If I'm paying money to enter a race it should be a FAIR race. That means all participants start at the same time. If some guys are getting a 2 minute head start, that is clearly an unfair advantage.
I won't be entering Boston whilst this rule is in place. Gun time determines race position - and as a 2:20 marathoner I wouldn't *win* the race, but my overall position will almost certainly be negatively impacted by these dudes getting a 2 minute head start.
Smoove wrote:
Shane33 wrote:
The only problem I see with this is that gun time is used for OTQ.
From the USATF Qualifying Standards page:
"“Gun” time is the only acceptable method of timing. Chip/net times cannot be used for qualifying. Consideration may be given to “chip/tag” times for competitors with “gun” times extremely close to the above qualifying standards."
If the 10:02 start is not considered a gun start, anyone on the fringe is out.
Agree that this is the biggest issue. Does anyone know if, for OTQ purposes, the gun time for the W1/C1 folks will eb the elite gun time, or will it be the gun time for the masses?
As a guy who was on the fringe of maybe making some masters money (I think I was 13th, with top 10 being paid), I will say that this kind of screws that up too, but that results in a relatively small number of people. It does raise some interesting issues though. I think I was seeded 17th among masters runners the year I ran it. Some of those guys ahead of me had qualifying times from some of the downhill marathons as compared to my time from the Chicago marathon, including one of the guys that ended up in the elite field. So you may see more and more of that from the masters crowd over time.
I do think this is going to be an interesting year at Boston either way. When I ran with a 2:30:5x seed time in 2017, I had bib 148. My friend got a bib assignment just a couple of spots lower than that with a 2:26xx seed time. Should be a stacked year
There will presumably be a gun at 10:02 to start the non-elite masses, so it probably depends on whether the BAA counts that as the gun time or not.
FWIW - I emailed asking about this. I will update if I hear back. I am sure there is someone who could get this info faster than me though.
Few follow up points:
Good point @sesamoiditis. I've also occasionally passed some guys from the elite field late in the race and while I dont think that should have any bearing on the rules, I personally will miss that. It's a huge boost when things get tough through Brookline.
I also dont think the 2:25 hobby jogger sprinting out front has anything to do with this decision. That's a pretty rare occurrence, as the majority of guys in Corral 1 aren't capable of busting a 4:4x mile through that crowd and even fewer have the ego and stupidity to do such a thing (it's probably a product of their "university")
@Smoove and @Shane33, I have to think there will be a second gun that will apply to gun times out of Wave 1. They'll have to hold Corral 1 at the line because it takes a lot less than 2 minutes to go from corral 1 to the line. Once they stop us at the line, they'll need a second gun to start us again. This will also increase congestion in Corral 1, because it normally thins out as we jog through the buffer behind the elites (again a minor side effect.) I have to think though, that with two gun times, your 2:18:59 gun 2 time would count. I bet this is a moot point though, as this will discourage anyone from ever chasing the standard again at Boston. It's already a risky proposition with the weather and course, but now having no one faster than 2:19 to run with, probably rules it out entirely.
@areusure? Take a look at the results, if you're a masters runner not named Abdi, you'll spend way more time with corral 1 guys than you will with elites. There were 33 guys between Abdi and the second place masters runner, 27 of them came from Wave 1. I imagine if this rule was in place last year, the masters runners finishing 2-4 would have run 2-3 minutes slower having almost no one to draft off.
Can anyone suggest a reason why the better solution isn't my sub-elite women's field idea?
I already got a response. Looks like we were worried for nothing:
"There are 9 separate gun starts: Mens Wheelchair, Womens Wheelchair, Handcycle/Duo, Elite Women, Elite Men, Wave 1, Wave 2, Wave 3, Wave 4. Again, each start is a “gun” time start."
Will they reset the clocks on the course? It will be even more frustrating trying to determine pacing if the clocks are 2+ minutes off from corral 1 start-time.
Another angle on this is that you are much more likely to get idiots sprinting to the lead for camera time because of the simultaneous start. If you go to only the elite athlete field I think you increase the odds of only serious athletes being on camera at the start of the race.
Damit that sucks wrote:
That sucks, I was planning on running it next year and getting my 15 minutes of fame by running ahead of the elites for a mile or two.
Your 15 minutes to cover the first mile or two ain't getting you any fame.
Can any race with the expectation of a win in the 2:15 time frame have elites?
If only there was a device you could put on your wrist to figure this out!
So it sounds like the gun time issue is resolved. However this still sucks for the 2:20 guy stuck in Corral 1, the 2:30 masters guy in the elite race in no mans land for most of the race and every masters guy with a shot at top 5 in Corral 1.
I dont think there will be a camera truck in the 2 minute gap, so very little incentive to pull a "Yorek". I guess we should never underestimate stupidity though.
