Journal of the Philosophy of Sport
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjps20
What money can buy: technology and breaking the
two-hour ‘marathon’ record
Danny Rosenberg & Pam R. Sailors
To cite this article: Danny Rosenberg & Pam R. Sailors (2022) What money can buy: technology
and breaking the two-hour ‘marathon’ record, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 49:1, 1-18,
DOI: 10.1080/00948705.2021.1976194
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2021.1976194
Published online: 16 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 537
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjps20
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
2022, VOL. 49, NO. 1, 1–18
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2021.1976194
What money can buy: technology and breaking the
two-hour ‘marathon’ record
Danny Rosenberga and Pam R. Sailorsb
a
Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada; bDepartment
of Philosophy, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri, USA
ABSTRACT
On 12 October 2019, Kenyan runner Eliud Kipchoge became the first person to run
a ‘marathon’, known as the INEOS 1:59 Challenge, in less than 2 hours in a time of
1:59:40.2. However, his time was not ratified as a world record by World Athletics.
We not only explain why this phenomenal achievement was not recognized as
a legitimate record but argue his sub 2-h ‘marathon’ run produced a meaningless
‘record’ because the feat was not part of a contest. His run was an experiment or
time trial spectacle backed by the best scientists, technology, organizers, athletes,
conditions, and media coverage money can buy. Four areas buttress our argument:
the selective use of technology, the concept of a record, the distinction between
a test and contest, and the meaning of a marathon. We conclude by presenting an
account of what makes a marathon record meaningful.
KEYWORDS Technology; marathons; records; tests and contests
Introduction
Breaking records in modern running races has excited sports enthusiasts for more
than a century. Perhaps the most famous of these events was Roger Bannister
breaking the 4-m mile on 6 May 1954 at the Iffley Road track in England (Bannister
1955). This incredible milestone was not without controversy because two pace­
setters assisted Bannister, yet his record was accepted by the International
Association for Athletics Federations (IAAF) (Bale 2004; Bascomb 2004). Fastforward 65 years to Vienna, Austria, where on 12 October 2019, Kenyan runner
Eliud Kipchoge became the first person to run a ‘marathon’, known as the INEOS
1:59 Challenge, in less than 2 h in a time of 1:59:40.2, yet Kipchoge’s time was not
ratified as a record by the IAAF (known as World Athletics since 2019). Why?
Some of the reasons include: he was the sole runner designated to break the
record; he was paced by a phalanx of 41 world-class pacesetters who rotated on
and off the course; he ran behind an electric pace car that guided him with
green laser beams; he was given drinks by a person on a bicycle; and he ran the
CONTACT Danny Rosenberg
drosenberg@brocku.ca
University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
© 2022 IAPS
Department of Kinesiology, Brock
2
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
carefully selected and relatively level course specifically on a date and time that
provided him with optimal environmental conditions (Caesar 2019a). Other
factors that assisted Kipchoge were use of state-of-the-art Nike Alphafly shoes;
being trained and monitored for months, up to and during the Challenge, by an
extensive team of sport sciences and organizers; preparing in Kenya in the same
time zone as Vienna; and being sponsored by INEOS, a multinational petro­
chemical company founded and headed by Sir James Ratcliffe the richest person
in the UK, which spared no expense to break the 2-h ‘marathon’ barrier.
The response to Kipchoge’s minutely calculated, technological and corpo­
rate-driven ‘record-breaking’ feat was mixed, from elation of this historic
event to the claim it is fake (Bisceglio 2019). In this paper, we will examine
Kipchoge’s sub 2-h ‘marathon’ record and argue his admittedly impressive
accomplishment is not a meaningful competitive ‘marathon’ record-breaking
achievement. Instead, Kipchoge was involved in an experiment or time trial
spectacle backed by the best scientists, technology, organizers, athletes,
conditions, and media coverage money can buy1 and he ran extremely fast.
We will develop our position as follows.
First, a description of earlier technologies and conditions that were
developed to break the 2-h ‘marathon’ barrier will be presented. Second,
an account will be offered of the rules and circumstances of contemporary
major marathon races where record times are ratified as official. We will
briefly discuss why Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ record was not ratified by World
Athletics (WA). The third section will provide an analysis of Kipchoge’s
‘marathon’ run and present arguments against these types of running
spectacles because they make selective use of technology, endorse
a narrow conception of a record and prioritize record-breaking, are tests
and not contests, and do not meet the core requirements of a marathon. In
the case of Kipchoge’s run and his ‘record-breaking’ accomplishment spe­
cifically, he and the INEOS team appropriated elements of a marathon race
to create a simulacrum so his ‘record’ would be judged legitimate and
acceptable. We reject the status of this so-called ‘record’ and claim
Kipchoge’s achievement, while admittedly incredible, are meaningless in
the sense it lacks essential aspects of genuine athletic competition. We will
respond to possible criticisms of our argument and comment on what
counts as a meaningful marathon record.
Antecedent technologies leading up to the INEOS 1:59 challenge
The official world record for the marathon currently stands at 2:01:39, set by
Kipchoge in 2018 at the Berlin Marathon. However, a year earlier the Nike
Breaking2 Project was an attempt to break the 2-h barrier in a time trial event
at a race car track in Monza, Italy, near Milan. Nike spent 2 years and
considerable expense toward that end. The company’s strategy involved
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
3
paying the best and brightest scientists and engineers to ensure optimal
preparation and execution of the event. Three elite runners, Kipchoge, Lelisa
Desisa, and Zersenay Tadese were selected to break the 2-h marathon barrier.
They were put through a series of tests and experiments to determine the
optimal conditions and interventions for running 26.2 miles in under 2 h. The
technological factors were organized into four categories: the course, fueling,
pacing, and footwear.
A ‘perfect’ course for the marathon is determined by geography and
human-made construction elements. Regarding the former, Monza lies only
600 ft. above sea level, giving athletes an oxygen-dense environment. The
location is only 1 hour’s time difference from Kenya, where the athletes lived
and trained, eliminating the need for them to adjust to a different time zone.
