The real problem here is that Boston invited a weak field, which along with dropouts allowed someone from the mass field to beat the 5th fastest elite time. There is an easy solution, have the top 200 women compete in the elite race. A lot of them will have no shot at prize money, but it will keep the race from being marred in controversy.
what year is it wrote:
>> Because there are different rules for men and women running the race.
whoa, now that made me surprisingly angry
men would not need the elite start to claim the $15K ?
this is very wrong
give her Hassay's appearance fee or something
There is a Facebook post started by some of her friends.
Low class and she should call them off.
I commented that I think the BAA should just give her 15K but she has not been cheated and there aren't different rules for men and women.
Kvothe wrote:
The real problem here is that Boston invited a weak field, which along with dropouts allowed someone from the mass field to beat the 5th fastest elite time. There is an easy solution, have the top 200 women compete in the elite race. A lot of them will have no shot at prize money, but it will keep the race from being marred in controversy.
Allowing 200 women into the elite field is not the answer to a infrequent (one time?) problem since it would unnecessarily add confusion to actual elite men trying to figure out what place they are in the final stages of the race.
One of the problems is that the BAA is pretty picky about who they allow in the elite field. If you ask to be in the field, and have reasonable credentials then I think you should be allowed in. If the BAA refuses, then I think the BAA should suck it up and pay her.
Did the BAA pay out the $15k prize money to the 5th place runner from the EWS or are they keeping the money?
If it was paid to the 5th place runner from the EWS who just happened to run a slower time than Chichester, than what is the issue? Do people think that the BAA should pay out two $15k prizes...one for the 5th runner across the line and one for the 5the fastest net time?
The order of finish for prize money is based upon the order of those crossing the line. If all the elites drop out then a non-elite runner starting with the masses would win. Among other reasons, the gun time counts for the overall winner so that everyone can know exactly their place at all times. For example, if I was an elite and chip time is all that mattered I would always wait 4 seconds to start. When someone tries to outkick me they would never know how much they would need to beat me by. The 4 second advantage I give at the start would mean nothing when the first mile is slow. It would be hug in the last 100 meters which is where some marathons have been decided. The problem is that there are not enough women starters in the "elite" group. London had even fewer. Races should have at least 50 even if they are just the fastest of the non-elites. Actually I see no reason to not have over 100 in a race like Boston.
"It’s definitely a unique situation, because the men that start not in the elite men’s start, they’re still allowed to qualify [for prize money]," she said.
It's the same situation. If said man started in Wave #2, and chipped the winners by less than 20 minutes, they would not get the prize money. It is all about who crosses the line, first because it is a race. It's an irresponsible article not attuned to the nuances of the sport and what racing is.
Paragraph at the top is a quote from the article...
The rules for awarding prize money were known before the start of the race. It's not reasonable for her (or is it just her friends) to expect them to be changed after the fact.
I'm pretty sure the elite starting/placing (and even Olympic Trials qualifying time) is always based on gun time. Has this ever happened in the history of Boston (or NYC marathon for that matter), where there is a separate women's elite start, but then the later waves of runners (going on the gun time start of the elite men usually) run a time that is in the prize money compared to the elite women's field? The BAA probably thought this was never going to happen...esp for $15,000 and a top 5 placing.
It's not that complicated wrote:
The order of finish for prize money is based upon the order of those crossing the line. If all the elites drop out then a non-elite runner starting with the masses would win. Among other reasons, the gun time counts for the overall winner so that everyone can know exactly their place at all times. For example, if I was an elite and chip time is all that mattered I would always wait 4 seconds to start. When someone tries to outkick me they would never know how much they would need to beat me by. The 4 second advantage I give at the start would mean nothing when the first mile is slow. It would be hug in the last 100 meters which is where some marathons have been decided. The problem is that there are not enough women starters in the "elite" group. London had even fewer. Races should have at least 50 even if they are just the fastest of the non-elites. Actually I see no reason to not have over 100 in a race like Boston.
consider this wrote:
The rules for awarding prize money were known before the start of the race. It's not reasonable for her (or is it just her friends) to expect them to be changed after the fact.
And if they ran with the elites, a separate race, they couldn't just run out in front and expect the same time. They had the benefit of drafting from the main field.
This same issue would occur for men in the mass start. You can't win by chip time, so you'd be unable to draft from the masses. You'd have to sit in the main pack.
Geesh, this is going viral.
Easy solution. They start the women's elite with the men.
My preference would be to start the women's elite with the men, then I get to see Kawauchi overtake Kirui! Win Win!
Later, they could focus on the women's race. Having them finish at the same time is chaotic.
Start the women's elite with the men or this stuff is going to happen again.
Why don't think interview Shalane Flaganan and ask her if she'd be ok starting with the men's elite?
Same Start Please wrote:
Geesh, this is going viral.
Easy solution. They start the women's elite with the men.
My preference would be to start the women's elite with the men, then I get to see Kawauchi overtake Kirui! Win Win!
Later, they could focus on the women's race. Having them finish at the same time is chaotic.
Start the women's elite with the men or this stuff is going to happen again.
Why don't think interview Shalane Flaganan and ask her if she'd be ok starting with the men's elite?
Everything you said is wrong.
1. it isn't viral. it's one buzzfeed article and that's it
2. starting the womens elites with the men is bad for the women because they aren't able to be shown on TV as much as there would be a hundred guys around. plus, most if not all WMM's have separate elite women's starts for record purposes. Boston isnt record-eligible but there are still many other reasons to have a separate womens race.
