Today's poll: Boston Marathon charity runners--yes/no?

Couldn't you just make a donation to the charity...why do you think you should be allowed to run the Boston Marathon if you don't run the qualifying time...

1. Will Caviness, age 35, died at mile 26 of 2011 Chicago Marathon, projected finish 3:04.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/10/09/article/greensboro_man_dies_running_chicago_marathon

2. Paul Melby, age 35, died steps after crossing finish line at 2011 Lake Wobegon marathon, finish 3:14

http://postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?stopRedirect=true&id=1454621

3. Erin Lahr, age 29, died at mile 23 of 2008 Dallas White Rock marathon, projected finish 3:39.

http://www.erinkrielowlahrstory.com/part-1/

I don't have any issue with there being qualifying times for Boston and I realize that death is a risk in such events. It is troubling though to see these examples of people literally dying in their attempt to get into the race and then for first time marathoners running under the charity banner to get in without having to meet that same threshold (qualifying, not death).

I disagree that charity runners should be in Boston, but I also disagree with the act of giving money to a charity because you don't know exactly what will be done with that money. If you want to do real good for a charity or to be helpful, volunteer at a hospital/soup kitchen etc. Running a marathon for a charity is just silly. At the Boston Marathon of all races, I've always been surprised that they allow so many non-qualifiers (6000 places is A LOT of non-qualifiers). Gansett is too small of a race right now so I'll keep running Boston and won't complain about it, but put my vote in the "no charity runners" category.

While these men had finishing times that put them into the BQ range, I'm not so sure you can assume they died pushing for the BQ. There are usually a number of latent factors involved, heart disease being a big one among them.

I just don't get the attitude of qualifiers though. Charity runners are not diminishing your accomplishment. You know it and they know it. The only people that don't know it are the ones that see both of you wearing the same BAA jacket or participant shirt. Do you realy care what those people think?

Go talk to a charity runner. Odds are, they admire the crap out of you and will ask you for advice on being a better runner. If they pass themselves off as qualifiers, then they're douchebags. No argument there.

As for me, I ran a BQ that was just slow enough to miss the cut for 2012. So I ran with a charity. Proudly. When asked, I explain to people, and its a mouthful, that I qualified but was not accepted but wanted to run this year so chose to support a charity. The way I see it, BAA rules are BAA rules. They changed the rules, so I took advantage of the ones they have. They rewarded me by recognizing my BQ as a ticket to Wave 1. I am a qualifier, but I ran the marathon as a charity runner. I plan to run a BQ under the new cutoffs, and when I get in, I will run with a charity again. It was a much better experience being part of a team of humble people.

Almostbq wrote:

Considering that men have died at the finish line from pushing themselves to the utmost to meet the Boston qualifying time for their age bracket or beyond, I find the idea that a charity or for that matter complimentary bib runner really diminishes the privilege of running in that race.

Reality Checker wrote:

Name 3.

AlmostBQ wrote:

Will Caviness, Chicago Marathon, 2011

Paul Melby, Lake Wobegon Trail Marathon, 2011

Erin Lahr, Dallas White Rock Marathon, 2008

1/3

Care to try again?

The autopsies on all three were inconclusive as to cause of death. It worries me though with the new -5, -10, -20 system that there may be an increase in deaths, especially among runners trying for -5, due to adrenalin surges in the last mile to make that cut versus just going along and getting under the cut off time as was under the old system for qualifying.

My prediction is that within a decade, Boston will change their registration processes yet again, to follow in the path of London which is predominantly charity entrant, while tightening time standards (as NYC has done) to narrow the qualifying field further.

I haven't earned a qualifying time for Boston. It's a dream of mine to get to that point, having come close on a few occasions, with other races as spectacular flameouts somewhere in the second half. I will never go the charity route to get in, because to me, it would diminish the sense of accomplishment, but also the struggle and dedication to training that getting there requires. Obviously you've put in that time and dedication. It bothers me however to see first time marathoners getting to run at Boston.

I know a number of people who went the charity route. One told me point blank, "I'm not going to train any more to lose ten extra minutes to BQ". They both ran for causes that offered a bib, but didn't have any prior connection to or post race commitment to the cause. Not that they were required to have such, but it would have been nice versus just a temporary temporary marriage of convenience.

But charity runners are a small portion of the field, probably 4,000 other runners are there on complimentary entries, either as part of the official tour agency for BAA which sells travel packages in Europe to include an entry to the race. Then there are the entries given out to municipalities along the route of the course, local running clubs and official sponsors like John Hancock and JetBlue. I guess it's just the grease that's necessary to get the gears to operate the race every year.

If it were an ideal race, Boston would remain qualifier only as it once was. But that is not going to be feasible.

You know what diminished my sense of accomplishment? The BAA deciding to revisit their enrollment process. I actually think the tighter standards and rolling hierarchy are excellent. But I have two issues.

1) The excemption from the above process for people that have a 'streak' of Boston marathons, with no similar tip of the hat to the first time BQ'ers that might only get one shot at the race, especially in the transitional year like 2012. I won't say that being a first timer should get more precedence than a streak, but I think its worth a discussion.

2) While I am FULLY supportive of charity running in the Boston Marahton, I think the BAA contradicted themselves when they left charity running untouched and touted the new standards as 'putting the emphasis back on fast times'. Either is fine, but it can't be both together.

With all that said, it finally occurred to me that BAA was nothing more than a collection of human beings that are charged withi making business decisions. They changed the rules, so I worked with what they gave me.

If we want to take the BQ to the nth degree, we could throw course handicaps into the discussion. A guy that runs a 3:13 at Big Sur ran a better race than a guy that ran a 3:08 in Philadelphia.

I am with you on this though: If a person has the ability to train for a BQ and chooses to take the easy route, I don't disrespect it but I wish they'd keep going for the brass ring. But if its a person that never has a shot at Boston no matter how hard they try and they're willing to raise money to get in, I say more power to em. They can even wear the jacket. ;)

Reality Checker wrote:

Almostbq wrote:

Considering that men have died at the finish line from pushing themselves to the utmost to meet the Boston qualifying time for their age bracket or beyond, I find the idea that a charity or for that matter complimentary bib runner really diminishes the privilege of running in that race.

Reality Checker wrote:

Name 3.

AlmostBQ wrote:

Will Caviness, Chicago Marathon, 2011

Paul Melby, Lake Wobegon Trail Marathon, 2011

Erin Lahr, Dallas White Rock Marathon, 2008

1/3

Care to try again?

No. Death on a marathon course is a tragedy, whether the runner crosses the finish line or not.