Seems reasonable.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

It's an absurd proposal.
This could and would only make any sense if we were in a situation where doping had been eliminated and we could be confident that records since the cut-off date and any records set into the future would not involve any doping. That, obviously, is not the case. So what's the point of this?

^^^
This.

Is track like cycling in that everyone stopped doping after 2005?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

It is a laughable proposal, kinda shows how out of touch they are with reality. Yes, there is a problem, but this will do nothing to address it.

There are (and will be) tons more records set since 2005 that are (and will be) tainted by doping. Just a fact.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Yes, of course.
Ah, now, it makes sense !

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Horrible proposal

---

Matt

its more horrible, since they also are banning caffeine in dosage.... we have no proof of all records until now met this threshold... so throw out every world record that existed.

It's dumb, but no dumber than keeping World Records prior to 2005.

World records are inherently dumb not only because athletes are competing under different conditions (wind, running surface, temperatures, etc.) but also because they are having their times compared when they were set under different testing regimes.

There is no good way for the IAAF to handle this situation. We, however, can ignore the whole notion of World Records.

While there are certainly questionable T & F records (most notably the women's 400/800/10,000) this proposal accomplishes what exactly?

Athletes are still testing positive for PEDs on a regular basis. Why the 2005 cutoff?
Many rational sports fans understand the way things have operated forever.

---

Formerly DrD

The cutoff is because they started keeping samples from 2005 so samples can be re-tested as methods improve.

There has already been a big number of subsequent failures from the London 2012 games.

Whole idea is seriously flawed.

If they do this do all WRs that are also National records get wiped out as well ?

Pretty sure IAAF offered big bonuses for WRs...

I heard on the radio WADA budget is £20m, if that's correct its buttons

The cutoff is because they started keeping samples from 2005 so samples can be re-tested as methods improve.

--------

So are they saying that in 2016 substance X is now illegal, and they are going back to 2008 samples to see if substance X was in it and thus going to give them a ban for that if that find that in an 2008 sample? Or are they testing samples for substances that have always been illegal but only now have been able to create a test for it?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Mmm yeah, Ayana's 10k WR set last year... Even Bekele's 26:17 was set in 2005. This is a head in the sand proposal. It is like cycling fans who think the peloton is clean now.


..

Retesting the original banned substances but using newer technology.


https://www.theguardian.com/...on-2012-drug-retests

I hate that there are records that are seriously tainted but this really doesn't change them. I personally don't pay attention to them and just try an enjoy the watching an entertaining race. Anyone that has watched and followed Track and Field for more than 5 min knows some of the records are a joke.

---

Formerly DrD

Oh, that's a shame. How did one blood doping expert put it? One in ten thousand chance her blood values were natural.

So there are roughly 700,000 people on the planet with those blood values.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I'm all for getting rid of the records of the fairly obvious Eastern Bloc cheaters from the past, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't the solution either.

Regardless of other factors, I'm huge fan of "innocent until proven guilty" and the "burden of proof lies with the accuser".

Throwing out the past records isn't fair IMHO.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Pretty sure most of the fastest 100m times are since 2005.

---

29 years and counting

That's not what he said. He said 1 in 10,000 chance they were natural. Not 1 in 10,000 chance they were someone else's.

Yes, he quoted someone calling her a cheater.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I can't imagine this won't lead to massive law suits, loss of earnings and the implication that someones record can no longer stand because they are a cheat.

Mike Powell's 1991 world record ends up being cancelled? That seems nuts.

So what happens with a WR from before 2005: is the best performance after 2005 sought and determined to be the new WR?

All seems to be to keep the people busy: see the world hour record for bikes, which they resetted, changed the rules for and which a lot of people (including Jens Voigt) then broke consequetively in a short time.
It is less boring to either not have worldrecords or wordrecords which are easier to beat: a little refreshment cure.

Is Bob Beamon's 1968 jump still the 2nd longest ever?

ETA - yes it is.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/mlongok.htm


The long jump WR would drop down to Dwight Phillips, who is 9th on the all time best performances list. 9th....

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly