I just finished reading the latest featured story on MarathonGuide.com shedding light on a questionable tactic by charities to ensure all their folks earn a marathon medal by bussing slower runners/walkers to cut off points. It's based on the Marine Corp Marathon organizers asking a group of Canadian women to return their medals after learning they fell short of running all 26.2 miles. Their organizer in explaining her reasons said this is employed by other charities, including Team in Training.
This disturbs me on several levels. Is this really standard procedure? And if it is, how must it feel to be caught in the crosshairs. I'm trying to sort if deep down those that earn a medal this way feel their individual victory is somehow tarnished, or if in realizing others 'win' this way it's justified.
I've always supported friends running for a cause and I've had many uplifting moments running alongside charity runners on a course. The exception, ironically, was the Marine Corps Marathon. The last time I ran it, back in 1999, charity runners in the rear got antsy and moved around the rest of us, creating a huge bottleneck just after the start. But by and large, I admire these folks for what they've done to improve someone else's situation as well as their own.
The exception is Boston: I still maintain that it's fine to run for charity but only after you qualify like the rest of us. Not everyone agrees with me, of course.
7 comments:
This doesn't sound right to me. I don't think it necessarily cheapens the medal for anyone who finishes all 26.2, because they know they legitimately earned it. But if you don't finish, you shouldn't accept the medal.
This will not help charities gain any respect in the running community. I agree, though, that it also doesn't sully the medals of those that went the distance.
You've been much nicer on this group than other message board threads I've seen over the past couple of days. The action of that group is unacceptable. Hopefully it's just a cae of one bad apple and not, as the charity organizer claims, standard practice by every charity group.
My simple stance is this: charity runners who finish the course - fine. Charity runners who cut the course - no medals.
P.S. Thanks for your nice post to my blog. I'll link to you and keep checking in.
I can totally relate to the qualifying statement. It seems like race organizers can make a choice whether to keep their race in high regard among the running community, to try to pack in as many runners and non-runners alike - I suppose to take advantage of the available earnings - or they can try to find some middle ground. If it is open to non-runners, then there should be some effort to separate them into pace groups, educate and encourage the non-runners, and build respect for the efforts that serious runners are putting into the event. I love to encourage people to take up running and I think the charity groups are a good way to do that, but I also feel like it somewhat cheapens the experience for serious runners when people who made little effort claim to have made the same achievements - or worse yet, when they push to the front of the start line just to stroll along the course.
Maybe the sponsors should come up with a new medal that says "Participant" . Heck, they get the t-shirt.....keep the medals for the true marathoners.
Wide random thoughts: I say: Let those scads of charity runners have their own private races so they don't get in the way of regularl and serious marathon runners. Such running events just might not wash on their own, but look at those Races for the Cure???
I advise various Big Race organizers to think about it.
Would all those $85 admission fees be missed. You tell me.
Nancy B. in Maryland
Thanks, Nancy. For those that don't know -- which is almost all of you reading this -- Nancy's husband Roger has run all 30 Marine Corp Marathons -- a rarified group indeed.
Post a Comment