NY Times Draws the Line at 4.5 Hour Marathon Finishers

Now if we can get the races to do the same with their official results...

This is the tipping point, I believe. Marathon participation will likely see a steady decrease in participants because of this. Bravo NY Times! You've shot the first bullet that will eventually kill the sport. I hope you're proud.

I wish race officials would limit participation to only those that can break 4.5 hours RUNNING a marathon. And, those that can't and sign-up anyway; or, those that are having a bad day - should just be pulled of the course. In this way, those of us that actually RUN a marathon can actually be proud of the accomplishment and hard training versus those that walk/jog and just survive.

It appears you like your ego stroked, yes?

What you dont realize is that the 4hr plus marathoners pay for the marathon too. Races are expensive! A race director needs the fast and the slow people to make the race possible. Why does it bother people so much that there are 5hr marathon walkers? You ran your race. Hopefully the slow joggers/walkers did not get in your way. Who cares if you are home napping by the time they cross the finish? Seriously, I am curious as to why people hate them so much. They paid their $80 too. (BTW - I am a 2:40 finisher).

Jogger to be wrote:

What you dont realize is that the 4hr plus marathoners pay for the marathon too. Races are expensive! A race director needs the fast and the slow people to make the race possible. Why does it bother people so much that there are 5hr marathon walkers? You ran your race. Hopefully the slow joggers/walkers did not get in your way. Who cares if you are home napping by the time they cross the finish? Seriously, I am curious as to why people hate them so much. They paid their $80 too. (BTW - I am a 2:40 finisher).

Part of the reason is that if you're an able bodied individual under age 45 with no medical issues there is no reason you should be "running" 5+ hours. That is simply a lack of effort in training and a lack of respecting the event and taking it seriously. I find that offensive.

The other reason that comes to mind for me is that (and I am speaking from experience) many of them try to make it out that their 5 hour + charade is the same as my 2:52 run. I personally don't care all that much about talking about my times, but I will absolutely call B.S. on someone trying to eqaute what they did with what I do, just as I would expect that if i tried to go around acting like some elite runner, others that are faster than me would do the same.

It is more likely because the race starts late, and the paper will have to assemble the names, format them, and prepare them for printing for distribution in the morning. They only have a certain amount of time before they have to get the presses rolling in order to meet the deadline.

Reasons wrote:

Part of the reason is that if you're an able bodied individual under age 45 with no medical issues there is no reason you should be "running" 5+ hours. That is simply a lack of effort in training and a lack of respecting the event and taking it seriously. I find that offensive.

The other reason that comes to mind for me is that (and I am speaking from experience) many of them try to make it out that their 5 hour + charade is the same as my 2:52 run. I personally don't care all that much about talking about my times, but I will absolutely call B.S. on someone trying to eqaute what they did with what I do, just as I would expect that if i tried to go around acting like some elite runner, others that are faster than me would do the same.

Fair enough. I can understand the not respecting the distance. I too dont like to talk about my times. This past weekend my boss and I did the Columbus marathon. I did the half, while he did the full. I paced a friend to a 1:22 for fun and he did 5:50 for the full. He gave me shit on Monday about sleeping in and not showing up till 9:30am (I figured I had some excuse for coming in late, plus I got drunk with friends that night celebrating). I did almost yell at him that he did not run a marathon, he barely walked one. But I wanted to keep my job, so I just said I was tired and sick.

But I guess that stuff really doesnt bother me that much as opposed to others. I think the more people the better. If a ton of 5hour marathoners start showing up, maybe the race will make more money and start paying prize money or inviting more athletes.

Reasons wrote:

Part of the reason is that if you're an able bodied individual under age 45 with no medical issues there is no reason you should be "running" 5+ hours. That is simply a lack of effort in training and a lack of respecting the event and taking it seriously. I find that offensive.

The other reason that comes to mind for me is that (and I am speaking from experience) many of them try to make it out that their 5 hour + charade is the same as my 2:52 run. I personally don't care all that much about talking about my times, but I will absolutely call B.S. on someone trying to eqaute what they did with what I do, just as I would expect that if i tried to go around acting like some elite runner, others that are faster than me would do the same.

