5th place Jessica Chichester will miss out on $15,000 from starting in wave 1

OUTRAGEGOUS OUTRAGE!!! wrote:

Second Class??! wrote:

It is not ok in the year 2018 for an event to allow non-elite males to participate in prize money while the non-elite women in this SAME EVENT are essentially second class citizens.

As many have already pointed out, this is NOT THE RIGHT COMPARISON. The right comparison is between elite and non-elite women. Elite and non-elite women race under very different conditions. Elite women are only running with other women. They have no men to draft behind or pace with. There is good reason to think this gives non-elite women an advantage over elite women. Thus it would be unfair to elite women to compare their times to those of non-elite women.

Similarly, because running with non-elite women offers no such advantage to non-elite men, there's no fairness issue comparing their times to elite men.

Especially on a day with such a strong headwind (not to mention crazy conditions).

To people who are pointing out Wesley Korir, remember he applied to be in the elite field and they rejected him, it was 100% the fault of the race coordinators. That's different from someone who doesn't apply at all.

Rules can be unfair. Unfair since she placed 5th female overall, meaning she passed every single female in the race except for 4. Didn’t we discussed on a different thread last week that for prize money, gun time crossing the finish line first is what counts? I feel bad for her.

Donyiyo wrote:

Rules can be unfair. Unfair since she placed 5th female overall, meaning she passed every single female in the race except for 4. Didn’t we discussed on a different thread last week that for prize money, gun time crossing the finish line first is what counts? I feel bad for her.

Wait, I mean she didn't hit the finish line fifth. She started almost 30 minutes behind the elite women, so she would have had to run under 2:20 to do that. I am happy with a double payout in this case, but we need to be very careful not to have a slippery slope; otherwise Salazar will have Hasay draft behind 10 men next year.

I'm sure she knew the rules. If she didn't then that's also on her. If a collegiate runner wins a mixed race with pros and collegians with prize money for the top 5 pros, she knows she's not eligble for prize money.

Who cares.

adsfasdfasdfasdfasdf wrote:

The extreme example mentioned above is the "invitational" vs. seeded section of a 1500m. Just because I run 3:45 in a time-trial style race in the seeded section doesn't mean that I should be eligible to be the "invitational" champion if they only run 3:50 in a sit-and-kick race (e.g. the Olympic Final where Centrowitz won). Everyone knows that I'm running 3:55-3:58 in that race and getting spit out the back on the last lap. .

While true that you would get spit out the back on the last lap in that invitational section, we're comparing apples and oranges here. In your example, you run 3:45 in the seeded section. Last time I checked, the objective of track and field racing is to run the race as fast as you can. That should serve as a reminder to the invitational section that they need a minimum of 3:45 if they want to win the 1500m

Roads are much different because you can fit hundreds on the same starting corral, if not more. The objective of Road Racing is to be the first person across the finish line, not to run the fastest time possible. This means that road racing is meant to be a race while track is meant to be a time trial. Even with an elite women's start, allow anyone that has ran faster 3 hours into the elite women's wave and state that:

- To be eligible for an overall award, you have to start in the women's corral

- Age Group Awards are by net time.

Donyiyo wrote:

Rules can be unfair. Unfair since she placed 5th female overall, meaning she passed every single female in the race except for 4. Didn’t we discussed on a different thread last week that for prize money, gun time crossing the finish line first is what counts? I feel bad for her.

She did not pass a single elite female that actually finished the race.

onthelongrun wrote:

This means that road racing is meant to be a race while track is meant to be a time trial.

I think you missed the point. He said in track that you DON'T lose just because someone in another section ran faster than you. In other words, track is also about who crosses the line first.

I think Boston should pay out, and bump the prize money accordingly. Elites should be free to run as slowly as they want - if they want to go out in a "tactical" pace, or coast into the finish, cool. But know this: there will be others in another wave trying to grab the $.

I'd like to see this approach in other distances. Slow races are boring.

