Pacemaker causing problems at Fukuoka

[Ryan]

As I was listening to this week's TrackFocus Weekly podcast, Ken Nakamura mentioned some pacemaker issues that Fukuoka had this year and said that there was some talk of dropping pacemakers from that race, apparently due to these issues.

To understand a little better what was actually going on, I found this Japan Running News post that paints an interesting picture. The race had a Kenyan pacemaker who had a faster marathon PR than all but one of the invited elite runners. At 15K, when he was supposed to take over pacing duties and hold a pace just under 15:10/5K, he dropped a 14:15 5K, then continued running well ahead of the field until 30K, when a course marshal blocked his path.

This raises a few interesting questions. First, we've discussed pacers here before so I won't dig too deep into the question of whether pacers are a good or bad thing for the sport. That said, Nakamura brought up a good point, that running fast times in paced races on fast courses can be an important confidence builder. His idea was that some races (I could picture Chicago, Berlin, London, etc.) should have pacers and be those chances to run fast times, while other races (NYCM, Boston, etc.) should go without pacers so runners can experience running a race more focused on head to head competition. I thought that was an interesting idea and it does seem to be the direction the sport is going at the moment.

Second, what responsibility does the pacer have to run the prescribed pace and not take off to go for the win? Yes, that's what he agreed to and, at some level, it seems like you've agreed to some contract (even if a verbal contract) when agreeing to be a pacer. On the other hand, pacers have gone on to win races before. It's always a sticky situation but why not if you're feeling up to it?

Third, was what the course marshal did right? Similar to the first question but from the other side of the debate. In order for the race to meet IAAF rules, all runners including pacers have to be official entrants who are eligible for prizes. If race officials are not allowing him to finish because he's a pacer, that seems to me to call into question whether he was a legitimate entrant in the first place.

Interesting stuff going on over there in Japan. Just some thoughts on what could be a pretty sticky situation.

[ksrunner]

I prefer reading about races. Just because a race employs pacers does not mean that there won't be a compelling story (Chicago 2010). When Geb set his records. I probably didn't read much more about them than that he set the record and his time. It's not so interesting when a race is scripted and goes according to the script. A world record is a great and noteworthy achievement even under those conditions, but all I needed to read about it was the new world record time. Conversely, I would be inclined to spend some time reading about a race effort in a non-paced race where one runner goes out and runs a fast time running away from the field. I think that that is a very gutsy strategy and I would want to know more about that runner.

As for the rest, I only saw two quotes in the article related to the agreement.

Run under 15:10 per 5 km until the 31 km turnaround

14:15 is less than 15:10. Depending upon whether or not there was a lower limit specified, Kiptanui may not have done anything wrong. If there was a lower limit, then I can definitely understand the race officials' anger and frustration.

When he asked if he could finish the race, race officials told him:

"No way. Absolutely not. We will not pay you."

Although I don't think that pacing contracts should stipulate a DNF, this is a very clear statement. It also implies a choice. The pacer may stop after fulfilling their pacing obligations and collect that guaranteed money or they could forgo that money and pursue prize money instead. Continuing might be the better business decision though it would not be without risk. Ethically, I think that a pacer should fulfill all of the other stipulations of the pacing agreement before deciding to pursue the prize money.

As far as pulling him off the course, that seems like a violation the IAAF rule stating that all runners are eligible to finish and have their times officially recorded.

Assuming that there was a lower pace limit specified in his contract, for Eliud Kiptanui, there may be more dire consequences. It's probably a given that he'll never be invited to Fukuoka again, but it also possible that other RDs might avoid him in the future. As a professional runner, that could affect his livelihood.

[ksrunner]

One other thought that I had is that if he were from any other country (except perhaps Ethiopia), Kiptanui would probably never be asked to be a pacer. With his ability, he would be one of the invited elites and likely a marquee name. Is it possible that pacing marathons for young Kenyan runners is like minor leagues for American baseball players? Only the most gifted American baseball players can get to the major leagues without spending time in the minors. I have no idea what the culture of elite running is like. Perhaps he is expected to put in his time as a pacer before he will start receiving invitations as an elite competitor for major marathons.

[Andrew A.]

In order for the race to meet IAAF rules, all runners including pacers have to be official entrants who are eligible for prizes. If race officials are not allowing him to finish because he's a pacer, that seems to me to call into question whether he was a legitimate entrant in the first place.