Weather stations located around the track provided continuous synchronous
information about temperature, humidity, and wind. To optimize the weather
conditions, the race was scheduled to take place within a three-day period
instead of a predetermined time on a specific day. And the construction of
the racecourse, built for automobile racing, also approached perfection, with
its nearly pancake-flat mile and a half long track (Hutchinson 2018).
Fueling was managed by translating information gathered in training
sessions to strategies employed during the event. First, a portable ultrasound
machine measured carbohydrate levels before and after training runs to
calculate the storage, use, and replenishment of carbohydrates in the run­
ners’ leg muscles. Once the optimal levels were established, they were main­
tained by having someone on a bicycle ride alongside the runners, handing
off specially prepared drinks to them as needed. This fueling procedure
provided more nourishment than would be possible in a normal marathon
race. Not only did the athletes receive customized liquids more often, but
they also received it more easily because they did not have to swerve to an
aid table or take a chance on fumbling their bottle in the act of grabbing it off
the table while speeding by (Hutchinson 2018, 78).
The scientific team also calibrated the exact pacing schedule to achieve
success between Kipchoge, Desisa and Tadese, and a host of pacers.
During training, the pacers practiced setting up in a wedge around the
featured runners, who also practiced running directly behind the pacers to
significantly reduce air resistance. The pacers also practiced switching in
and out every lap, ensuring the premier trio were always led by runners
with fresh legs. A Tesla automobile mounted with a large clock, was fitted
with lasers that projected green lines on the track illuminating a path for
the pacers to follow, and timing mats provided pace feedback to the
athletes and the scientific team every 200 m (Hutchinson 2018, 202).
Finally, Nike created a new shoe called Vaporfly for the record attempt,
putting a carbon-fiber plate in an extra-cushioned sole, which was lighter in
weight yet more durable than any shoe on the market. Presumably, the carbon-
4
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
plate in the sole was to offset energy loss. Hutchinson reports ‘External tests
conducted at the University of Colorado show that the shoe improves efficiency
by about 4% on average – a stunning figure that has sparked fierce controversy’
(74). Although a version of the shoe became commercially available, its price
(double that of other running shoes), resulted in a de facto availability gap,
where only economically advantaged runners could afford to purchase the
model. This adds to the controversy surrounding the Nike Breaking2 Project,
due to the perception the shoe might confer an unfair advantage because it
was not equally available to all (Sailors 2019). Despite all the scientific ingenuity
and technological innovations at Monza, only Kipchoge came close to the goal,
and he failed, by 26 seconds, finishing in 2:00:25.
Two years later, with multinational chemical company INEOS replacing
Nike as the sponsor, Kipchoge alone was designated to break the 2-h ‘mara­
thon’ barrier. His second attempt, this time in Vienna, was successful because
he benefited from lower humidity, and more significantly, the course was
lined with trees and cheering fans that mimicked a sanctioned marathon race
and motivated him to run exceptionally fast. These features together with the
description of the INEOS 1:59 Challenge in the introduction produced a sub 2h ‘marathon’ run of 1:59:40.2.
Non-ratification of Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ achievement
Despite this time, the WA refused to ratify Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ feat. Why? The
reasons are straightforward because the means for achieving the time violated
WA rules. Such rules fall under Section II General Competition Rules and speci­
fically Rule 144 that refers to Assistance to Athletes (International Association of
Athletics Federations (IAAF) 2018-2019). There is no need to quote directly from
these rules because it was a foregone conclusion before the INEOS 1:59
Challenge that the WA ratification of Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ record would not
occur. In part, one can say this because the episode was not a competition, and a
ratified record must be part of an officially sanctioned contest. This may be why
the record attempt was labeled a challenge and not a competition. More on this
fact and other related matters in the following section.
As far as breaking WA rules related to athlete assistance, the reader may
refer to the points described in the introduction and the many reports of these
unique features in the media (Bellware 2019; Bloom 2019; Burgess 2019;
Caesar 2019b; J. S 2019; Ramsak 2019; Willemsen 2019; Woodward 2019).
Another controversial matter in Vienna related to Kipchoge’s use of an
improved prototype Nike Vaporfly shoe available to very few elite runners. In
a series of conflicting reports in early 2020, WA was considering a potential
ban on these shoes (Bain 2020). A Reuters report entitled ‘Nike’s Vaporfly
Running Shoes and Tumbling Records’ listed the impact of the highperformance shoes in recent running races and categories. Perhaps the most
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
5
significant influence of advanced shoes occurred when Brigid Kosgei shattered
Paula Radcliffe’s 16-year-old women’s marathon world record by 81 seconds in
a time of 2:14.4 at the Chicago marathon on 11 October 2019 (Reuters Staff
2020).
Just as swimming’s global governing body, the Fédération Internationale
De Natation (FINA), implemented new rules regarding full body fastskin
swimsuits in 2008 (Magdalinski 2009), the above shoe controversy was
grave enough for the WA to issue a press release in January 2020 announcing
new rules about competition shoes (Hodgetts 2020; Keoghan 2020; Kim
2020). The running organization also pledged to undertake further shoe
technology research ‘to preserve the integrity of elite competition by ensur­
ing that the shoes worn by elite athletes in competition do not offer unfair
assistance or advantage’ (World Athletics 2020, n. p.). Although there is no
direct bearing regarding the prototype Vaporfly shoes Kipchoge wore and
this paper’s thesis, the account is addressed to acknowledge his technologi­
cally advanced shoes likely assisted him in running extremely fast.
In the next section, four arguments will be offered to demonstrate why
arranged ‘record-breaking’ time trial events like the INEOS 1:59 Challenge are
meaningless in an athletic competitive sense.
