We don't need no stinkin' rabbits....

I agree. Unless you and I are willing to fund an alternative Grand Prix, however, we're going to have a tough time changing the system. Race promoters have too much invested in the publicity that attends super-fast times.

I agree completly, I like watching races without rabbits. Not only that but I have read numerous interviews and heard many people (even at collegiate races where they have used rabbits) blame bad preformances on a rabbit. It seems that runners should be able to "do it on their own" and I would like to see more professional races without rabbits I am sure the competitions will still be just as exciting.

Agreed!!!!

Mr. Oldguy:

Despite the fast times that the Golden League produces; I understand that some of these European meets are facing hard economic times. Perhaps by eliminating pacesetters the resulting excitement of these races might actually turn the tables by attracting more viewers. Obviously this is just a forum and neither you nor I will be able to change the IAAF?s format, but imagine if they just tried to do it for one season? It could be very interesting?.

Cheers,

Monty

agreed - take the money that was used to pay rabbits and make it time incentive money for the other runners - maybe even split time incentives. between the money paid to rabbits and that used for their travel, etc. this could be a decent amount at each meet. the organizers are complaining about finances - try paying what money you do have to actual competitors.

If you are paid to be a rabbit and you feel extremely great during the day of your race, can you actually compete and finish?

I don't know about in track meets, but I know that in the LA Marathon about 10 years ago, the rabbit went out and set his proper pace on a hot day. Everybody else ran a tactical race and sat back (thinking he had to drop out halfway), and he hit halfway with something like a two minute lead. He felt good, so he carried on for the win, and the winner's prize money. The other elites were not very excited.

AMAZING!!! Didn't the same thing happen last year at Chicago with Tergat's debut? Or maybe it wasn't Chicago, I can't remember.

It's sort of a touchy subject, but you can, at least most of the time. There was a time in the 70s at the Bislett Games (I believe) when Tom Beyers of the US was hired as a rabbit. He jumped out to a huge lead as no one followed him and hung on to win.

Whe this happens you often hear the invited runners complaining that they didn't know the rabbit wasn't going to drop out and ignored him. In my opinion there's no point in having a rabbit that no one's following, so the occasional win by a rabbit gives rabbits credibility and creates some urgency about the need to follow the pace.

I say they do away with rabbits and give a bonus to those who hit certain times.

The winning rabbit in the L.A. Marathon was Paul Pilkington. And yes, the rabbit at Chicago last year also won, although that was only after Tergat had managed to reel him in well before the finish line.

I am with you on that. I agree that races should not be rabbited, but we DO live in a free market, capitalistic society. Race directors can and will hire certain runner for the sole purpose of running a particular pace for a particular distance.

I do find it funny when the rabbit wins....it's always a good story.

I watched the "European Cup" on TV here in Thailand last week, broadcast on a tape-delay basis from France. The men's distance races (1500 and 5km) were slow, boring, tactical affairs, since there were no rabbits. The 1500 boys went out at 68 for the first lap, and the 5km boys were WALKING at 76 for the first lap. The WOMEN, however, ran balls-to-the-walls from the get-go.

Reminded me of the 1500 races at the Barcelona Olympics. The 800 meter split for the Men and Women's races were EXACTLY THE SAME: 2:08.

I'm with you here. Get rid of rabbits. Let the race be a race from gun to tape.

While I'm with you 100% in principle, I am not so sure that races without rabbits would be fast affairs. Or even exciting.

The examples given by Monty (Radcliffe, Clarke and Virgin) are all of runners who are/were famous for having no finishing kick. Therefore they had little other option but to go early (or from the gun) and try and break their opponents. This makes for thrilling racing (at least from a spectator standpoint).

This would not be the case with every runner and we might be left with far too many cases such as Jason offers of slow first 800s in a 1500m and then a burn-up. They would not be races "from gun to tape", but cagey, tactical deals like some of the bike races indoors. Trying to get the drop on your opponent to see who kicks first.

If this happened too often, it could serve to turn spectators off that particular event completely.

I know I would not enjoy watching them.

Getting rid of the rabbits would not be a cure-all. There are none in championship races anyway (although I do recall that Khalid Skah got into trouble way back in Barcelona as he lapped a team-mate who then paced him to the gold to the jeers and whistles of the crowd).

Are they better for it?

>I watched the "European Cup" on TV here in Thailand last week,

>broadcast on a tape-delay basis from France. The men's distance

>races (1500 and 5km) were slow, boring, tactical affairs, since there

>were no rabbits. The 1500 boys went out at 68 for the first lap, and

>the 5km boys were WALKING at 76 for the first lap. The WOMEN,

> however, ran balls-to-the-walls from the get-go.

So the women had a rabbit, but the men didn't?

In championship races, the group is often tactical even when they DO have a rabbit. So I'm not sure the rabbit's presence affects things one way or the other in those events. Rabbits are for good times, and if the competitors have already decided that they're going to sit easy and hope for a sprint finish, the rabbit won't matter at all.

What also bothers me is hearing people at meets discussing the rabbit as if rabbiting was an event/skill in and of itself, sometimes more so than the actual RACE going on behind.

That was so unbelievably cool when Pilkington got rolling at LA. I believe that race was televised nationally that year because I'm on the East Coast and I remember watching it live (what a concept-a race live on tv). If I remember correctly he was supposed to rabbit 30k. He was right on the agreed upon pace at 30k, but starting at around halfway the lead pack had let him go. By 30k he was all alone about a minute ahead. There was still a decent sized pack at 30k, but they were so concerned about each other that they forgot about Paul up front. I also remember the announcers asking each other what the policy was for Pilkington to continue. They sounded like your typical boneheaded announcers who know little about running, especially one so-called expert who was adamant that they wouldn't give Pilkington the winners prize (cash and a car?) because he was being paid to rabbit.

That was the first time I had ever seen a rabbit stick it out and get a "W". I cracked up when the guy who finally broke that lead pack came to the finish line with his arms up as if he had won. He had no idea that Pilkington had beaten him to the line by a couple of minutes. Maybe the lack of a finish line tape was his first clue. He looked seriously confused.

Good interview with Paul after the race, too. I think he said something along the lines of that he didn't see the point in stopping after his rabbiting job was done since the pack had decided not to run the agreed upon pace.

According to a person (not me) who was at the top runners technical meeting the day before that Mercedes LA Marathon, said that someone asked specifically, "Will the rabbit drop out?" and according to my person-on-the-spot, the elite athlete coordinator said, "Yes, the rabbit will drop out."

Not to be to reactionary, but frankly, if anyone were to require a rabbit to drop out after a certain distance, that would seem to me akin to fixing the race. Paying someone to go a certain distance in a certain time is more like a prime. Paying them to "throw the race" as well would be a whole other story.

If the race director doesn't want to risk having the rabbit run away with the race, he or she should be pretty careful in picking their rabbits.

"Idealist," that's why the most effective rabbits are the undercover ones secret rabbits -- where none of the other runners knows he or she is just making a pace and has to respect the move to the front. 'Course, you need a credible talent for that -- someone who is a believable user of frontrunning as a tactic.