Let Them Double

Indoor track is underway, and this week Bay State teams will be trekking to the Reggie Lewis center for their first meets of the new season.

The return of track also marks the return of an ancient argument about whether runners in the Bay State League should be allowed to double in distance events. I've never really understood what's so controversial about allowing high school athletes to run multiple races longer than 300m (400m outdoors). Why does it inspire such heated debate? Those who would preserve this unfair EXCEPTION to the normal participation rules typically make one of the following arguments: coaches would double their best runners too frequently and harm them in some way; or some coaches would double their athletes and others would not (out of principle), thereby creating an unfair advantage for the less principled coach; or doubling is inherently unsafe for athletes of this age. I hope I'm not distorting any of the standard reasons given for the prohibition.

But let's back up, and think about this for a few moments...

Like any other high school sport, Track and Field competition is governed by a set of rules intended to balance a variety of goals, among them:

- Fostering competition
- Encouraging participation
- Ensuring a safe competition environment
- Protecting the health and well-being of athletes
- Respecting the integrity of the sport

Inevitably, situations arise in which these various goals are in conflict. For example, safety concerns have led to much more stringent rules about pole-vaulting. This has probably led to less participation in that event. In this case, the goal of safety trumped the goal of increased participation.

Whether you, personally, agree with the SPECIFIC RULES or not, there is at least a reason for having rules limiting participation in high school track and field competitions. These rules reflect multiple goals, but I think the main ones are respecting the health and well-being of the athlete and fostering team competition by making it harder for a single athlete to dominate a meet. Hence, athletes are limited to a certain number of running events, field events, and relays. Again, whether you agree or disagree with these limits, you should recognize that the rules are there to balance competing interests. Other high school sport also enforce their own limits (for example, number of contests permissible in a week). It's important to acknowledge that the distance double debate is not, fundamentally, about whether ANY participation limits are valid, but whether the particular restriction on distance events is justified.

Speaking of participation, it's worth mentioning that no high school sport mandates MINIMUM or EQUAL participation. In other words, if a high school basketball coach chooses to play only seven of his twelve players in a game, there is no rule violation. If a track and field coach chooses to enter only a single competitor (or no competitor) in the high jump, there is no violation. In other words, there is no guarantee in the rules that every kid gets a chance, admirable as that might be.

So if the debate isn't about participation limits, and if it's not about minimum participation, what is it about?

The distance double debate is, fundamentally, about whether the distance events (600 and up indoors, 800 and up outdoors) require an EXCEPTION to the existing rules, an ADDITIONAL rule that singles out these events for special treatment.

Before answering that, let's consider what IS allowed under the current rules:

The rules allow doubling in two sprinting events, or a sprinting event and a distance event (the 300 and mile, say). The rules allow competing in consecutive events, regardless of how little rest the athlete might have (e.g. the 110 hurdles and 100 outdoors, or the boys 2-mile followed by the 4x400 relay). If I remember them correctly, the BSL rules for outdoor track allow participation in four events that all involve "sprinting" -- the 100, 200, long jump, and triple jump.

The point is, the rules allow all sorts of things that are pretty damn hard and that might be considered not in the best interests of your average high school athlete. However, in order not to become buried in well-meaning prohibitions covering every possible scenario that could create stress, the rules make an assumption that coaches are capable of making participation decisions that balance the interests of the team with the well-being and development of the individual athletes.

And yet... the distance races have been singled out for an exception to the current rules that limits participation beyond what is already in place for other events.

There is only one possible, logical reason for making an exception for the longer events, and that is the argument that there is something inherently different about these events that justifies special treatment and the need to enforce one set of limits for most of the events, and a different set of limits for a few of them. So what is inherently different about distance events?

One thing that is different is that they are the only events in track and field that depend heavily on a well-developed aerobic system. Thus, the distance events are often the refuge of athletes who do not possess superior strength, speed, or leaping ability, but do exhibit persistence in training and a high tolerance for discomfort in competition. Many a high school distance runner never excelled at other sports when younger because almost without exception those other sports require strength, speed, or agility... but not endurance. Compare that to sprinters or jumpers, who are usually stars on other sports teams (football, soccer, basketball...)

Another difference is that distance events have the reputation of being "grueling" in a way that other events are not. Distance runners promote this myth themselves in a bid for greater status. (Think of the XC t-shirt slogans you've seen -- "My sport is your sport's punishment," "If cross country were any easier it would be called FOOTBALL," and so on.) I'll admit that distance runners have an absurdly high tolerance for long, tedious training. But as a miler who used to run on a 4x400 relay, I am willing to state for the record that the mile is cake compared to the final 50m death march at the end of a quarter mile. The two mile? Against most schools the two mile was easier than most of our training runs.

But opponents of distance doubling will still argue that distance doubling is simply not in the best interests of the young distance runner. I do respect that opinion, even if I think it is far too broad a statement to make about all the young distance runners in the world. I would point out, however, that a coach who holds that opinion is never forced to double a distance runner. Opponents of distance doubling argue that if THEY do not double their athletes, they will be at a competitive disadvantage against coaches who DO choose to double their athletes. That might be true. And the same thing is true if I choose not to quadruple my sprinters because I don't think it is in their best interest to compete in so many events. Actually, there are many examples of admirable personal beliefs that put one at a competitive disadvantage. This is another example of how the sport expects coaches to work out the norms for participation based on their knowledge of the individual kids and their experience, rather than have it dictated to them.

(As an aside, I remember when I used to coach an 8th-grade travel basketball team and I insisted -- stubbornly -- on playing every kid on the team about the same amount of time, even though I knew that this might put me at a competitive disadvantage. I never once wanted to change the rules to REQUIRE that other coaches make that decision, I figured there were valid reasons for giving more playing time to the better players, and that requiring equal playing time would WARP the game and lessen its enjoyment for many. So in that case, I felt fine coaching according to my personal beliefs, even if that meant I might at times be at a competitive disadvantage. I'll also admit that I didn't have any stars on my team, so it worked well to have a deep bench. The point is that this kind of trade off happens ALL THE TIME in youth coaching, and the rules can't possibly cover every situation in which such a conflict occurs.)

As a distance runner, I kind of like that other people think that what I do is really hard and give it their respect, but honestly, what I do and what other distance runners do isn't as special as we like to think. I've doubled plenty of times, as have most distance runners, and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that doubling, per se, is dangerous or unhealthy. Distance doubling is common for well-trained runners from the high school level on up. Is it hard? Sometimes. But no harder than other hard things that sprinters, jumpers, and throwers undertake in track and field. As much as I hate to admit it (being a distance runner), there really is no reason to think the distance running has a special mystique. Distance runners train to be able to run distance events, and it's just not that big a deal to run two of them in a single meet. Bad coaches might abuse the privilege, but bad coaches will always do damage and one special rule "protecting" distance runners won't make any difference.

So here's my argument in a nutshell: the CURRENT general participation rules are debatable but consistent. However, a SPECIAL rule that applies only to the distance events is inconsistent and unfair to the individual athletes who have trained to run distance events, to the teams that have exceptional distance runners, and to the nature of the sport.

It's time to remove the restriction.