Four arguments against Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ run
The first of these arguments refers to the selective use of technology. Loland
(2009) describes technology ‘as human-made means to reach human inter­
ests and goals’ (153). While the combination of technology and sport has
a long history, over the past century this association has catapulted the level
of athletic human performance and achievement (Rintala 1995; Nevill and
Whyte 2005; Beamish and Ritchie 2006; Magdalinski 2009; Sailors 2009, 2019;
Ryall 2013; Dyer 2015; Fouché 2017; Hutchinson 2018). Yet, most analyses of
the nexus between technology and sport to enhance performance presume
its positive effects will be and are manifest in competition. In the case of
Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ run this was not the case, and the use of technology in
sport in non-competitive circumstances requires further examination.
Running is a basic, simple, and natural skill and doing so for long distances
was crucial for survival in early human development (Kretchmar et al. 2017).
Other than protecting one’s feet, for most human history technology has had
limited impact to enhance long-distance running, and certainly not to
achieve, note and break records. Enter the modern age.
Running is advanced by technologies like sophisticated stop watches, GPS
tracking systems using chips or transponders, treadmills, hypoxic tents, and other
mechanical devices; new ideas and innovations in human physiology, biomecha­
nics, nutrition, diet, supplements, and drugs; and novel scientific principles related
to training, performance strategies, shoe design, cognitive responses, and
6
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
environmental effects. These technologies rely on experts in medicine, science,
engineering, and manufacturing and are not mutually exclusive. Loland (2009)
rightly observes that sport technologies may serve ‘several functions’ and they are
implicated internally or externally to enhance performance (153–154). Internally
generated enhancements refer to the effects of special diets, drinks, supplements,
and rest; honing and executing movement skills; and improvements in speed,
strength, flexibility, endurance, and cognitive function. External enhancement
aids refer to the use of equipment, machines, facilities, the media, and different
indoor and outdoor environments.2 Some technologies are employed exclusively
during training sessions and others in competition only, and still others in both
contexts. Elite runners employ all the preceding modern sport technologies to
one degree or another to enhance performance; however, in Kipchoge’s time trial
spectacle nonconventional technologies were utilized to improve his running
performance.
One criticism of Kipchoge’s feat is that he, or more likely his handlers, did not
make use of more efficient, rational technologies. For example, if the groups of
rotating world-class pacesetters who surrounded Kipchoge in an inverted
V-shape were deployed mainly to reduce wind resistance, why did the INEOS
engineers not develop an aerodynamic plexiglass shield attached to the electric
pace car for Kipchoge to run behind? This would have been far more effective and
less expensive than the hired hands who assisted Kipchoge. In Vienna, wind
resistance increased during the replacement phase between different sets of
pacesetters. An aerodynamic plexiglass shield would not encounter smoothness
of transition problems and increased wind resistance during the replacement
phase between different sets of pacers. And although we have no idea how much
the pacesetters were paid by the privately funded INEO Challenge, one may
presume these total fees exceeded the cost for the design and manufacture of
a device to cut down wind resistance.3
While the course Kipchoge ran in Vienna was relatively flat, the electric pace
car projected green laser beams to guide him and minimize any left or right
extraneous distance. This had the effect of avoiding wasted energy and time
by reducing running adjustments due to unevenness in the course’s terrain.
The INEOS experts did repave part of the course in Vienna, but they did not go
all the way. For example, engineers hired a crew to dig up a roundabout
‘turning the −2% camber into a + 1% one’, a change that was undone and
reversed a couple of weeks after Kipchoge’s run (Reynolds 2019, n.p.). Rather
than the less efficient laser beams, the entire course could have been precisely
altered and marked where Kipchoge could have run with no deviations.
Another less efficient technology employed in the Challenge was the way
Kipchoge received fluids during the run. A person on a bicycle handed him
specially concocted drinks at precise intervals. But perhaps a robotic arm
attached to the aerodynamic plexiglass shield mentioned earlier at just the
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
7
right height would have been a better way to receive fluids. Pending any
mechanical hiccups, this method would almost certainly be more effective
and less unpredictable in acquiring needed fluids.
Finally, there is a logical point to be made regarding measurements and
technology. Recall Kipchoge’s sub 2-h ‘marathon’ time was 1.59.40.2.
However, he could have stopped a meter before completing the 42.195 km
distance with 20 seconds in hand and at the very last moment stepped over
the line and still claimed he ran a sub 2-h ‘marathon’. Whether he finished the
course under 2 h by 1 s or 20 produced no further effect in breaking the
‘record’. There was no race to the finish, and it should not have mattered by
how much Kipchoge broke the ‘marathon’ record. Interestingly, in the
Challenge run, once it was a foregone conclusion that the sub 2-h ‘marathon’
time would be attained, the pacers faded behind Kipchoge, so he could cross
the finish line first as the so-called ‘winner’. Of course, nothing was won and
this was part of the façade of the Challenge and meaninglessness of the
‘record’ as a competitive achievement.
As the reader can tell, the kind and quantity of technology one can create and
employ to enhance ‘marathon’ running is limited by one’s imagination and what
the running community is willing to accept as legitimate. Perhaps the only
restrictive distinguishing factor is that individual runners must be the only source
of what propels them forward rather than mechanical devices like motorized
shoes. And until recently, marathons were only held outdoors where environ­
mental factors influence runners. We maintain the idea of self-propulsion with no
motorized mechanical or direct human assistance is a fundamental requirement
for legitimate, acceptable running.4 Moreover, running is a simple and natural
human skill, part of a group of single, repetitive movement activities Loland
(2001) calls record sports. Provided running conforms to the preceding core
requirements, the type and amount of technology incorporated in marathon
running is only restricted by what is recognized as legitimate by the running
community. In this regard, use of shoes like the Nike Vaporfly may be acceptable,
but more advanced shoes may be contentious.
