TOMORROW is the fortieth anniversary of one of the most memorable days
in the history of athletics. In the space of less than an hour, Roger
Bannister beat John Landy for the Empire mile title, and Jim Peters
collapsed within sight of marathon victory. But a great injustice was
done to Joe McGhee, the Scot who won the marathon, and who has remained
silent since then. On the eve of the race's anniversary, and as
Scotland's Commonwealth Games team flies back to western Canada, we
unravel the myth and the mystery surrounding the silent champion.
FORTY years after his finest moment, Joseph McGhee still cannot bring
himself to speak of his victory in the Empire Games marathon.
The venue was Vancouver, and the occasion the final session of the
1954 Games. Hardly had Roger Bannister won the Miracle Mile, beating the
world record-holder, John Landy, than he was helping to administer first
aid to Jim Peters.
The Englishman's shambling marathon finish, collapse in the stadium,
and disqualification, remain one of the most enduring and poignant
images the sport has generated. It sparked a frisson of horrified
fascination for millions, and archive film of the incident is still
screened.
But what only the cognoscenti recall is that the ultimate winner was a
Scot, Shettleston Harrier Joe McGhee, an RAF flight lieutenant from
Falkirk.
Peters had won eight marathons from 10 starts, and had run three world
bests for the distance in successive years. So he was the warmest of
favourites when he lined up in 75 degree heat at 12.30pm with just 15
other runners on August 7, 1954. He had put 5000 training miles beneath
his feet in the previous 11 months, and set off confident of victory.
At his shoulder went his team-mate, Stan Cox. ''Only Joe McGhee came
with us, and he was moving very nicely too,'' recalls Peters.
But McGhee was dropped at nine miles, and Cox soon after. Peters
continued alone in the rising heat, lamenting that sponges had been
banned at all but official watering stations.
Peters later lambasted English officials who declined to turn out,
prefering to watch Bannister's duel with Landy. But the Scottish team
manager, Willie Carmichael, and hammer thrower Ewan Douglas, despite
being banned from following in cars, were on the course to encourage
McGhee.
Cox, suffering dehydration, ran into a telegraph pole two miles from
the finish, and withdrew. Peters was more than three miles clear of
McGhee (17 minutes) at the final watering station, less than a mile from
the finish.
But as soon as he entered the stadium, Peters fell and lay still for
two minutes. Police and doctors gathered round, knowing that to touch
him would bring disqualification.
When he finally arose, Peters reeled from one side of the track to the
other, and collapsed 12 times, covering only 150 yards in 15 minutes.
A little-known course measuring discrepancy, later revealed by Peters,
was to play a crucial part in the final drama. And he still insists that
the course was half-a-mile longer than the marathon distance -- he and
Cox checked it with a car which had been tested over the Vancouver
police measuring course, used for court cases -- so he did actually
complete the full marathon distance ahead of McGhee.
When Peters crossed the finish line for the mile (some 200 yards short
of the marathon finish) he collapsed yet again, and was caught by the
team masseur, Mick Mays, who was reported as saying: ''I caught him at
what we thought to be the finish line before he had a chance to fall.''
So, of course, Peters was disqualified. Would he have got up again and
completed the remaining 200 yards? We will never know. Peters spent
almost a week in hospital.
The media devoted substantial space to Peters' fate, but winner McGhee
rated only four lines in The Times, and, we regret to report, only one
more in The Glasgow Herald:
''The marathon (26 miles 385 yards) championship was won by J McGhee
in 2hr 39min. 36sec. The Scot's victory was most unexpected.''
If that scant report did McGhee less than justice for having run a
conservative race appropriate to the conditions, worse was to follow.
A leading athletics magazine carried a vastly distorted account, which
included the fiction that McGhee, having fallen five times, had
signalled for an ambulance and was waiting for it when he heard of
Peters' failure to cross the line, so he started again.
The fantasies multiplied, and with McGhee declining ever to comment,
the mythology grew, successive accounts multiplying the inacurracies.
With the Commonwealth Games about to be held in Victoria, just across
the bay from Vancouver, tomorrow's fortieth anniversary of the event
seemed an appropriate time to lay a few ghosts.
A retired English lecturer, McGhee now lives in Edinburgh's
Fairmilehead. ''It is correct that the reports have been a fiction, but
I do not wish to talk about it,'' he said this week.
It would be easy to picture a man embittered by history's shabby
treatment of him, but that would be a further dis-service. ''Every
Commonwealth Games I get these inquiries, but I have always declined to
elaborate,'' said McGhee. ''That is because I am planning to write a
book on the subject, and I would not like you to steal my thunder.''
Though he conceded that 40 years after the event, he had ''probably
missed the boat.''
He has written children's fiction, which he hopes to have published.
But he is keen to write up his experiences, not just of that race, but
on the sport: ''It has changed dramatically -- absolutely, with absurd
amounts of money and professionalism.''
Today, however, despite McGhee's continuing silence, we can still set
the record straight. For we have managed to unearth McGhee's own
account.
The centenary history of the AAA was just one publication which
perpetuated the Vancouver myth. So infuriated was McGhee that for once
he was moved to put pen to paper, taking the author, Peter Lovesey, to
task.
Lovesey, a respected historian who had used the contemporary accounts
in good faith, was horrified to receive McGhee's letter, which
eventually found its way, many years ago, into the columns of a
specialist magazine.
In his letter, McGhee confesses to having been shocked by the fantasy.
''So disgusted have I been about the ballyhoo . . . that I have always
resolutely avoided entering into controversy,'' wrote McGhee.
''The entire myth about my own behaviour seems to have originated in
the romantic fantasising of a Vancouver ''reporter,'' who spoke about me
lying in a ditch until an old Scots lady aroused me with the exhortation
that the honour of Scotland was at stake. That and the news that I was
first were supposed to have caused me to start running again.
''At no time did I collapse. On one occasion only I tripped
momentarily on the kerb. Over the last four miles, indeed, I was engaged
in a very active race, pulling away from the two South Africans, Jackie
Meckler and Johann Barnard, who had come close at 22 miles.
''I never knew that I was first until I was near the stadium and,
indeed, at that time I was absolutely delighted to be finishing
second.''
In refuting his supposed state of exhaustion, McGhee suggests doubters
look at the finish picture, which depicts him showing no distress
breasting the tape, and at another of the victory ceremony, which shows
him helping Barnard on to the rostrum.
But best of all McGhee offers: ''The fact is that I danced until the
early hours of the next morning in the Closing Ball and was up again at
6am for a visit to Seattle!''
Peters never raced again, but McGhee showed a measure of his true
worth with a time of 2-25-40 to win the Scottish title a year later.
Only three Scots ran faster last year. McGhee remains the only Scot to
have won three successive national championships in the marathon.
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 hereComments are closed on this article