How other people prioritize their time is their own business. If they don't want to train -- which is a huge time commitment -- they still have the right to pay their $80. Again, as someone else said, they are helping to subsidize your 2:52. If you don't want them in the race, hope you're willing to pay twice as much.

Faster runners actually subsidize slower runners.

Jogger to be wrote:

What you dont realize is that the 4hr plus marathoners pay for the marathon too. Races are expensive! A race director needs the fast and the slow people to make the race possible. Why does it bother people so much that there are 5hr marathon walkers? You ran your race. Hopefully the slow joggers/walkers did not get in your way. Who cares if you are home napping by the time they cross the finish? Seriously, I am curious as to why people hate them so much. They paid their $80 too. (BTW - I am a 2:40 finisher).

The "Five Hour Plan" is very time efficient- instead of training 10+ hours a week for a sub-three hour performance, train five hours/week for a nice five hour walk/jog with PLENTY of company. Then go out an celebrate your "achievement" just as heartily, if not more so, than any of the scrawny ones that ran sub-2:20!

Andrew A. wrote:

Faster runners actually subsidize slower runners.

Umm, no they dont. Look at the percentage of sub 3:30 marathons (or sub 2hr half) vs the plus 4hr marathoners (or plus 2:30 half). There is a much higher percentage of slower participates than faster ones.

Lets take the Columbus marathon from this weekend (real facts so you know I am not talking out my ass.) There were 4174 finishers with an average time of 4:14:24. If you go to this link

You will see a graph of the finishing times. The bell shaped curve is peaked at the 3:30-4hr time and heavily weighted to the right which is the plus 4hr finishers. Out of 4174 finishers, only 695 broke 3:30. And 1851 broke 4hrs. Therefore a higher percentage were slower than 4hrs, hence the slow people pay for the fast people. Plus the tip 20 in the full from last year got a comped entry this year.

Faster runners contribute (well in excess of the 20 who received comp'ed entries) the same amount (via entry fees) to keep the course open (road closure permits, EMT & police pay) as slower runners do, yet do not need the course to be closed as long as the slower runners do.

Jogger to be wrote:

If a ton of 5hour marathoners start showing up, maybe the race will make more money and start paying prize money or inviting more athletes.

Except that prize and appearance money come from title sponsors, not from entry fees. So it has nothing to do with how many marathoners, slow or fast, enter a race.

Reasons wrote:

The other reason that comes to mind for me is that (and I am speaking from experience) many of them try to make it out that their 5 hour + charade is the same as my 2:52 run.

Yeah, and I'm really steamed at those slow-ass 2:52 runners thinking their charade is the same as my 2:30 run.

Of course I'm sure there is some 2:15 guy thinking the same about me and a 2:06 guy thinking the same about him.

This is a not a rule.

hardset nipples wrote:Except that prize and appearance money come from title sponsors, not from entry fees. So it has nothing to do with how many marathoners, slow or fast, enter a race.

Yet it's what happens in races of this magnitude. You may want to wish that away, but it's very much true.

Entry fees do help pay for top runners. How funny that anyone would think otherwise.

And what does a person finishing in 5:30, three hours behind the best folks on here, do to disrupt their efforts? Nothing.

Andrew A. wrote:

Faster runners contribute (well in excess of the 20 who received comp'ed entries) the same amount (via entry fees) to keep the course open (road closure permits, EMT & police pay) as slower runners do, yet do not need the course to be closed as long as the slower runners do.

I'd be interested to hear more from the director of a large race, because from what I know of economics, which isn't a ton, it seems like it's an issue of economies of scale.

Say a race director did decide to include a smaller amount of only faster runners. I doubt it costs much more to do that than it does to put on a race that welcomes "runners" of any pace. Sure, joggers require as much as a couple more hours of road closures, depending on the part of the course. But I'd assume that the marginal cost of that extra time is far less than the marginal revenue a race gets from the extra runners.

Companies that put on races aren't charities, and you can't deny that inviting as many runners as is feasible helps them pay the bills and then some. The high-quality race experience you enjoy wouldn't be affordable for race directors without those extra entrants, who add little cost but a lot of revenue.

Why are runners such elitist pricks?