Another criticism we raise against Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ run is related to
the concept of a record, and specifically records in sport. In his examination of
this topic, Parry (2006) initially describes three dimensions of what we mean
by a modern record in sport. The first is a static abstraction associated with
measuring distances and times that becomes an objective marker and is
made possible by measurement devices, networks of communication, and
ideals like democracy and equal opportunities.
The second refers to the differentiation between an athletic record where
‘the actual performance [is] being precisely measured and quantified in units’
and a sports record like a team finishing a season undefeated for the first time
(199).5 Parry also observes athletic records tend to be universal, whereas
sports records are usually not because there are too many contingencies in
8
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
team sports. He also maintains, ‘marathon records are regarded as far less
important than on-track athletic events’ (200). We contend Parry underesti­
mates the importance of the marathon record, especially when one considers
the enormous time, effort and costs that were and are being expended to
break the 2-h barrier (Caesar 2015).
The third aspect of a modern record in sport is its recognition by an
authoritative body, like a sports federation that sets the parameters and
rules for ratifying a record. This means athletic ‘records’ may be achieved
but not recognized, as in practice sessions, staged events or historically
before sports federations were established. That it was known in advance
Kipchoge’s sub 2-h marathon ‘record’ would not be ratified by the WA is
a related but separate issue addressed previously.
In addition to analyzing what counts as a record in sport, Parry (2006) distin­
guishes two types of records. One is a descriptive record that states an observable
event or fact worthy of being noted and remembered. The notion of recognition
and descriptive records is also significant and somewhat relative because placing
last in a sports competition may still count as a record. Recall ‘Eddy the Eagle’ and
‘Eric the Eel’ who both finished last in their respective contests with exceptionally
poor performances at the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics and the 2000 Sydney
Olympic Games, yet each set national records in ski jumping and the 100-m
freestyle swim for Great Britain and Equatorial Guinea. We submit, Kipchoge’s sub
2-h ‘marathon’ run is a descriptive (factual) record of his running extremely fast,
but lacks recognition as a valuable, meaningful competitive feat.
Beyond descriptive records, Parry (2006) also identifies emulative records
that ‘keep note of the best comparative performances in their category’ (204).
There are three types of such records. The first is a relative one where athletes
and teams try to out-perform each other in ‘here and now’ contests (single
competitions) or extended situations (season-long competitions) where indi­
vidual victories and overall standings are recorded.
A second emulative record is an absolute one and refers to ‘doing something
that has not been done before’ (204). Some may describe this as accomplishing
a ‘first’, like the first human being to step on the moon. Absolute emulative
records require qualification because some alteration in the circumstances of
the record may establish a ‘new’ record. For example, being the first person to
step on the far side of the moon which has yet to be achieved. Parry notes that
absolute emulative records can result in disputes over people trying to claim
recognition for their accomplishments as important.
The third type of record Parry (2006) delineates is known as universal
emulation which he defines as, ‘equalling or surpassing the best quantified
performance in its category on record, across time and space, as kept by
a properly constituted and accepted recognizing authority’ (204).6 While
descriptive and the first two kinds of emulative records have existed histori­
cally, only the universal type could have emerged in modern society where
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
9
standardized competitive conditions, accurate measuring devices, and equi­
table access and eligibility rules governed by an authoritative sports body
exist. Parry also asserts that universal emulation is not necessarily the most
important, widespread and/or sought-after record in sport; however, we
argue that in record sports like marathon races, universal emulation is the
quintessential, and should be the only, type of record runners, authoritative
running bodies, and the sport community recognize and accept as
meaningful.
Although Parry (2006) discusses other topics related to the concept of a record,
his final theme examines what counts as a significant record, or an extraordinary
best achievement relevant to this paper. This type of record must ‘capture the
imagination of the people’ and attains an absolute or universal status (211). He
also elaborates on a contextualized, social conception of records7 like reaching
the peak of Mount Everest, breaking the 4-m mile, and sending a person into
space in the post-World War II era. In the milieu of that period, overcoming the
impossible, the uniqueness of performance in its respective class, and the ‘for­
tuitousness of convention’ like the symmetry of a mile comprised of 4 laps around
a track in under 4 m created a fascination for and mesmerized people in the case
of Bannister. Whether this characterization still holds true for records today, there
are still significant records in sport, yet we argue the meaningfulness of
Kipchoge’s INEOS 1:59 Challenge run comes nowhere close to such relevant
achievements since it was neither ratified by an authoritative body nor recog­
nized as universal and absolute by society.
A third argument we tender against Kipchoge’s running feat relies on
Kretchmar’s (2019) distinction between a test and contest that he has refined
for over five decades.8 A test refers to whether one can or cannot solve
a problem or problems like passing an exam, completing a puzzle, reaching
the end of a journey, or putting a ball in a basket set 10-ft. high. In a sport like
basketball, the test involves dribbling, passing, and shooting with the goal of
getting the ball in the basket. One can do this alone or with others who are
facilitators or opponents. Teammates in practice sessions mutually assist one
another to improve basketball skills and strategies without a serious commit­
ment to knowing who can perform better by winning a scrimmage, let’s say.
Opponents in a basketball contest, on the other hand, try to thwart the
execution of one team’s offensive and defensive basketball skills and strate­
gies by trying to win the game and determine who is the superior team.
Tests and contests also present two kinds of opposition. Tests disclose an
opposition by cut whereby one either passes or fails an exam, completes or
does not complete the puzzle, reaches or fails to reach the end of a journey,
or succeeds in or fails getting the ball in the basket. Contests reveal an
opposition by degree that describes the comparative extent to which one
or a team passes or fails a test when two or more parties take the same test.
Kretchmar (2019) notes the logical character of opposition by cut in that one
10
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
cannot simultaneously pass or fail a test and a normative observation
whereby such opposition can elicit a source of drama, uncertainty and
sought-after tension.
