-
"But Nike is instead looking to carve a full three minutes, or about 2.5 percent, off the record—an unusual, though not entirely unprecedented, leap. Paula Radcliffe lowered the women’s marathon record twice for a total improvement of almost exactly 2.5 percent over the previous record; her record of 2:15:25, set in 2003, still stands."
Remind me again what was going on in the early 2000s?
hippy-
her record of 2:15:25, set in 2003, still stands.
Nike not quite getting it...
Also, if Paula ran faster by 2 minutes due to male pacers, are Nike expecting to find another gender than is faster still?
Although - they could have a staggered pacers - maybe 5 / 10k each, at points all along the course.
Which would mean that it would not be a record, but a fastest time.
NotThamesWater
It's the difference between the record and the fastest.
Radcliffe has the marathon world record of 2:17:18, but a fastest marathon of 2:15:25 (which was not a record as she was being paced by fellas). Also - discussing Radcliffe in the doping thread...