Why Does Someone Run a Race They Will Not Finish? Setting the Pace

Two things make a designated leader valuable. The first is that running an even pace is physiologically more efficient than alternating between fast and slow, so a race run at a steady speed produces a faster time than the same effort spread unevenly, and holding an exact pace over long distances is extremely difficult without help. The second is that a race between competitors who want to win is usually run slowly at first, since nobody wishes to lead and tire while others sit behind, which produces tactical races with slow times and a sprint at the end. Supplying somebody paid to lead removes both problems, and record attempts are organised around that person rather than around the competition.

The benefit is more than psychological:

• •An exact and consistent speed, now frequently assisted by timing signals
• •Shelter from the wind, which is a measurable energy saving at racing speeds
• •Removal of the decision about when to push, which carries its own cost
• •A visible target that keeps a following group together
• •Protection from surges by rivals early in the race
• •A planned departure point, after which the contenders race each other

Objections have been raised continuously since the practice became standard, and they are not trivial. Critics hold that a record set behind paid assistance is not comparable to one set by a runner who led alone, and that the sport has quietly changed what a record measures. They point out that tactical racing, where athletes judge each other and attack at chosen moments, is what makes a race interesting to watch, and that removing it produces time trials with spectators. Supporters reply that the assistance is available to everyone, that the conditions are stated openly, and that spectacular times attract attention the sport needs. Governing bodies have settled on permitting the practice in most contexts while ruling out arrangements they consider to go too far.

Hitting a target time to within a second or two over several kilometres is a skill in its own right and the aids have changed. Traditionally the job depended on a runner with an unusually developed internal sense of speed, checking against split times called from the trackside and adjusting continuously. Lights set into the inside kerb of a track, programmed to travel at record pace, now give a moving visual target that removes the arithmetic. Audible signals through an earpiece do the same on the road. Wristwatches with satellite positioning have made pacing available to every amateur, which has changed how ordinary runners approach a marathon. Wind is the persistent complication, since a group must adjust its effort rather than its speed when the direction changes.

Regulation has evolved through specific controversies and the rules are now reasonably clear. A leader must be an entered competitor running the same race under the same conditions, rather than a person joining partway through. Runners entering the course fresh to assist somebody already racing have been ruled out explicitly, and results achieved that way have been refused as records. Signals from moving vehicles and lights set into the track have been treated differently in different decisions, with some accepted and some not. Women's records are now recognised in two categories, one set in races with men present and one in races without, precisely because the assistance available differs. Each of these lines was drawn after an attempt that forced the question.

Even pacing is more efficient than uneven pacing, and competitive races start slowly because nobody wants to lead, so a paid leader solves both problems at once. The benefit includes exact speed, wind shelter and the removal of decisions. Critics argue that records set this way measure something different and that tactical racing is what makes a race worth watching, and governing bodies have drawn specific lines after specific attempts.