Given the preceding discussion, it is easy to see how Kipchoge’s sub 2-h
‘marathon’ run was indeed a test and not a contest. He tried to solve
a problem, he passed the test of running 26.2 miles in less than 2 h, he was
facilitated by technology and others, his run generated drama and uncer­
tainty, the cut point was situated to produce a high degree of difficulty, the
perceived value of the run was critical, and he achieved an extraordinarily
good score (i.e., he ran exceptionally fast). He did not participate in a contest
because no opponents took the same test, there was no comparative opposi­
tion by degree, no adversarial challenges, and no one trying to win to
determine who is the superior performer (in fact, there was no winner and
loser). While Kretchmar compares other features of tests and contests, we will
focus on the last portion of Kretchmar’s latest thoughts about the test-contest
distinction to tease out further why we think Kipchoge’s sub 2-h ‘marathon’
time is meaningless as a competitive accomplishment.
In the final section of Kretchmar’s (2019) article he inquires into the socially
dependent nature of tests and testing. Contests, of course, are necessarily social
activities where tests are fundamentally embedded (cf. Rosenberg 1989). That is,
tests can exist independently of contests, but not the other way around. I can play
a round of golf on my own, but a golf tournament cannot get off the ground
without each competitor playing the same game of golf.9 As such, sporting tests
may be conceived as solitary endeavors that challenge my athletic skills, potential,
emotional character, limitations, perseverance, resiliency, in short, my very being
and identity. These deeply personal experiences are not lived and felt by anyone
else. However, Kretchmar (2019) also notes, ‘a moment’s reflection will show that
testing is not solipsistic at all. While testing can involve a single participant, its
meaning or intelligibility is dependent on community. Knowledge gained by
testing is relational’ (231).
Thus, knowing the context of a test divulges the degree of information I have
about the meaning of my test score. Kretchmar (2019) identifies four testing
outcomes in relation to specific contexts and what each means as follows:
(1) We possess a singular test result. No context. Result: no ability to
interpret the meaning of the score.
(2) We possess repeated test results. Minimal context provided by the
preceding test score(s). Result: no ability to interpret the meaning of
the result apart from improvement or lack of it.
(3) We possess our own test results and those of a limited population.
Improved context, dependent on the representative nature of the
small sample size. Results: High contingent ability to interpret the
meaning of our scores.
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
11
(4) We possess our own test results and those of a full or representative
testing community. Excellent context. Result: sufficient information to
interpret the meaning of our scores accurately (231–232).
Given the community-dependent nature of tests and testing,10 how might we
contextualize and assess the meaning of Kipchoge’s sub 2-h ‘marathon’ run?
We claim the run, at best and being very charitable, does no better than
the second rung of Kretchmar’s classification scheme. If the Vienna INEOS
1:59 Challenge in 2019 replicated somewhat and improved upon the Monza
Nike Breaking2 Project of 2017, the test in Monza failed and the one in Vienna
succeeded. The context is minimal because we only have these two tests and
their respective results. Finally, the only conclusion one can draw from both
tests is that the score of the second was an improvement over the first. When
one also considers the unlimited financial resources and media blitz brought
to bear to legitimize and popularize Kipchoge’s ‘record breaking’ feat, are
these the current technological and communication trappings we wish to see
whereby ‘records’ attain their value and meaning? Are they needed and
desirable? We will try to answer these questions in the conclusion.
The final argument we present to show Kipchoge’s sub 2-h ‘marathon’
record is meaningless as a competitive result is related to the fact he did not
run a marathon race. As we stated earlier, he participated in a test, not
a contest. And while many tests are challenging, can be taken alone, express
tension and uncertainty, and provide important information about a person’s
performance and one’s character, they cannot on their own bestow
a meaningful record in the absolute, universal emulative sense described
earlier. Records are achieved and gain full meaning tethered to a history,
a community of comparable and dedicated athletes who test their mettle
with and against each other by performing a common test. ‘Records’ set
outside officially sanctioned marathon races, like in Kipchoge’s case, tell us
only that performances can improve under very limited, and perhaps onetime, circumstances. What then does a marathon entail that makes a recordsetting performance in such an event meaningful?
From the time the modern marathon was ‘officially’ established at the first
Olympic Games in Athens in 1896, it was conceived and has been understood
since as a road race, a contest and not a test. While Olympic marathons are
decidedly contests due to rigorous qualification requirements, the majority of
contemporary marathons are tests for most runners, and races (i.e., contests)
for elite and professional runners. Also, components of marathons have never
been and are not standardized. For example, the 40.195 km distance was not
fixed until the 1920s, and topographical variations continue to exist between
marathon courses. Therefore, every marathon record is listed with the place in
which it was achieved. However, beyond historical and standardization
12
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
factors, we submit marathons and the records they produce generate the
greatest and only meaning from the interactions between runners in contests
when compared to taking tests.
Several researchers describe the qualitative differences of contests that
capture ‘robust human competition’ (Sailors 2019, 4). Kretchmar and Elcombe
(2007) state,
Contests introduce a host of additional excellences related to the processes of
winning, such as, leading, taking the lead, holding the lead, gambling for a lead,
delaying strategically for a reversal late in the contest, intentionally forfeiting
a lead, mustering resources that would not be needed just to do well on the test
but are necessary to surpass an opponent, intentionally and skillfully deceiving
an opponent into thinking that a lead has been lost when it has not, identifying
the precise moment when a move will have its greatest impact, and sensing
when an opponent is flagging and vulnerable (189).
Reid (2017) differentiates between a holistic ethos in sport where athletes, the
human spirit and the natural environment interact, and an efficiency ethos
where sport and athletes are reduced to quantitative, mechanical, and frag­
mented entities. Loland (2009) distinguishes between a narrow theory of sport
fixated on maximizing human performance where almost any manner of
technology may be utilized to liberate human potential. In contrast, he advo­
cates for a wide theory of sport whereby sport is viewed as a social practice to
enhance human flourishing. Here, unlimited use of technology is muted to
advance intersubjective and individual athletic talent and creativity, and thus,
curb the obsession with progress in sport and the relentless quest for records.
