Did the Penguin ruin the sport of running?

He mentioned the sun not shining until 10am on a rainy day, not rising until 10 am. Were your glasses off when you read that?

"Where do you live? If the sun doesn't rise till 10 it's quite a news story."

I'm not the one posting my PRS on my name to justify my reponse/reason for wearing sunglasses. Once again you didn't answer if you wear them when it is dark out. I take your silence as a no.

When did I say they were sunglasses all the time. Are you aware of the fact their are different types of eyeware?

2:40 is not my PR, it was merely an attempt to try and avoid the "are you a penguin" argument but you managed to find another.

Good luck there sparky. Maybe will talk when you move away from Mom and your acne and insecurities clear.

All I have to say about slow marathoners is I sure would hate to work a water stop in the last 5 or so miles. Christ, you'd be out there all effing day!

Last year I worked a water stop early in a marathon and was home by 11:00 am. That's more like it. It was pretty comical when the last runners came through and we had a lead change when second-to-last had to use the port-a-potty. Kept us and the trailing vehicles there just that little bit longer. They were both large, elderly women out for a police-escorted 26-mile stroll around the city.

2:40 marathon guy with glasses wrote:

Maybe will talk when you move away from Mom and your acne and insecurities clear.

Irony!

There was no mention of rain in the original post; in fact, it is written as though this is the environment, weather notwithstanding:

"This is at 7:00am when there is no sun until 10am at the earliest."

I wondered if he was in some Scandinavian country when I read it.

And when someone says their doctor tells them to wear sunglasses while outside, why would one question that? "Do you wear [your sunglasses] when you sleep?" That's just asinine.

The doctors of everyone running in the morning on a cloudy day on the route that 'wedpeople' took today didn't tell all of them to wear sunglasses while outside. Why would you believe otherwise? That's even more asinine.

Their doctors may not have, but this one poster's did, and that's who he was responding to, specifically.

Also, cloudy does not equate to "not bright enough to go without sunglasses." Just because that may be the case for one person, it does not make it so for everyone. Obviously, the other runners felt it was bright enough for sunglasses.

Why would you believe otherwise? That's most asinine.

weather report wrote:

There was no mention of rain in the original post; in fact, it is written as though this is the environment, weather notwithstanding:

"This is at 7:00am when there is no sun until 10am at the earliest."

I wondered if he was in some Scandinavian country when I read it.

And when someone says their doctor tells them to wear sunglasses while outside, why would one question that? "Do you wear [your sunglasses] when you sleep?" That's just asinine.

Even in Helsinki, Finland, this time of the year the sunrise is at 7:25 AM, while further north in Rovaniemi the sunrise is at 7:50 AM. In Murmansk, in Russia it is 8:37 AM.

Perhaps somewhere to the north of Murmansk?

If people want to run a race in a ridiculously long amount of time, that's fine, just don't jack up my entry fees to pay for the additional costs associated with them being out there that long.

Slow running made me faster. If you run on a consistent basis, the slow gets faster. Racing every run didn't seem to work for me. My mind and my body wore down to quickly. Slow running with a few workouts added appropriately was the solution for me.

hardset nipples wrote:

Has that been the recipe for success for the NFL and NBA?

Then how does it work out that back in the 80s, when the masses were a lot less massive by comparison, there wasn't appreciably less prize money and sponsorships available? I'd guess the sport could survive very well if all marathons suddenly went to closing their courses at 6 or even 5 hours. However, all of the ancillary figures (The Penguin, running mag staffs, running book writers and publishers, charity fundraisers, training programs, running junk manufacturers and retailers) who are making a buck pushing slugs into the marathon and sell themselves, their services, and their clients to marathons by affiliation would suddenly see their market shrink. As was stated in the other thread on this article, this sport could use some tighter regulation.

1. Yes, you're right, we're just like the NBA and NFL. People piss and moan every time there's a commercial break during a track meet and you want to compare us to sports that are funded by commercials? The NFL lives largely on gambling interest. Do you think that will prop up running?

