Opening Statement
The Lounge is currently taking up space in Utah - the beehive state. I am not sure if this refers to the hairdo or the insect.
Several weeks ago, the New York Times stirred the running pot once again by featuring this article. Essentially, it was an attempt at discourse that came off as an argument against slower runners at Marathons, thus prompting retorts from many a running blogger. I wanted to mull on it for a few weeks before responding. That time is here.
Let me say that if I were to classify myself as a runner, I would be considered a middle of the pack runner - but toward the back of said pack. There are plenty of people who would classify me as slow and others who would consider me as fast (or at least faster than them).
The arguments being made for accommodating slower runners include better visibility for a race because of participation numbers; higher financial return for the host city because of increased runners and visitors; and higher fundraising numbers, also because of increased participation.
Some of the arguments against slower runners include diminishing the accomplishment of "running" a marathon when someone can walk every mile and receive a medal; the purist point of view that running a marathon should be "exactly" that - "running" a marathon; and budgetary costs to keep courses open longer and provide medical services to larger bodies of runners.
Arguments aside, USATF, the governing body that sets down the rules and certifies the marathon courses, has opted not to do anything to stem the perceived dilution of the marathon product. Seriously, USATF could easily put a standard time limit in the rule book. Any course that opts to provide for longer time limits doesn't get certified. If you don't think that won't get the attention of Race Directors, pull up the FAQ for any marathon and one of the questions is always - Is this a Boston Qualifier?
I am not necessarily advocating the above action. But the sport, whether we're talking about a 5K race or a 100 mile race, has the ability to determine its direction. The current course of action has led to growing numbers of runners entering races, slower average finishing times, and a base of "committed" runners who feel as if their accomplishments are being cheapened. The reality is, the first statement carries a lot of weight - isn't it the goal to grow your sport?
At one point, running a marathon was like playing Major League Baseball. You pretty much had to be an elite or up and coming runner to even consider giving it a shot. Nowadays, most marathons are like the local little league; every kid can sign up; every kid is guaranteed to play; and at the end of the season, each kid gets a trophy.
I can understand why runners who train five (plus) days a week, in all types of weather, would forego wearing a marathon finisher shirt because the dude down the street with the jelly roll has one exactly like it and wears it every time he steps outside. In the spirit of Pheidippedes, a marathon is meant to be a challenge, not a walk in the park. However, many races have either extended the length of time the course is open to as much as nine hours (a few have no time limits at all) or have allowed slower runners/walkers to begin their quest hours before the official marathon starts, while still being eligible for all the finisher swag.
This is how the marathon has evolved. The event has grown by introducing the half marathon distance and catering to slower runners. As a runner - fast or slow, you can take it or leave it. Heck, there are plenty of ultras to be run. Seeing a marathon that bills itself as "walker friendly" should ring the same bells as a 5K advertised as a "fun run." Personally, I avoid "fun runs" not because of slower runners, but because of a lack of etiquette. That said, I support any runner, regardless of their distance or speed.
Let me fall back on the challenge aspect of running a marathon, because I think this it what it boils down to. I believe that many runners often forget that the challenge is different for each person who laces up their shoes. I believe there are some runners who cannot fathom the effort it takes for other runners to remain dedicated to a goal. I believe there are runners who determine a fellow runner's worth merely by their finishing time. Which is sad. But if there is such animosity, why hasn't someone began a series of races that caters to those people who are not good enough to qualify for the Olympic Trials, but are apparently so much better than those of us who have enabled cities across the country to put on a marathon by virtue of our participation.
I'll have more to say next week - given the opportunity.
Listening to: Would I Lie to You - Eurythmics
Closing Argument: True story, when my best friend ran his first marathon, he missed the cutoff by perhaps five minutes. Five minutes and no medal. He trained, but drew a bad day to run a marathon. However, there were many individuals who started two hours before the gun went off that received medals, shirts and mugs. This was fair how?
