski so well.

[mke]

Originally posted by Vince Kargatis
I find the romantic attachment of "unaltered" physical achievement to be rather quaint, at least in terms of thinking of probably inevitable future bio-engineering developments. It's kind of like distinguishing between "natural" and "artificial" flavors, when there's no operative chemical difference. I'd warrant in a century (or much less?) the concept won't even exist.

Now, discouraging dangerous substance abuse is one thing, but I won't mind too much when all old-style-human records are smashed by future altered individuals.

I do understand the implicit appreciation of "unaided" achievement, but what's "unaided"? Who decides, and why? The question will eventually fade into oblivion, I think, or just be transformed into achievement classifications, as men and women are divided now.

While I agree with your questioning of the (seemingly ever more blurry) boundary bewteen "aided" and "non-aided" (esp. as you can walk into any fitness store and buy plenty of pills claiming to pump you up...), it'd be pretty sad to see all sports turn into Formula 1 racing, i.e. the one with the best team/car (or in this case bio-engineered legs or arms) wins...

Reminds me of the "Cyborg Liberation Front" article I posted a while back.

[mke]

I think Pete C's posting record should be erased: he's clearly on steroids.

However, some other posters are clearly on drugs of a different type when posting.

[SinginSumo]

If we erase all athletic records, would there be any effect upon athletic supporters?

[Jazzmoose]

Or, more importantly, if we erase all athletic supporters, who knows what kind of nuts would drop in?