3. it was random chance that they finished at the same time, and never couldve been predicted. the men ran around 5 minutes slower than usual, yet the women ran 15 minutes slower than usual. pre-race you might have predicted a men's winning time of 2:13 and a women's of 2:27, which would mean the women would finish 14 minutes before the first man. no problem.
4. another thing, somewhat unrelated to your post. The women who aren't in the elite field often prefer starting with men, as it offers them protection from the wind. Even with no wind drafting for 26 miles helps a ton. I personally know some masters women who get invited to the elite women's field but decline because they know that their best chance to run fast is to run with wave 1.
If all the elite women had started back with her with runners around her from start to finish, she probably doesn't finish 5th.
She ran the first 10k two minutes slower than the elite pack. If she had started with them, she'd have either been alone in no man's land in brutal conditions for most of her run, or would have run an entirely different race. Either way, she probably doesn't finish 5th.
reed wrote:
Everything you said is wrong.
1. it isn't viral. it's one buzzfeed article and that's it
2. starting the womens elites with the men is bad for the women because they aren't able to be shown on TV as much as there would be a hundred guys around. plus, most if not all WMM's have separate elite women's starts for record purposes. Boston isnt record-eligible but there are still many other reasons to have a separate womens race.
3. it was random chance that they finished at the same time, and never couldve been predicted. the men ran around 5 minutes slower than usual, yet the women ran 15 minutes slower than usual. pre-race you might have predicted a men's winning time of 2:13 and a women's of 2:27, which would mean the women would finish 14 minutes before the first man. no problem.
4. another thing, somewhat unrelated to your post. The women who aren't in the elite field often prefer starting with men, as it offers them protection from the wind. Even with no wind drafting for 26 miles helps a ton. I personally know some masters women who get invited to the elite women's field but decline because they know that their best chance to run fast is to run with wave 1.
1. Do a twitter search for "Boston Marathon", see what comes up.
2. 100% agree, but the same start appeases those screaming sexism. It has advantages in the race coverage. LRC had an article recently how the races need spaced out better because we miss key moves. How about same start?
3-4. Nothing to add.
To make it fair, races shouldn’t allow non-elite men to get prize money. Then it’s fair and no issues.
I think its understood that the person who had the 5th fastest time shouldnt get the prize money bc this is a race and not a time trial. I mean, also eith the weather being so horrible, did the eeather improve as the day went on?
So, just only allow men who qualify for the elite status have the chance for a prize money. Then it’s fair and this nonsense wont be getting any coverage.
I mean, women saying this isn’t fair? This type of start was made for women so they can havr competitive race without men interfering and more tv coverage.
Great run by Chichester but she should not get the prize money.
Starting with the men and being able to draft and form packs with men around her made for very different conditions than the elite women had to face.
There was some times where there were strong gusts of wind and the rain and cold were not so great. The elite women were exposed to those conditions completely.
Just make it fair wrote:
To make it fair, races shouldn’t allow non-elite men to get prize money. Then it’s fair and no issues.
I think its understood that the person who had the 5th fastest time shouldnt get the prize money bc this is a race and not a time trial. I mean, also eith the weather being so horrible, did the eeather improve as the day went on?
So, just only allow men who qualify for the elite status have the chance for a prize money. Then it’s fair and this nonsense wont be getting any coverage.
I mean, women saying this isn’t fair? This type of start was made for women so they can havr competitive race without men interfering and more tv coverage.
But again the problem is the BAA flat out refuses certain people elite starting. if they were more reasonable (elite/sub elite) where you are virtually guaranteed to get the top 15 from that group then fine. I have had friends throughout the years that have asked for elite starting (not even paid entry) and were 2:18-22 guys that were refused. Makes it a bit tough since a 2:18 guys is definitely in contention for a top 15.
I guess you can argue that they can set the rules and people decide to run or not, I’m ok with that. It is just annoying (and sad) that a large race like this doesn’t support the sub elite crew.
Exactly.
S. Canaday wrote:
The BAA probably thought this was never going to happen...esp for $15,000 and a top 5 placing.
It's not that complicated wrote:
The order of finish for prize money is based upon the order of those crossing the line. If all the elites drop out then a non-elite runner starting with the masses would win. Among other reasons, the gun time counts for the overall winner so that everyone can know exactly their place at all times. For example, if I was an elite and chip time is all that mattered I would always wait 4 seconds to start. When someone tries to outkick me they would never know how much they would need to beat me by. The 4 second advantage I give at the start would mean nothing when the first mile is slow. It would be hug in the last 100 meters which is where some marathons have been decided. The problem is that there are not enough women starters in the "elite" group. London had even fewer. Races should have at least 50 even if they are just the fastest of the non-elites. Actually I see no reason to not have over 100 in a race like Boston.
In case it wasn't obvious, same start is a terrible idea. I was being tongue in cheek, sarcastic, except for the fact that it improves the coverage of the mens race, which was short-changed in Boston... Is that sexist to want better coverage of both races?
The article is total garbage, and elicited some knee jerk reactions.
For those screaming sexism, just say "Ok fine, we'll start everyone at the same time". Then they can think about it... Wait, that's worse, ruins the elite womens race.
The elite women should back the BAA up on this and defend them. The BAA needs to get in front of it, because the brainless twitter mob is raking them over the coals.