A record-breaking controversy has emerged in the world of track cycling, leaving fans and athletes alike scratching their heads. The question on everyone's lips: how can a record be broken if no one knows what it is?
This week, Katie Archibald and Sophie Lewis were celebrated as the new world record holders in the Madison Kilo at the London 3 Day event. But here's where it gets controversial: it seems their achievement may not be as groundbreaking as initially thought.
The Madison Kilo, a thrilling race involving two riders completing a timed kilometer, has an intriguing history. The men's record, set by Ed Clancy and Jon Mould in 2018, stands at an impressive 53.553 seconds. However, the women's record was believed to be non-existent - until last Friday, that is.
Due to the Madison Kilo's non-championship status, the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) doesn't officially track this record. Instead, cycling enthusiasts refer to Wikipedia's 'List of world records in track cycling', which notably lacks an entry for the women's Madison Kilo. Thus, Archibald and Lewis's time of 1:00.081, achieved at London's Lee Valley Velodrome, was assumed to be the new benchmark.
The crowd, the live feed commentator Carlton Kirby, and even the racing community at large all congratulated the duo. But four days later, Archibald cast a shadow of doubt over their 'sort of' record.
In an Instagram post, the two-time Olympic champion wrote, "Apparently this weekend was the first time a women's Mad-Kilo time has been written down... (Seemingly) any documentation of the times has been lost." And this is the part most people miss: a potential record-breaking performance from Dutch former pro Kirsten Wild and her partner Dani Rowe.
Wild, a nine-time track world champion, contacted Archibald, reminding her of their own attempt at the Madison Kilo during the Revolution Series in 2018. "Me and Dani were fast, or at least felt fast," Wild said. An old Facebook post from the Revolution Series confirmed Wild and Rowe's achievement, with a time of 59.564 seconds - a remarkable four-tenths of a second faster than Archibald and Lewis's time seven years later.
Archibald acknowledged their potential, saying, "I'm convinced we could have gone sub 60 [seconds] with some practice." But the bigger question remains: why wasn't this record documented? And will it be recognized now?
This story raises important questions about the importance of record-keeping in sports. Should unofficial records be given more attention? Or is the focus solely on the official, UCI-recognized records?
What do you think? Should Archibald and Lewis's time be recognized as a record, despite the lack of official documentation? Or is the focus on the UCI records the right approach? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
