The past week has been dominated by talk of whether the proposal to reset all world records set prior to 2005 should be seriously considered. The suggestion, put forward by European Athletics, has generated quite a reaction.
The shoutiest responses have come from athletes such as Paula Radcliffe, Jonathan Edwards et al who set records in the pre-2005 era that still stand today and now these individuals face their names being permanently erased from the record books despite the fact that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by them. In contrast, many active athletes favour the move, most likely because, as things stand, current-day athletes in a number of events stand little or no chance of even getting close to world records which were set in decades gone by during what was widely accepted were eras which were riddled with doping.
There is little doubt that a number of track and field world records are dodgy. In the 1980s, steroid use was widespread yet with no out-of-competition testing, it is generally accepted that a significant number of doped athletes were never caught. And following that, EPO use most likely became prevalent (its use was wide-spread in cycling so why would we think it was any different in endurance events in athletics?) yet every dirty athlete knew that their risk of being caught was zero as there was no adequate test for the substance.
Few dispute that athletics needs to take drastic action to restore its credibility, yet to suggest that resetting world records would even begin to solve the problem in any way, shape or form is nothing short of preposterous. The problems with this proposal are so numerous that they are almost impossible to list, but the primary issue that has arisen is that a number of clean athletes will have their world records expunged from the record books. This is indisputably unfair but, supporters of the proposal argue, how can athletics move on while records that are highly suspected to be drug-assisted remain on the record books?
Whether these past records get wiped or not is, in actual fact, immaterial. What this proposal, and the subsequent backlash, highlights is that athletics officials continue to look in the wrong direction. We all know that some performances in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s were aided by performance-enhancing drugs. We all know that athletics has a murky and squalid past. We all know that some athletes cheated yet walked away with world and Olympic medals. So what will clearing the record books of their names actually do for the reputation of athletics? Very little.
What remains the most pressing problem for the sport is that dirty athletes are still getting away with taking drugs. On average, every 100 drug tests yields one positive, yet anecdotal evidence suggests that the percentage of dopers is far higher than this. The Russian doping scandal shows that many athletes were doping – and getting away with it – well past 2005. Drug testing in Jamaica in the lead-up to the London 2012 Olympics was virtually non-existent yet we are being asked to trust these records. Scores of Olympic medals are still being reallocated from the 2008 and 2012 Games proving that post-2005 testing, while somewhat improved from pre-2005 efficacy, still allows countless dopers to slip through the net.
Athletics’ major problem is that while, as a collective, the sport is becoming better at looking like it wants to fix the problem, many significant individuals are still prioritising looking after number one. IAAF President Seb Coe has shown himself up in the past few years to be a coxcomb who cares primarily about looking after himself and his cabal of fellow blazers at the top of the sport. In light of this week’s record resetting proposal, he has declined to give any opinion on whether he is in favour or not. He may not mind upsetting the Russians with their blanket ban but to risk upsetting his British compatriots – who he seems to think should not be viewed with any suspicion purely because of their nationality – is a step too far. Similarly, the McLaren report findings and the observations of former WADA chief Dick Pound have been strong but they have changed nothing in comparison to what German journalist Hajo Seppelt has uncovered.
Athletics was dirty pre-2005 and it remains dirty post-2005. I have little doubt that we will see records being broken in the future that will subsequently be proven to be drug assisted. Improved testing is not the answer – only better intelligence and a more welcoming reception for whistle-blowers will improve things. So rather than looking back and trying to reset wrongs that have already happened, athletics chiefs need to stop looking over their shoulder and focus their attention entirely on looking forward. Fixing athletics and its reputation will be hard – and arguably impossible – but what will not help the process is looking for distractions that come in the form of records 20 years old. Stop trying to change what’s already happened and start trying to prevent future injustices and the sport just might begin to make progress.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel