Chris Maddocks, the IAAF Race Walking Committee, the WAC, and the IOC are all focused on the wrong issue. It is not whether the 50km walk should be kept alive, but rather if the mode of progression in Olympic and International Race-Walking can still qualify as walking. Photographic evidence shows that in too many instances contact with the ground is not maintained, and the style is more akin to straight legged skipping or straight legged running. With a very fast rate of leg movement the human eye has difficulty detecting infringements and needs to be enhanced by photo evidence.
This brings the discipline into disrepute and moves it into the zero credibility zone. Other sports and other disciplines do not have a problem with photographic evidence, so why do race-walkers? Is it because they fear being exposed as frauds, cheats who play Russian roulette with the judges?
The British race-walkers of the 70's and 80's - Nihill, Thompson, Middleton, Selby, Sutherland, Lawton, and many,many, others of that era, were without question walking, and in those days it was one call and you were out. It is the farce of the current mode of progression that needs dealing with and not the entertainment value of scrapping the 50km and opting for a shorter distance. If International race-walkers are not walking then the discipline is reduced to somekind of bizarre pantomime that cannot be taken seriously.
I would have more respect for an Olympic egg and spoon race, than watch the current crop of "walkers" mock, debase, and despise the art of walking.
Comment