Should Deena be allowed to run the men's trial race?

This is an interesting thread for a change. I think it would be great if she ran.

The right wingatics would go totally ape shit if she ran.

Deena would finish last in the OT trials race. Any man w/ an ounce of self-respect would fake an injury and DNF before allowing himself to get chicked.

gabe jennings ran 219 last december at cal international marathon, he won.

NIKE XC---That is the complete top 10 for 2005! It is sick!

Fortunately, 2006 is off to a much better start for the U.S. men.

While it's cool Deena has run fast enough to hit the men's OT qualifying mark, one must keep in mind the purpose of the men's Olympic Trials: to select MEN to compete for the US in the Oly Games. It is NOT to select women for the Games. She's run w/and beat plenty of men in mixed comp in the past...ala Michelle Wie & ASorenstam on the PGA tour. Wie would never be considered to represent the US in int'l comp in a men's field.

scotth wrote: Wie would never be considered to represent the US in int'l comp in a men's field.

Wie and Sorenstam will never be good enough to rank among the top 10 US golfers, either, so that's not a really good comparison.

Of course your other point is valid. While I'm a huge Deena fan, her running in the men's trial race would never be anything more than a gimmick. The men's trials is to select the men's representative for the Olympics. It would be a bit of a farce for her to run in the trials.

On the other hand, it's the kind of thing that would spark some interest in the trials race (any interest in distance running is a good thing), and surely would have a positive impact on young women taking up our sport.

Plus, it would be a very good field for Deena to be racing against.

So I'm torn on this one. I make it a lose-win-win. Not sure how that pans out overall.

Pete wrote:

Wie and Sorenstam will never be good enough to rank among the top 10 US golfers, either, so that's not a really good comparison.

Pete, my point was Wie & Sorenstam have been 'allowed' to compete w/the men on the PGA tour which has given them the opportunity to beat some top men...something Kastor has done in mixed races on the roads. It has nothing to do w/whether she's/they're good enough to be among the top 10.

Here's a better question: Why should Deena be allowed to run the men's OT's? Because she's good enough is one answer. Fine. Let's let in every man who's run better than 2:47 in the women's Trials. Same logic.

Because it would showcase how far women have improved is a second answer. Fine. But we don't need Kastor in the men's Trials to be cognizant of that fact.

Because it would draw more attention to the men's Trials is a third answer. Fine. I don't know why we need to draw more attention to the men's Trials but Kastor running would do it...but to no practical end.

scotth wrote:...Because it would showcase how far women have improved is a second answer. Fine. But we don't need Kastor in the men's Trials to be cognizant of that fact.

Because it would draw more attention to the men's Trials is a third answer. Fine. I don't know why we need to draw more attention to the men's Trials but Kastor running would do it...but to no practical end.

You and I don't need any sort of reminder, but unfortunately athletes' interest in the sport alone doesn't help to raise its profile.

Sadly, in this era of fat-ass, TV watching, twinkie-gulping America, it takes a gimmick to spur interest among the masses. This sort of gimmick (with no offence to the hypothetical gimmickee Deena) might just do that.

Maybe you think distance running doesn't need the interest of the TV watching (vote-giving, sponsor-shopping) public to help it grow, but if you feel that way, you and I are on completely opposite sides of the fence.

you have a lot of growing up to do, don't you

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Deena would finish last in the OT trials race. Any man w/ an ounce of self-respect would fake an injury and DNF before allowing himself to get chicked.

Pete, nope, I don't feel more media exposure is going to increase already record numbers of people out running. Exposure, dang man, we're exposed to what seems like a billion things a day and, for one, I'm numb to too many things I might ordinarily get turned onto because of it. I'll bet the same holds true for the vast majority of citizens on planet Earth. Why do we need to raise the profile of running? To satisfy egos? Make us feel better about our sport? Get more ink in the sports pages?

Those whose task it is to spread the good word of running are doing a fine job of it. I suppose you'll say, 'Yeah, but not enough of it is on teevee.' Reality check: teevee is a commercial enterprise and until such time as an event can persuade enough folks w/big bucks to buy commercial time, we aren't gonna see much running on the tube. And even if it's on the tube, I can't see many non-runners at home watching, thinking, hey, I can do that/I should be doing that.

But, I don't want to spend time here going into how we can get more folks running.

Deena in the men's Trials...more press but to no practical end.

scotth wrote:Pete, nope, I don't feel more media exposure is going to increase already record numbers of people out running.

I don't think raising the profile of competitive distance running needs to increase the number of people who RUN. But it would be good to see an increase in the number of people who COMPETE, to improve the quality of competitive distance running.

I can't say for sure that making joe beerbelly more excited about athletic competition will do that, but it will surely increase the interest among sponsors, thus funneling more money into our sport. Money that can be used to encourage and develop more young athletes.

I think your view is narrow and outdated. It's OK to be a purist, but I think someone with some vision needs to grab our sport by the balls and give a good squeeze.

Pete, one thing I've never been accused of is having a narrow focus or being outdated. Ouch, that hurts...ha-ha. As I said, I'd rather not spend time here discussing ways to 'improve the lot of runnning'. Good topic, wrong thread.

Here's a twist: I'm a proponent of fewer races which would drive up the interest in those remaining. There are so many races out there now, it dilutes fields and attendant exposure.

You are insecure.