Finally, Rosenberg and Sailors (2014) highlight the qualitative differences
between Bannister’s record-breaking sub 4-m mile run in May 1954 and the
‘miracle mile’ where Bannister’s spectacular come-from-behind win against
John Landy took place in August at the Vancouver British Empire Games. They
conclude, ‘Bannister’s first official sub-four-minute mile in Oxford 6 May 1954
was a staged or engineered paced event [a test] designed to set a world
record, while his victory against Landy in Vancouver that August occurred in
a genuine race [a contest]’ (180).11 The above accounts demonstrate that
sporting events and records possess relevant meaning in a universal sense
only as community-dependent contests and not as tests. By way of conclu­
sion, we will address a few criticisms of our argument, offer responses to
these objections, and make a final comment on why Kipchoge’s sub 2-h
‘marathon’ record is meaningless.
Conclusion
At least three major criticisms may be leveled against our argument. One
criticism is that our limited sense of a record in sport conveys a purist, perhaps
antiquated conception of sport. In response, we concede sport possesses no
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
13
immutable ideal or absolute nature. Sport is a human invention tied to our
biology and natural environment, it serves many functions and purposes, it
has and will continue to incorporate technological innovations and evolve to
satisfy any number of personal and collective desires and interests. For
example, Morgan (2006) observes that between the end of the 19th century
until the 1960s in the United States sport was understood and practiced as
a common good that mediated social life and promulgated values like fair
play, cooperation, and community pride. Over the past half-century, our
conception of sport has changed expressing runaway individualism, egoism
and narcissism worsened by hyper-commercialism and overpowering market
forces. Science, technology, corporations, the media and big-time college and
professional sports are implicated in creating this alternate vision of sport.
Perhaps future research can investigate to what extent the sports community
and society at large should decide if contemporary sport as just described is
worth pursuing or should be reformed.12
A second criticism is that our argument makes specific normative claims
that advocates the best kind of sport is exclusively achievement oriented,
focused on improvement and setting records through the pursuit of and
appreciating degrees of competitive excellence. This charge is fairly accurate,
but overstated. We concur with Kretchmar et al. (2017) who identify several
best versions of sport whereby any one of them is worthy and usually
selected and exemplified based on historical and cultural factors. Sport may
be structured and practiced highlighting serendipity, accurate knowledge,
aesthetics, authenticity, and communal interests. These and other best ver­
sion models are not mutually exclusive, but the competitive achievement
approach, we contend, is the most appropriate to analyze elite athletic
performance and the setting of records, especially in running races.
The third criticism is that we only accept absolute, universal emulation as
the only meaningful standard for records in running races when other athletic
achievements and ‘records’ like Kipchoge’s sub 2-h ‘marathon’ run should be
recognized as exceptional and significant. In reply to this criticism, we main­
tain that athletic records, such as those in marathons, are most conducive to
being interpreted and understood in an absolute, universal sense. Marathon
records achieved in ‘here and now’ races where competitors try to outperform one another through adversarial challenges with the goal of seeking
victory provide the most legitimate standard drawn from the sport’s history
and widest community interests. So-called ‘world’s best’ records beyond this
characterization, like Kipchoge’s sub 2-h ‘marathon’ run, may exhibit out­
standing performance achievements, but they are nontrivially problematic,
and here is why.
The answer lies not so much in the fact Kipchoge did not run a marathon race,
win anything or that he was backed by experts, made use of state-of-the-art
technology, and had access to unlimited resources, but that the INEOS 1:59
14
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
Challenge exploited and undermined the institution of marathon races, the
competitive performances of elite marathon runners and the ratified records
they set within that institution. Organizers of the Challenge expended enormous
financial and human capital to prepare and excite the public, including many in
the running community that the event constituted a legitimate record attempt,
even though it would not be ratified as such. Comparisons of Kipchoge’s feat to
Bannister’s sub 4-m mile in media accounts were false because they ignored the
different context and social conditions of each event. Running commentator Toni
Reavis (2019) poignantly explained before the event,
as much as they [Challenge organizers, the media] might like to present this as such
[legitimate], the first sub-2:00 marathon is not like the first sub-4:00 mile, or the first
summit of Everest, much less the moon landing. All those challenges carried in the
public consciousness the possibility of death. This [the Challenge] is a second
chance marketing exhibition for a plastics manufacturer and springy shoes (n. p.).
Reavis continued his critique by claiming that the Challenge was Monza
‘tweaked’. He also recalled far more significant, memorable running achieve­
ments against opponents in Kipchoge’s repertoire and concluded, ‘Running at
its best makes time immaterial, incidental to human interaction and friction of
racing. Once you make time the focus, as this sport has to its detriment for
decades, it’s the people who become incidental, like the 41 prop pacers in
Vienna’ (n. p.).
We share these observations and opinions about what a marathon is and
what makes marathon records meaningful. What Kipchoge did and what
the Challenge represents could not have been conceived, let alone be
carried out, without the backdrop of more than 100 years of continuous
official marathon races and runners who have set marathon records (Caesar
2015). The Challenge was an exploitation and trivialization of this history
and the marathon community. It placed a premium on time, record-seeking,
technology, experts, corporate largesse, and the media to manufacture
a ‘marathon’ and buy a ‘record’13 that only makes sense and possesses
meaning because marathon races are sanctioned by established organiza­
tions and recognized by most of the sporting public. Moreover, practice
sessions, warm-ups, time trials and staged experiments to break records in
athletic sports have no lasting, satisfactory staying power and cannot
stimulate the public’s imagination unlike contests, which explains why so
few of the former remain in the public mind. Now that Kipchoge has passed
the Challenge ‘marathon’ test, it is likely the sporting community will be less
excited when the 2-h barrier is indeed toppled in a major marathon race.
