Europeans can run Boston without qualifying or charity

Wah wah wah...

You do realize you are implying that you cannot meet the very low standard to qualify for Boston?

He is implying that he HAS run the qualifier, but was not allowed in because the race was full.

Never ran one that would not have qualified me.

What I meant is: there was so much discussion here on the board about how the standards need be raised and such and how the charity runners are taking away the spots. But there are runners out there that don't qualify and aren't giving anything to charity either. I don't see this would be difficult to fix from the BAA.

Not surprised. It is good business practice for the city. The more people from outside the US the better for economic purposes.

If the Boston Marathon businessmen can sell bibs to Europeans, whats wrong with me selling my bib to a European? Sounds fair to me.

It's the same for Americans wanting to do London.

Precious Roy wrote:

You do realize you are implying that you cannot meet the very low standard to qualify for Boston?

You do realize what you're implying about your reading comprehension?

"caveman," grow up. The difference is a signed waiver.

trollism wrote:

It's the same for Americans wanting to do London.

Not entirely true, at least the time I tried. You could get a flight-hotel-bib package as long as it wasn't sold out (e.g. during the initial signup stage). But once it did sell out, the only way in was through the charity route.

From the registration information section at

http://www.baa.org

"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."

To the OP, you're upset that the BAA has chosen to invite foreign athletes who wish to travel to the US and run. More importantly, you're upset because these foreign athletes are taking up spaces that could go to American runners who missed the registration cutoff. So what? That's the BAA's choice. They state it very clearly on their website.

It sounds to me like you're whining. If you have a problem with the BAA and how they do things, then don't run the race. There has to be over 100 marathons in the US each year ... just pick another one.

Good business decison. Think about it. Americans pay $130 (?) to run it. International pays that same $130 plus an international fee (I believe..I know they do for New York). BAA reserves spots for the "tours" and only offers them thru select partners. Each time someone books one of these tours, BAA gets a chunk of that, too. Airlines make more money, hotels make more money (longer stays), restaurants make more money, etc.

I make the qualifying time for my age group by more than 30 minutes but unlike some of the posters above I can see from the results of every marathon that the qualifying standards are still a challenging goal for all but a small percentage of each age group.

Running Boston was important to the running community because of the standards and it is very disappointing to serious runners with goals that it now sells out so early with more than a few slots taken by non-qualifiers.

The race did not historically sell out early precisely because it was a qualifying race. Why is that so hard to understand?

You could qualify within a few weeks of the race just a few years ago because only a small percentage of the running community was eligible to apply

And yes, anyone who averages an hour of running almost every day to meet those standards is a serious runner even if he or she did not run JV cross country at Podunk Community College or did not ever talk to Arthur over the barbecue while the lads completed 42 quarters.

Boston should just chuck the qualifying standards. It is not good business practice to advertise the event as a qualfiying race and then provide a laundry list of loopholes.

So what? I think people sometimes confuse Boston with the Olympic marathon trials. It's not.

There's a handful of people running Boston as a genuinely competitive race either on an open basis or an age-graded basis. For everyone else, admission is on the basis of standards that are designed to keep the field to a manageable size, raise money for charity, help with community relations, or whatever. The BAA has its reasons for these standards and if you don't like them, don't run. It's not a "pure" competitive race and never will be.

Just another running guy wrote:

So what? I think people sometimes confuse Boston with the Olympic marathon trials. It's not.

What's so special about the Olympic trials? Plenty people running it that don't even make substantial amount of money from running.

If you want to raise the bar say "Boston isn't the Olympic Marathon".

Nutella1 wrote:

What's so special about the Olympic trials? Plenty people running it that don't even make substantial amount of money from running.

If you want to raise the bar say "Boston isn't the Olympic Marathon".

My point was that the only people who run in the trials have met an objective standard and qualified based on time -- no charity runners or whatever. As a result, being a trials qualifier says something about a runner's ability. It puts you in the top whatever percentage of American marathoners.

Running Boston can mean lots of different things - you qualified, you raised money for charity, you're part of some special deal like the European packages or whatever. It's just a different kind of beast from a purely competitive race.

People forget how much revenue comes from the invited runners and charity runners. $250 a entry adds up.

Just another running guy wrote:

Nutella1 wrote:

What's so special about the Olympic trials? Plenty people running it that don't even make substantial amount of money from running.

If you want to raise the bar say "Boston isn't the Olympic Marathon".

My point was that the only people who run in the trials have met an objective standard and qualified based on time -- no charity runners or whatever. As a result, being a trials qualifier says something about a runner's ability. It puts you in the top whatever percentage of American marathoners.

Running Boston can mean lots of different things - you qualified, you raised money for charity, you're part of some special deal like the European packages or whatever. It's just a different kind of beast from a purely competitive race.

It's just damn stupid to have a race billed as something you have to qualify for, giving it the illusion of being an elite race, and then opening it up to people with money (charity or otherwise).

Boston used to be a decent race that really was an upper crust race. The BAA sold out, so they should just give up the ghost and make it a BS megamarathon like Chicago and New York. And I'll gladly go elsewhere. Thanks BAA. For nothing.

Sure! We wouldn't do your silly (in our eyes) charity thing, so we are left with just 2 options like everybody else. Details may vary though.

Oh, I almost forgot you do not participate in internationally accepted sport events like football. So please note that i18l tickets are always sold as allotments and the reseller (hooray capitalism!) has a bit of freedom with his quota-tix.

Nobody here cares a lot about Boston and its marathon. No bragging rights, therefore no need to qualify!

I think it is a fair deal.