Slowman wrote:
"this precedent was rooted in "keep women out of men's sports," which is hardly a legacy worth keeping."
others might say that granting the women's race men to chaperone them through their entire race, for the entertainment of the wealthy men who were watching, speaks of a new disturbingly exploitive turn in women's sport. can we try that out? did you like the way i hijacked women's rights for my own purpose? no? you're right. i don't like it either and i don't believe a word of what i just wrote. just, this is how easy it is.
this has nothing to do with men's attitudes toward women in running. i'll agree not to invoke righteous indignation over women's rights if you will. and then maybe we can get to the root of the question, which is, is it appropriate for records and world bests to be set with this kind of assistance?
if so, then i don't see why a men's record couldn't be set by having a group of rabbits run the first 13 miles of a marathon and then another set of rabbits start fresh and run the second 13 miles.
Piss off. I said "I...suspect..." which you parsed out of my quote so that YOU could feign indignation. Perhaps you were overly sensitive about this because of your failure with women's issues in the past? No? You're right. I don't believe a word of what I just wrote. Just, this is how easy it is.
I asked a simple question: was any real thought put behind this and was there any real discussion on the tolerance for environmental assistance? Or was the decision simply rooted in, as you pointed out, it is just the way it has always been. You seemed content to rest your argument on that, so I had no problem pointing out the flaw. I agree, the root question is what is an acceptable kind of assistance?
The reason you cannot have a rabbit enter mile 13 is because that would be outside interference. That is obvious. Can a wheel chair participant rabbit a men's race? That is what you were looking for.