2. Can you show me some documentation for your claim that sponsorships and prize money were equal in the 1980's to now? The Boston Marathon didn't even have prize money back then. A car for the winner, if I remember right.

The sources of funding for our elite marathoners are shoe companies and prize money from large races like marathons.

Yes, it might be annoying to hold out for the non-running participants of a marathon. But these tail-end folk are still paying the shoe companies, still buying the sports clothes, and still paying entry fees. This is how running companies make a few bucks, which allows them to sponsor elite athletes.

Take away the mass-participation, and the running companies as well as road race directors have lost their income, and they won't be sponsoring elite athletes for advertisement.

Our sport isn't like mainstream team sports where commercials from all types of industries can be sold to make a profit from the television-viewing audience that can be translated to the elite athletes. Our sport has popular road races where this advertisement takes place. Our sport needs participation. From this participation comes the interest of companies and they provide the money and sponsorship to keep the sport alive.

It may seem heartless that we should encourage participation for the money that participation provides. But remember that our sport-sponsors, races, athletes-makes money off people trying to be healthy. Football and baseball make money off encouraging folks to sit on their couches for a designated time every week. At least something good comes from allowing these slow people come along.

This is a good point about encouraging health. The healthy people running fast for marathons are annoyed that slow-pokes take away from the prestige of a marathon. But at least something good is coming from the number of slow-pokes participating. The 26.2miles may not make up for the McD's burgers, but the time required to train for the 26.2 helps a little.

America would be healthier with more people at least attempting to participate in these events or participating slowly than if we discouraged all of them from ever trying. Discouraging participation is not going to help the country fight obesity.

Maybe those who are critical of the Penguin will be old or fat some day and appreciate the Penguin more. Meanwhile, lets live and let live. Leave the Penguins alone, they wont bite.

Take off the rose colored glasses.I see the same fatasses on the running path maintaining, or blowing up bigger.They aren't even power walking, let alone exercising hard enough to lose weight.

Fitness and health is the last thing on their minds.The attention is what they seek.They have no interest in putting in the hard work to improve because no one is watching them. It's much better to train as little as possible,show up to a race like a blimp and get sympathy cheers.

weather report wrote:

Their doctors may not have, but this one poster's did, and that's who he was responding to, specifically.

Also, cloudy does not equate to "not bright enough to go without sunglasses." Just because that may be the case for one person, it does not make it so for everyone. Obviously, the other runners felt it was bright enough for sunglasses.

Why would you believe otherwise? That's most asinine.

Big Fucking Deal

Wendell Gee wrote:

1. Yes, you're right, we're just like the NBA and NFL. People piss and moan every time there's a commercial break during a track meet and you want to compare us to sports that are funded by commercials? The NFL lives largely on gambling interest. Do you think that will prop up running?

Yes, you're right, because that's exactly what I said, isn't it? No, it fucking wasn't, in fact. The clear implication (apply it to any sport, even other individual sports like tennis and golf) is that no other sport has relied on maxing out participant numbers to grow its popularity among fans.

2. Can you show me some documentation for your claim that sponsorships and prize money were equal in the 1980's to now? The Boston Marathon didn't even have prize money back then. A car for the winner, if I remember right.

In 1988? Show me YOUR documentation and I'll show you mine. I know from the input of elites who were running in that era who are still involved in the sport. Don't think I'll be retracing my steps there with a tape recorder in hand. WMM is a different deal, and a deal that basically isn't open to USA runners. And that's really what I'm talking about, the total of sponsorship and prize money that's realistically open to USA road runners, adjusted for inflation.

So why marathons "for health" and not 5k's and 10k's?

obesity kills 81 wrote:

America would be healthier with more people at least attempting to participate in these events or participating slowly than if we discouraged all of them from ever trying. Discouraging participation is not going to help the country fight obesity.