Here's two additional reasons why she shouldn't be considered in the mix with the women's "elite" category:

1. Drug Testing

She was not in the drug testing pool. The usual protocol is to select the top "x" men and women + a random few (chosen a head of time) in the order that they cross the finish line. No way am I saying that this particular athlete would have a problem with drug testing, but because she could not be identified as the fifth place women overall, then she couldn't be tested.

In addition, a female runner in the 2:50+ range who has a break out performance may not know all of the drug restrictions and could end up in an embarrassing situation if she is on some medication for a health issue. This actually happened at a major marathon many years ago when they decided to drug test through the 25 place female finisher. The athlete was a prominent local professional who suddenly found herself at the center of attention because of illegal drug use when all she was doing was taking a legitimate medication.

2. Refreshment bottles & other benefits

Elite athletes are afforded many benefits that the other participants don't get - heated area near the start with food, lots of rest rooms, space to warm up, etc. that would give them an edge but the main thing here is that they are allowed to have the personal refreshment bottles. Obviously this is a huge benefit. So, now you are thinking - well she really belongs in the top 5 because she had a disadvantage. But even if she did for this one issue, then she could possibly protest that she should have been 4th, 3rd, 2nd, or even first because she wasn't allowed the same as the other athletes.

We actually had a similar issue at the Olympic Marathon Trials many years ago. Someone from the organizing committee determined that only the "B" qualifiers should be allowed to have their person refreshment bottles. I had that changed immediately to allowing everyone who toed the line that day to be treated exactly like everyone else during the race. Just think if the 4th place finisher in the Trials was not allowed to have his/her own refreshment bottles. I would not want to be the Referee or on the Jury for that protest!

Boston rules clear as crystal:-

"The Boston Marathon includes a separate start for top female competitors. Performances from the Elite Women's Start (EWS) will be scored separately from women starting in the open field. Open and masters division women who consider themselves eligible for prize money in the Boston Marathon must declare themselves as a contestant for the EWS start. They may email

ews@baa.org

for further details on format, eligibility, regulations, and instructions. Race officials can assist in determining which start - EWS or 10:00 a.m. - is most appropriate. Prize money will be awarded to contestants in the EWS only. Women who choose not to start in the EWS waive the right to compete for prize money."

From

http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/event-information/prize-money-and-awards.aspx

Devils advocate:

She starts with the elite. She will have elite athletes see her move up and begin to cover her moves. These elites on that day ran a tactical race due to the obvious conditions. And, if this runner was with them, they would have surely been aware, and it is very possible some would have moved with her, and maybe even pushed her pace to get the next placed prize money.

Of course she would be denied wrote:

Maybe 3000-4000 places back. Up at the front it is a lot less crowded. Chichester had an extra 300+ men to draft/pace off of vs. anyone in the elite womens field. It may not make much of a difference on a mild day, but not being strung out in no-mans-land with 25+ mph headwinds from miles 20-26 makes a HUGE difference. You can't deny that.

Oh really.

Getting pushed around by 2:20-2:25 marathoners really helped her all that much huh.

No one's saying that she had to lead the whole race.

neg. split wrote:

There are folks with PR's set at Boston... mine was in 1991

Did you break 5 hours?

give her the $ wrote:

I think Boston should pay out, and bump the prize money accordingly. Elites should be free to run as slowly as they want - if they want to go out in a "tactical" pace, or coast into the finish, cool. But know this: there will be others in another wave trying to grab the $.

I'd like to see this approach in other distances. Slow races are boring.

And stop making unfair rules just because they are women.

Would the have deemed a open (nonage) group 2:50PR marathoner worthy of EWS if they applied?

How big would they have let the EWS get? 50?100?

W-19-3925th place was 2:45:46 in 2017

Having your name in fifth place of the Boston Marathon is far more valuable than the after-tax residue from $15000. That said, it would be a nice gesture if BAA could find a way to send some prize money in her direction.

Your understanding of the drug testing procedure in NOT correct. Not at all.

You shouldn't speak about things you don't know about.