Many world records are suspicious
There was a time when Paula Radcliffe would have been high on the list of athletes I most admired. Around the turn of the century she ran with a red ribbon on her vest, expressing opposition to doping and her frustration at authorities not doing enough.
How could you not cheer when Radcliffe and middle-distance runner Hayley Tullett held up the sign ‘‘EPO cheats out’’ at the 2001 World Championships in Edmonton, a response to the presence of Olga Yegorova there? Yegorova had tested positive for EPO, but got off on a technicality. The British athletes made sure Yegorova did not get off the hook. Canadians booed as the Russian sprinted to victory in the 5000m.
Our relationship took a turn for the worse when we worked together on her autobiography in 2003. By now Paula had smashed the world record for the marathon and was perhaps the most celebrated athlete of her generation, and certainly one of the best paid. We kept putting off the moment when we would deal with her anti-doping crusade.
When it came to the point that it had to be done, I remember saying: ’’Paula, we’ve got to do the doping chapter.’’ She said she didn’t see it as a chapter, but part of a chapter. We talked about how doping impacted on her career and it was a strange experience because she seemed less strident than she had been.
What she said was fine, but when I checked back on previous interviews the difference was obvious. Annoyed at this toning down of her viewpoint, I discarded the interview we had done for the book and wrote about her doping stance from her previous, more passionate interviews. It was a blatant challenge to her.
She edited the section on doping and never changed a word. It hadn’t seemed what she wanted, but she went with it.
The explanation for this wavering that made most sense was that Radcliffe had become a highly-paid Nike athlete and her sponsor did not like the antidoping stuff. At the time Lance Armstrong was Nike’s No 1 athlete and they had worked with him to make the most cynical commercial in the history of advertising. ‘‘This is my body and I can do whatever I want to it,’’ said the cyclist in that 2001 ad. ‘‘I can push it, and study it, tweak it, listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I’m on. What am I on? I’m on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?’’
We talked about Armstrong a lot. Paula could see his story was a fraud. Then a strange thing. After winning a big city marathon in the United States, Nike invited Paula to visit their headquarters in Portland, Oregon. She told me what an experience it had been, first the amazing Marion Jones Room, then the even more amazing Lance Armstrong Room. All without a hint of disapproval.
I scratched my head, not knowing what to think. I didn’t believe then that Radcliffe doped and still don’t believe she did.
I don’t feel much sympathy for Radcliffe when she complains about the proposal from European Athletics to scrap all world records set before 2005. That would wipe Radcliffe’s spectacular 2.15.25, set in London 14 years ago, from the books. Like fellow athletes with world records, Radcliffe is against the new proposal. ‘‘I am hurt and do feel this damages my reputation and my dignity. It is a heavyhanded way to wipe some really suspicious records.’’
Many world records stand only as testimony to the power of drugs. Florence Griffith Joyner in the 100m and 200m, Marita Koch’s time in the 400m, Jarmila Kratochvilova’s 800m record and on and on. It is not possible to prove these times were achieved with the help of doping – and Kratochvilova denies the charge – but we know many were.
A better solution than resetting the system to begin in 2005 would be for the anti-doping authorities to up their game, set in stone robust conditions necessary for the acceptance of a world record and start from that point. Many records set over the past 12 years do not deserve our trust. But if it has to be a reset at 2005, I’ll go with that.
The Times