Finally, we disagree with Bisceglio’s (2019) assessment that, ‘Kipchoge’s
[Challenge] performance was not necessarily better than some of his other
great feats, but it’s hard to argue that it was any worse’ (n. p.). We submit his
sub 2-h ‘marathon’ run was worse, not because of his unprecedented
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
15
performance in the INEOS 1:59 Challenge, but that he failed to demonstrate
his superiority against worthy opponents in a sanctioned marathon race. It is
only in the latter context, we argue, that a marathon record has any relevant
meaning and lasting import.
Notes
1. This expression, and the title of this article were borrowed from Bisceglio (2019).
2. We contend that how and to what degree sport is packaged and dissemi­
nated by the media and other corporate stakeholders contributes to perfor­
mance enhancement. Kipchoge’s run was specifically designed to break the
2-h ‘marathon’ barrier and was promoted in the media, on a website,
through sales of apparel watched by 20,000 spectators who lined the course
with live coverage of the event (Caesar 2019b). Numerous articles worldwide
were written before and after. To what extent his performance was
enhanced is hard to say, but it would be equally hard to claim no appreci­
able influence.
3. If each of the 41 pacesetters was paid $50,000, the total comes to over
two million dollars.
4. The first author would like to thank Raffy Dotan for raising the notion of selfpropulsion and running.
5. For the remainder of this essay, we will refer exclusively to athletic records
because sports records as such do not apply to the topic under discussion. See
also, Hämäläinen (2013).
6. Parry (2006) also describes in-contest records where times, distances or scores
are noted in specific competitions and contexts, and accumulative records that
refer to a series of performances.
7. See also, Borge (2015) who examines how sport records are contextualized as
social facts, in part by how they are response-sensitive and elicit specific
reactions from those in the sport community to records set under controversial
circumstances.
8. Since readers of this journal will be familiar with Kretchmar’s analysis of tests
and contests, we will only highlight the main features of these themes.
9. As part of a discussion on competitors taking the same test, Kretchmar’s
footnote 19 is faulty because a frontrunner is by definition a pacer, and all
runners may avail themselves of pacers whether they know or don’t know these
quasi-competitors are in the race. There are however qualitative differences
between paced and unpaced running races (see Rosenberg and Sailors 2014).
10. The idea of tests and contests being dependent on a testing/contesting community
is superbly captured in the recent Netflix drama miniseries The Queen’s Gambit.
11. See Rosenberg and Sailors (2014) to read why Bannister’s sub 4-h mile record
received official recognition in contrast to the non-ratification of Kipchoge’s sub
two-hour ‘marathon’ record.
12. See also Morgan’s (2020) discussion of the seemingly irreconcilable moral
conflict between an amateur ideal and professional model of the purposes
and meanings of sport.
13. This should be read as a criticism of the trappings of INEOS, not of the motives
or sincerity of Eliud Kipchoge.
16
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
criticisms and suggestions of an earlier draft of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Bain, M. (16 January 2020). Nike’s Vaporfly Marathon Shoes Face a Potential Ban from
Competition. Retrieved 5 June 2020 at: https://qz.com/1786040/nikes-vaporflymarathon-shoes-face-apotential-ban-from-competition/
Bale, J. 2004. Roger Bannister and the Four-Minute Mile. London and New York:
Routledge.
Bannister, R. 1955. First Four Minutes. London: Putnam.
Bascomb, N. 2004. The Perfect Mile: Three Athletes, One Goal, and Less than Four Minutes
to Achieve It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Beamish, R., and I. Ritchie. 2006. Fastest, Highest, Strongest: A Critique of highPerformance Sport. New York: Routledge.
Bellware, K. (15 October 2019). “Lasers, Rabbits and New Nikes: How the 2-hour
Marathon Barrier Was Broken.” The Washington Post. Retrieved on 18 November
2019 at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/15/lasers-rabbits-newkicks-how-hour-marathon-barrier-was-broken/
Bisceglio, P. (13 October 2019). “The Greatest, Fakest World Record.” The Atlantic.
Retrieved 18 November 2019 at: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/
2019/10/kipchoges-sub-two-hour-marathon-how-legitimate-it/599974/
Bloom, B. (11 October 2019). “Eliud Kipchoge’s Extraordinary and Controversial Twohour Marathon Attempt - Everything You Need to Know.” The Telegraph. Retrieved
on 18 November 2019 at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2019/10/11/eliudkipchoges-extraordinary-controversial-two-hour-marathon/
Borge, S. 2015. “Sport Records are Social Facts.” Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 9 (4):
351–362. doi:10.1080/17511321.2015.1121286.
Burgess, M. (14 October 2019). The Incredible Science behind Eliud Kipchoge’s 1:59
Marathon. Retrieved on 18 November 2019 at: https://wired.co.uk/article/eliudkipchoge-ineos-159.marathon
Caesar, E. 2015. Two Hours: The Quest to Run the Impossible Marathon. New York: Simon
& Schuster Paperbacks.
Caesar, E. (11 October 2019a). “Inside the Race to Break the Two-hour Marathon.” The
New Yorker. Retrieved on 18 November 2019 at: https://www.newyorker.com/
sports/sporting-scene/inside-the-race-to-break-the-two-hour-marathon-eliudkipchoge
Caesar, E. (12 October 2019b). “Eliud Kipchoge Breaks the Two-hour Barrier in the
Marathon”. The New Yorker. Retrieved 18 November 2019 at: https://www.newyor
ker.com/sports/sporting-scene/eliud-kipchoge-breaks-the-two-hour-barrier-in-themarathon
Dyer, B. 2015. “The Controversy of Sports Technology: A Systematic Review.”
SpringerPlus 4:524. doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1331-x.
JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPORT
17
Fouché, R. 2017. Game Changer: The Technoscientific Revolution in Sports. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hämäläinen, M. 2013. “Two Kinds of Sport Records.” Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 7 (4):
378–390. doi:10.1080/17511321.2013.845242.