As for the clocks on course, for one, wear a watch and two, you always have to make an adjustment anyway for how long it takes from the gun to cross the line.
Agree with the OP that this is disappointing. As someone who only uses the on-course clocks, the fact that they will be out of sync is frustrating. Will it be exactly two minutes to add? Or two and a bit?
Last year my friend (female) ran from the mass field and was 4th Vet40. There was prize money for top 5 ($1500 for 4th), but she wasn't eligible as it was only available to the women's elite start. She wasn't even aware of it until I pointed it out recently, so no big deal. But I suggested she ask the BAA if she could start on the elite start this year, so that she'd be in a position to compete for the money, particularly as she'd be expecting a quicker time. But they said no, because there were already 15 or so women masters with quicker qualifiers than her. Seems a bit mean considering that was probably the case last year, but she coped with the conditions better than most.
The simple and easiest solution is to just go to where we are headed anyway and eliminate the "women's" race and just have the men, women, non-binary, trans etc all in one race. One race, one prize pool. Haven't we been told that there is no difference in men and womyn anyway? I mean Connecticut is almost on the course and that is what they believe.
@UK Runner
I really appreciate hearing that story. Last year I felt the determining factor as to whether Chirchester should have been due money was weather she was forced into the mass start or elected into the mass start. Obviously she had a huge advantage of more people to run with, men to draft off, and a non-pedestrian first 15 miles. If she chose the mass start and its inherent advantages, I would think she should have waived her right to the prize money. But in your friends case, this year she requested and was denied the opportunity to compete for money. Pretty sh!tty if you ask me. A perfect example of why they should add an unsupported women's sub elite field and recombine the men at the start.
But as for the clocks, it takes a long time to get across the line with or without a 2 minute gap. From corral 1 last year, I had to subtract 20 second from any clock on the course (and couldnt always see my watch with the rain.)
BOSTON DOES NOT WANT YOU.
1. Boston wants someone that is capable of winning the race.
2. Boston wants someone that will spend 5 nights in a Boston hotel. Spend $1k at the expo and another $2k on meals in Boston
The running part is unimportant.
Don’t forget there are thousands of runners that are pissed that they tightened the standards and would gladly adhere to #2.
#2, so true...
See the new BAA "Unicorn Club", exclusively available to people who have run 5 or more consecutive Boston Marathons. People who have already dropped at least $5,000 to run this race five years or more now have the "opportunity" to drop another $250 to be personally bused to the start line and have access to an indoor staging area at the Athletes Village.
You'd think the BAA would thank their returning customers by providing them something not available to other runners, free of charge. But NOPE! The BAA is happy to thank you for all the money you've spent by giving you the opportunity to spend more money.
for the women's elite start/prize money issue, I've always thought that the rule should be this:
If you apply for the women's elite start, and are denied, then if you run a time from the mass field that would have placed, you should get duplicate prize money equal to what you would have won (the cost of this could be covered with an insurance policy).
However, if you do NOT apply for the women's elite start, or if you opt out of it, then tough luck, no $ for you.
In my view, the sexism argument is that women have (had) to choose between the elite or the mass start in order to get prize $, while the men do not.
I would like to see the start revamped, so that the elite men start, then the elite women start two minutes later, and then the field starts 30 minutes after that. You still get the two separate races for men and women, and also now place men and women on the same footing with regard to the choice between elite and mass start. Then balance that out with my rule above about prize money.
The only issue with my plan, from a television basis, is that you've now got a bigger time gap between when the top men and top women finish.
And you could have an elite man essentially pace an elite woman. The top women would catch some of the elite men and would be able to pace off them. The lead vehicle with camera would also be in the way. Lots of problems still
There's really no down side to designating a "sub-elite" time qualifier for the women and then letting those women start with the elites if they want. You don't have to pay their entry or give them fancy perks, just give all the sub 3 hour ladies a chance to start up front. It needs to be a time qualifier, though, and if you don't have it, you don't have it. If you run your breakthrough race at Boston, then congratulations, you're qualified for next year, but no women from the main field should be eligible for prize money.
Should we start a protest? The idea that everyone in the sport has to be treated the same is absurd. Since the elite women start ahead, they now think the men need to as well? Look I know they don't want some person in the regular start beating a time from the elite start and then wanting prize money - like what happened with the women last year .
So they'll have a rule that you have to be in elite start to win prize money. But that's just stupid. The reality is if someone from the 'mass start' beats a time from the elite start - you are still going to have a PR nightmare. So now instead of having potentially 1 PR nightmare, they can have 2.
One of the biggest appeals of a Boston or any major is you are running the same race as the pros. Now, you are not. How these people don't intuitively recognize this is beyond me.
Someone want to start a petition/protest? I'll gladly start it.
Seriously, like how does someone come up with this idea and who possibly thinks it's a good idea?