"The B.A.A. reserves the right to reject any entry, issue special invitations, cancel the race, expand or further limit the field, or adjust the entry procedures. The Boston Marathon includes a field of elite, invited athletes. Regardless of qualifying performance, selection and entry into the elite field is subject to review, and acceptances will be made on a limited basis. Entry into the field of elite, invited athletes will be at the sole discretion of the B.A.A. Entry into the Boston Marathon will be at the discretion of the B.A.A." (from the BAA web site)
On Sunday, the Boston Globe published a lengthy piece by Shira Springer and Bob Hohler that was thick with criticism of the BAA and the Boston Marathon for, among other things, shutting out runners with qualifying times in favor of those with invitational or charity entries. (Boston is Caught in a Numbers Game, 12/19/10)
I strongly disagree with both the substance and tone of the piece, which pulls out all the stops to make the BAA look, by turns, incompetent, avaricious, elitist, and insensitive. It's easy enough to cherry-pick a few anecdotes and create that impression. But in so doing, the article doesn't shed any light on the true issues involved in managing entries for the marathon, and makes a scapegoat of charity runners, who have little to do with the problem.
But let's back up a bit. On October 18th, the BAA opened online entry to the 2011 race. It was the first year for the online system, and as the day approached word spread on message boards and email threads encouraging runners to enter as soon as the site went live at 9:00 a.m.. That's what people did, and there were problems handling the unexpectedly high volume of entries. In the end, the 22,000 open slots for qualified runners were filled in a little over eight hours, compared to the 66 days it took to fill the 2010 race.
Almost immediately, one began to hear stories of people who had been unable to enter, or who hadn't had a chance to try before registration closed. There was anger, and those who had been shut out started voicing their resentment towards the BAA for providing roughly 5,000 entries for non-qualified runners.
The New York Times published an article describing the rise of charity running (Charities Gain Traction in Marathons), helping to fan the outcry against the dilution of the Boston "race" with competitors who weren't actually there to compete.
But all of this resentment against the roughly 10% of runners who do so for charities misses the forest for the trees. Obviously, the BAA marathon does not have infinite capacity and the limited supply of entries combined with the high demand to run have created a situation in which some people who want to run won't be able to. the Globe article has an unintentionally revealing story about a doctor who missed the online entry because he was in surgery all day. He immediately ponies up $1600 to get a "complimentary" entry from a medical group. Well surely if the value of an entry is $1600 and the BAA is only charging $250, then demand will outstrip supply -- even if there weren't a single charity runner in the race.
As for the purity of the race... please! The Boston Marathon has never been pure. Since its inception in 1897 there have always been fringe elements in the race -- jokers and characters and those who want to call attention to this or that cause. People run with costumes, with funny hats, with three-piece suits, as well as with messages of hope and inspiration. Remember the original marathon? Phidippides didn't run to compete but to deliver a message. Ever since then, people have used the marathon as a symbol of something more than just a race.
In any case, I know plenty of people who have run the BAA race for charity. They are real runners who happen to be motivated by something other than the personal satisfaction of a PR. They train hard -- just like "real" runners -- and they suffer the same injuries, disappointments, and sense of accomplishment. Maybe it dilutes the overall quality of the race, but I have no problem with charity runners, and no problem with the BAA reserving a small fraction of its spots for them.
Ultimately, the BAA will come up with a different scheme that reserves some number of entries for people who run a particular time. the other entries will go by lottery or something. Things will change over the next couple of years, as they figure out the right formula, but these changes are inevitable. In the mean time, one thing the BAA could do is say that anyone who qualified for 2011 but didn't get in is automatically pre-qualified for 2012.
And if that's not good enough, there's the age-old solution for anyone who wants to run but doesn't have a number: run it as a bandit. That's also a tradition as old as the marathon itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for always being able to write so eloquently. It is often what I'm thinbking and feeling. I read the article first thing Sunday and felt the same way and almost mustered up the energy to email the writers. I may just send the post to your blog. Obviously disgruntled runners who didn't get in have made enough noise that someone thought a good idea to write the article so they could be heard.
The BAA is a victim of it's own success. If I recollect right it has only been since the 100th edition that the field was even this big with relaxation of time standards. The race use to be much smaller. It's great that running and marathoning has grown in popularity but hopefully the popularity won't create bitterness like this.
Hi,
I agree with you but one minor correction,
This was not the first year for the online system. Boston has been allowing online entries for over 7 years. (probably even longer than that but that was the first time I registered online myself)
Post a Comment