Hodgetts, R. (17 January 2020). "Eliud Kipchoge's Record-breaking Nike Shoes Under
Scrutiny." CNN.com. Retrieved June 5, 2020 at: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/
sport/nike-world-athletics-vaporfly-ban-spt-intl/index.html
Hutchinson, A. 2018. Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human
Performance. New York: William Morrow.
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). (2018-2019). Competition
Rules. Retrieved 18 November 2019 at: file://Downloads/IAAF%20Competition%
20Rules%202018 2019,%20in%20force%20from%201%20%20(5).pdf
J. S. (13 October 2019). “Eliud Kipchoge’s Historic Sub-two-hour Marathon Will Carry an
Asterisk.” The Economist. Retrieved on 18 November 2019 at: https://www.econo
mist.com/game-theory/2019/10/13/eliud-kipchoges-historic-sub-two-hourmarathon-will-carry-an-asterisk
Keoghan, S. (17 January 2020). ‘It’s Just Ludicrous’: Australian Marathon Running Great
Backs Call for Nike Shoe Ban. Retrieved on 5 June 2020 at: https://www.stuff.co.nz/
sport/other-sports/118852585/its-just-ludicrous-australian-marathon-runninggreat-backs-call-for-nike-shoe-ban
Kim, S. (15 January 2020). Nike’s Record-breaking Vaporfly Shoe Set to Be Banned by
World Athletics. Retrieved on 5 June 2020 at: https://www.newsweek.com/nikevaporfly-shoe-ban-world-athletics-1482388
Kretchmar, R. S., and T. Elcombe. 2007. “In Defense of Competition and Winning.” In
Ethics in Sport, edited by W. J. Morgan, 181–194. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Kretchmar, R. S. 2019. “Getting an Edge: A Jurisprudence of Sport: The Nature and Value of
Sporting Tests and Contests.” New York Law School Law Review 63 (2): 219–233.
Kretchmar, R. S., M. Dyerson, M. P. Llewellyn, and J. Gleaves. 2017. History and
Philosophy of Sport and Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Loland, S. 2001. Record Sports: An Ecological Critique and a Reconstruction. Journal of
the Philosophy of Sport 28: 127–139.
Loland, S. 2009. “The Ethics of Performance-enhancing Technology in Sport.” Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport 36 (2): 152–161. doi:10.1080/00948705.2009.9714754.
Magdalinski, T. 2009. Sport, Technology and the Body: The Nature of Performance.
New York: Routledge.
Morgan, W. J. 2006. Why Sport Morally Matters. New York and London: Routledge.
Morgan, W.J. 2020. Sport and Moral Conflict. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Nevill, A. M., and G. Whyte. 2005. “Are There Limits to Running World Records?”
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 37 (10): 1785–1788. doi:10.1249/01.
mss.0000181676.62054.79.
Parry, J. 2006. “The Idea of the Record.” Sport in History 26 (2, August): 197–214.
doi:10.1080/17460260600786864.
Ramsak, B. (2019, October 12). Kipchoge Breaks Two-hour Barrier in Vienna. Retrieved
18 November 2019 at: https://www.worldathletics.org/news/report/eliud-kipchoge
-breaks-two-hoursvienna
Reavis, T. (10 October 2019). Eliud Kipchoge’s IENOS 1:59 Challenge. Retrieved 18
November 2019 at: https://tonireavis.com/2019/10/10/eliud-kipchoges-ineos-159challenge
18
D. ROSENBERG AND P. R. SAILORS
Reid, H. 2017. “Why Olympia Matters for Modern Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of
Sport 44 (2): 159–173. doi:10.1080/00948705.2017.1327323.
Reuters Staff. (24 January 2020). Nike’s Vaporfly Running Shoes and Tumbling Records.
Retrieved on 5 June 2020 at: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-athletics-shoefactbox-idUKKBN1ZN0MT
Reynolds, T. (19 November 2019). Eliud Kipchoge: The Man, the Methods, and
Controversies behind ‘Moon Landing Moment.’ Retrieved on 5 June 2020 at:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/50460861
Rintala, J. 1995. “Sport and Technology: Human Questions in a World of Machines.” Journal
of Sport and Social Issues 19 (1): 62–75. doi:10.1177/019372395019001005.
Rosenberg, D. 1989. Competition, Social Interaction and Sport. Knoxville, TN:
Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee.
Rosenberg, D., and P. Sailors. 2014. “Racers, Pacers, Gender and Records: On the
Meaning of Sport Competition and Competitors.” Sport, Ethics and Philosophy
8 (2): 172–190. doi:10.1080/17511321.2014.933868.
Ryall, E. 2013. “Conceptual Problems with Performance Enhancing Technology in
Sport.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 73: 129–143. doi:10.1017/
S1358246113000234.
Sailors, P. R. 2009. “More than a Pair of Shoes: Running and Technology.” Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport 36 (2): 207–216. doi:10.1080/00948705.2009.9714757.
Sailors, P. R. 2019. “Chips and Showmanship: Running and Technology.” Philosophies
4 (2): 30. doi:10.3390/philosophies4020030.
Willemsen, E. (12 October 2019). “Kipchoge First under 2 Hours for Marathon but No
Record”. PBS News Hour. Retrieved 18 November 2019 at: https://www.pbs.org/
newshour/world/kipchoge-first-under-2-hours-for-marathon-but-no-record
Woodward, A. (15 October 2019). “Kenyan Runner Eliud Kipchoge Finished a Marathon
in under 2 Hours, Sprinting at a 4:34-mile Pace. Here’s Why His Record Doesn’t
Count.” Business Insider. Retrieved 18 November 2019 at:https://www.businessinsi
der.com/kenyan-marathoner-broke-2-hour-record-doesnt-count-2019-10
World Athletics. (31 January 2020). World Athletics Modifies Rules Governing
Competition Shoes for Elite Athletes. Retrieved on 5 June 2020 at: https://www.
worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/modified-rules-shoes