WWTBAM Bored

I didn't know there was an electoral college for marathons....

WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!

Estonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco

Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco

Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --Bob

I can see both sides of the argument having merit. Based on the article (and some of the comments - I quit reading after the 3 oldest pages), the basic reason for the separation is for the protection of the elite runners (from the mass) and to control drug testing. One of the comments was that "elite" times should range from 2h15m to 2h30m, not over 3 hours. If that's true, then these runners weren't too elite, anyway. I think they should keep the separation, but tell them not to loaf, as the winners will be awarded based on time, not class. Any non-elite runner placing extraordinarily high could be drug tested on the spot. The arguments that the "elite" runners didn't have a chance to pace someone outrunning them could just as well go the other way. Had she been running against the elites, she may have kicked their asses even more than she did.

Estonut wrote:WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!

Never underestimate the power of the smartass comment from me.

Besides, this wasn't about THIS election.

I was actually referring to a not-so-long ago election.

You know, Hayes-Tilden?

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco

Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --Bob

This would be a better argument if the declared winner had run faster than 3:06. If a group of so-called "elite" women runners cannot beat 3 hours, they are not worthy of that designation. Since the young woman with the 2:55 time did not gain the benefit of running with other runners that could pace her and push her (which is the point of having a group of "elites",) she did all the work for her own race unaided. Thus, her performance was far above that of the earlier runners -- far more than the time difference -- and she should be rewarded accordingly with first place, in my opinion.

To put the times of those "elite" runners in perspective, a 3:06 would rank no higher than 653rd place among women marathon runners for 2007-2008 in U.S. races, according to this site: http://www.letsrun.com/2008/womensmarathonlist.php

Estonut wrote:WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!

Estonut is right--this was no place for a political comment.

This article was really crying out for a Phone Game-Audition analogy!

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco

Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --Bob

This would be a better argument if the declared winner had run faster than 3:06. If a group of so-called "elite" women runners cannot beat 3 hours, they are not worthy of that designation. Since the young woman with the 2:55 time did not gain the benefit of running with other runners that could pace her and push her (which is the point of having a group of "elites",) she did all the work for her own race unaided. Thus, her performance was far above that of the earlier runners -- far more than the time difference -- and she should be rewarded accordingly with first place, in my opinion.

To put the times of those "elite" runners in perspective, a 3:06 would rank no higher than 653rd place among women marathon runners for 2007-2008 in U.S. races, according to this site: http://www.letsrun.com/2008/womensmarathonlist.php

That's what I was trying to get at, Uday. Not as eloquently as you did, of course. Not being a runner, I don't know how much the terrain has to do with marathon times, but, as a cyclist, I know that every uphill I have to climb leads to a downhill I can haul ass down.

Oh, my.

What an interesting story.

Estonut wrote:
That's what I was trying to get at, Uday. Not as eloquently as you did, of course. Not being a runner, I don't know how much the terrain has to do with marathon times, but, as a cyclist, I know that every uphill I have to climb leads to a downhill I can haul ass down.

We said the same thing, but I just took longer to say it. To be fair, the terrain makes a huge difference in marathons, because running uphill uses one set of muscles, and running downhill uses another set. Downhill may be easier, but it's not coasting.

There's one other point I didn't mention, but the article mentioned one official who said the faster runner should have "declared herself" as elite. Perhaps that's the standard practice in San Francisco, but I had never before heard of a race where an entrant could "declare" himself or herself to be within a particular group. My experience (or, more accurately, the experience of my sons) is that the race organizers invited specific runners to run among the front group. Otherwise, everybody would try to be near the front to avoid a slow start in a big crowd.

silvercamaro wrote: There's one other point I didn't mention, but the article mentioned one official who said the faster runner should have "declared herself" as elite. Perhaps that's the standard practice in San Francisco, but I had never before heard of a race where an entrant could "declare" himself or herself to be within a particular group. My experience (or, more accurately, the experience of my sons) is that the race organizers invited specific runners to run among the front group. Otherwise, everybody would try to be near the front to avoid a slow start in a big crowd.

Exactly.

I covered track and field for 15 years and never heard about a runner "declaring."

Estonut wrote:WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!

Sheesh, it was a smack on the electoral college! There are plenty of political comments to grumble over on this Bored, but that isn't one of them.....

lb13

I swearz I had the fastest time in the race to the Lounge.

One of the reasons for having an "elite" group is to prevent these runners from getting caught in traffic with, in some cases, thousands of weekend runners, which makes it much more difficult for them to get to the front. Unless the woman who won was at the very front of her group of runners, she would probably have had to battle her way through much more traffic than any of the elites (there usually are 50-100 elites in major races).

And yes, the terrain and weather conditions can make a big difference in marathon times, which is why there are no world, national or Olympic marathon records. Each race stands on its own.

Update

In short:
Nike gives her same prizes as previously-declared "winner" and gets rid of the "elite" class for this race.

I haven't been able to find any Official Rules, but from the FAQ for the event:

WHAT PRIZES WILL BE AWARDED, AND IN WHAT CATEGORIES?
Commemorative memorabilia designed by Tiffany & Co. will be given to the top (3) overall women and men in the Marathon and Half Marathon. Age group awards will be provided and will be given to the top 3 females and top 3 males in each age division. Age group awards will be mailed after the event.

Based on this, I think Nike could have had a heck of a lawsuit on their hands if they had not capitulated and done the right thing.