Right, all these race/meet directors who have arranged for rabbits for years and years have been skating a fine line, skirting right around this rule.  The IAAF should look into this and penalize Fukuoka in some way.  It is little secret that I consider times and records to be overrated.  In any other sport, it is about facing one's best competition and winning.  Margin of victory and other stats are far less important than the essential point of any athletic/sporting contest.  Running fast times may indeed build confidence yet is it really the job of any race official to cater to enabling fast times other than getting the best competitors to show up?  Race directors have allowed agents to hijack the sport, setting up record attempts for their athletes just to further pad their bank accounts.  So, again, it all goes back to a lack of cohesive administration overseeing and regulating the sport.  A race director with the sport's best interests in mind may get a pitch from an athlete's agent to run a world (or national) record in that race and may respond that, sure, we will pay a bonus for a world (or national) record -- your athlete is welcome to show up and take a shot at it, like anyone else, but if s/he wants to be paced then you, the agent, need to provide the pacer(s).  I suppose the RDs for races like BMW Berlin and Bank of America Chicago would naturally like the acclaim that comes with being able to advertise their race courses has having had WRs set on them and, ultimately, they are responsible for their own races and not for the best interests of the sport.

[Ryan]

Great points.

I prefer reading about races. Just because a race employs pacers does not mean that there won't be a compelling story (Chicago 2010). When Geb set his records. I probably didn't read much more about them than that he set the record and his time. It's not so interesting when a race is scripted and goes according to the script. A world record is a great and noteworthy achievement even under those conditions, but all I needed to read about it was the new world record time. Conversely, I would be inclined to spend some time reading about a race effort in a non-paced race where one runner goes out and runs a fast time running away from the field. I think that that is a very gutsy strategy and I would want to know more about that runner.

Same for me. In a scripted race, as you rightly describe it, I just see the name and time and figure the rest of the story is self-explanatory. In a close race such as Chicago, there's a fascinating story, rabbits or not. In an unscripted race, whether it's a runaway win or a close battle, there is usually a fascinating story.

Run under 15:10 per 5 km until the 31 km turnaround

14:15 is less than 15:10. Depending upon whether or not there was a lower limit specified, Kiptanui may not have done anything wrong. If there was a lower limit, then I can definitely understand the race officials' anger and frustration.

I suppose I can see that point but I'm pretty sure, whether a lower limit was given or not, there was an understanding that less than 15:10 meant right in the 15:10 ballpark, not suddenly accelerating before the halfway mark to over 15 seconds per mile faster.

When he asked if he could finish the race, race officials told him:

"No way. Absolutely not. We will not pay you."

Although I don't think that pacing contracts should stipulate a DNF, this is a very clear statement. It also implies a choice. The pacer may stop after fulfilling their pacing obligations and collect that guaranteed money or they could forgo that money and pursue prize money instead. Continuing might be the better business decision though it would not be without risk. Ethically, I think that a pacer should fulfill all of the other stipulations of the pacing agreement before deciding to pursue the prize money.

As far as pulling him off the course, that seems like a violation the IAAF rule stating that all runners are eligible to finish and have their times officially recorded.

This is where I start running into problems with the race's handling of the situation. Sure, take away the pacer's money but the rules clearly state that everyone who is running has to be eligible to finish. It seems to me like they broke IAAF rules by forcing him to leave the course. At the very least, the IAAF should look into this story and hand out some form of punishment. I doubt it will happen but it would be the right thing to do.

Assuming that there was a lower pace limit specified in his contract, for Eliud Kiptanui, there may be more dire consequences. It's probably a given that he'll never be invited to Fukuoka again, but it also possible that other RDs might avoid him in the future. As a professional runner, that could affect his livelihood.

I'm not sure if the consequences would be any different whether there was a lower limit given or not. I think his days of being a pacer are likely over. No RD with any common sense is going to want to get stuck in the situation Fukuoka now finds itself in. He's still a runner who is fast enough to be an invited athlete at top level races but I'm pretty sure he won't be getting a call from Fukuoka any more.

As Andrew pointed out, this is a tightrope that races have been walking ever since they started using pacers. It has backfired in some cases (LA marathon with I believe Paul Pilkington always comes to mind for me) but this is the first time I can recall hearing that a race physically forced a pacer off the course. That seems to be a violation of IAAF rules and, as I already stated, I hope the IAAF doesn't just ignore it.