Scripted Spectacles: Technology and Kipchoge`s Sub Two-Hour ‘Marathon Record’

Breaking records in modern running races has excited sport enthusiasts for more than a century. Perhaps the most famous of these events was Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile on 6 May 1954 in England. Fast forward 65 years, when on 12 October 2019 in Vienna, Kenyan runner Eliud Kipchoge became the first person to run a ‘marathon’ known as the INEOS 1:59 Challenge, in less than two hours in a time of 1:59:40.2. Yet his record was not ratified by World Athletics. Why?

Some of the reasons include: he was the sole runner designated to break the record; he had 41 world-class pacesetters rotate 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 carefully selected and level course specifically on a date and time that provided him with optimal environmental conditions. Other factors that assisted Kipchoge were his use of Nike Alphafly shoes; being trained and monitored for months, up to and during the Challenge, by an extensive team of sport scientists and organizers; preparing in Kenya in the same time zone as Vienna; and being sponsored by INEOS, a multinational petrochemical company founded and headed by Sir James Radcliffe, the richest person in the UK, which spared no expense to break the two-hour ‘marathon’ barrier.

The response to Kipchoge’s scripted record-breaking feat was mixed – from elation to the assertion it was a fake. In this oral presentation I will argue that the role of technology in Kipchoge’s ‘marathon’ achievement makes his scripted spectacle and record meaningless.

To develop my position, I will: 1) describe a previous scripted event Kiphchoge was involved in where he failed to run a ‘marathon` in less than two hours; 2) explain why his 2019 ‘marathon record` was not ratified; and 3) present four areas of thought to support my argument that demonstrate why Kipchoge`s ‘marathon record’ is meaningless. In the conclusion I will respond to possible criticisms of my argument and comment on what counts as a meaningful marathon record.