Tony Reavis' Race Directors address

When we're talking about "controlled fields," are we saying we'd limit the number of Kenyans who get expense money to come or are we talking about telling Kenyans who pay their way to a race as well as their own entry fee?

Cromwells Cavalier wrote:

People watch NASCAR for hours and hours on end. Wherein lies the difference? The difference is, NASCAR has marketable heroes who the everyday public recognizes.

No, the difference is that NASCAR is done in cars, and Americans love nothing more than their cars. Skinny men and women, regardless of skin color, just can't come close at all to comparing.

What we are saying is that Kenyans, Ethiopians, Chinese, etc. must be a part of the overall promotion of the sport if they want to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the sport. It isn't the fact that they are foreign, it's the fact that they are totally anonymous.

As I always remind people, Yao Ming is not a Chinese basketball player, he is a Houston Rocket basketball player. His sport coopted him into a system that integrates foreign-born athletes. And guess what, American people root for him.

Running just opens its doors and waits for whoever shows up, not requiring any contribution of their elite athletes beyond running. That engenders disinterest.

Example of how our sport works:

Two years ago Meb Keflizighi ran a close 4th at Utica Boilermaker 15K, took another 4th at the Bix 7, then 2nd at Beach to Beacon. He looked like he was going to win Falmouth. Good story. But the race organizers brought in Micah Kogo from Kenya for his only race of the year in the U.S., and he beat Meb.

Nobody knew or cared about Micah Kogo. They'd never heard of him. It made no difference whatsoever that he could run sub-27:00 for 10K. He had contributed nothing to the American road scene, just took advantage of it. That is the kind of short-sighted, my-event-only thinking that has contributed to the demise of racing as a sport in America. There is nothing holding us back other than this single-event-once-a-year focus. Let's work together to change it.

Ok, so we're saying that maybe the organizers shouldn't have brought in Micah Kogo. But are we saying that if Micah Kogo, on his own, goes to the website and enters Falmouth, then pays his way to the race, do we not let him in?

I can't just show up to the stadium in Brussels and tell van Meert that I'm here to run in the 1500m and where do I pay my fee and collect my bib.

I have no problem with a stipulation that one must have an elite entry in order to be elligible for the elite prize money. If the athlete is going to profit from the race, the race ought to be able to make a few requests of the athlete. Plus, it allows you to exclude people you absolutely don't want in your event (such as Leghzaoui at Philadelphia in 2006).

No, he gets in the people's race.

Again, there may be 1000 golfers who have the ability to play on the PGA Tour, but there are only 156 golfers who are "eligible" to play in this weekend's Tour event. If you want to play in one PGA Tour event, you have to earn playing privileges and agree to participate in a minimum of 15 Tour events per year. We have to know who is coming for our own benefit.

Sports must control access in order to control the message and manage the competition fairly. If we allow anyone to show up and compete any time they want, A) we lose the ability to create an even playing field, B) we lose the ability to promote and sell interest in the event, and C) we lose the ability to attract athletes who feel they are being put at a competitive disadvantage.

These are all well accpeted business concepts in every sport but ours.

If athletes all agree to compete X times over Y weeks or months, then they are all likely to be in similar condition, thereby making for more interesting, well-matched competitions.

Oops, it's Toni, not Tony.

Your question about the Olympics isn't material to this discussion because they're required to limit entries. Any competition that's required to limit entries is exempt from this discussion.

I don't find it boring to watch 15 foreign runners beat the first American in. I think to myself- Americans are staying away because they'd get their butts handed to them and they'd rather save themselves for a payday where no foreign runners are allowed or 'limited' (this is largely the reason you don't have your crew drive up I-75 to mix it up at Crim). The pubic and press are most certainly impressed by the foreign runners doing so well. What makes you think they don't? There is nothing compelling about the race up front? Says who? Did you consult the runners up there? From what I've seen, they're plenty intent on beating each other.

One thing that could be better is improve how much we know about foreign runners who win a large majority of prize money at US races. We don't much about them yet their stories are as compelling as that of any American. The more we know about them, the more life a reporter can breath into his/her story and athletes & fans can feel a little closer to their situation. On the other hand, we don't do enough to celebrate the exceptional depth & speed of foreign runners. Hand in hand with this is not enough reporters quiz race directors and ask why there aren't more/any top Americans in their field.

You say you're against American-only prize money races (outside US champs). Okay. Which way do you want it? We know there aren't enough top Americans to show up at all the prize money races to compete favorably against foreign runners- so what to do? I can just picture all affected parties, including agents of foreign runners, agreeing to restrict the # of foreign runners to enhance the chances of 'creating new Americans heroes'. I've turned that concept every which way Kevin and I fail to see how that's going to improve American distance running and it's face to the public. You know the parable about the king sold invisible clothing? The tailors all tell him how wonderful he looks yet his subjects begin murmuring after a while...but he's not wearing anything. The invisible clothes are the improved places of the American runners where foreign comp is restricted.

I anticipate you saying, 'But no, I'm not saying we should limit the # of foreign runners.' Right. Then what are you saying? Is there such a thing as a common or middle ground in this? I submit to you, you're part of the common ground- doing what you can to improve American hopes. If Americans want more play in the press, we need more to run faster. We want more heroes, we need to become them.

The 80's were a time when running was THE NEXT BIG THING and Americans rode the crest of that wave for a decade. Then the wave reached across the globe and distance running has not looked back. Now there's money to be made everywhere and foreign runners, mostly E Africans, are winning a lot of it. That will not change unless discrimination sets in and E Africans are told, 'too many of you are too good and we have to give our own a chance'.

I agree there's something to be said about your final paragraph but disagree our sport is screwed up. Are you suggesting more attention should go to the fastest runners at races and that's somehow going to 'right the ship'? Yes, get all concerned together and get'em talking. I have ideas of my own on how things could be better.

I've read Toni's speech at Runnerville.com and note he says he's not said he would limit the # of foreign runners in US races yet says, "rather than orchestrating fields for competitive balance...". Competitive balance? What is that? If it smells like limiting foreign #'s, it is.

Here's a positive spin on Toni's speech: things can be better and we should do what we can to reach that end.

Interesting thoughts. I see this thing from both sides - as an American who's married to a Kenyan runner who's en route to becoming an American (another debate entirely, I know). She's at the gym, and I've got nothing to do at the moment, so I'll try to articulate some of my thoughts and reactions.

In trying to address these issues, I think it's important to break things down and try to answer several different questions instead of trying to lump it all together and treat it with a single prescription.

Here are some questions that I'd love to hear people's thoughts on - especially guys like Tony or the Hansons.

1. What does the sport, as it exists in America right now, want from these foreign athletes as their part of this "overall promotion" of the sport?

It's easy to single these guys out, because, for the most part, they are sort of anonymous and interchangeable. At the pre-race pasta dinner they're often huddled at a table together, and the "fly in, fly out" approach doesn't provide for much community interaction.

Of course the language barrier is huge - though the Kenyans are probably the best on this count; the Ethiopians and Eastern Europeans are usually much worse. In many cases, they're willing to do more than just run, but they're probably not going to suggest ideas, so race directors need to ask.

What, aside from running fast, can these guys do to contribute to the sport?

2. What about race directors and elite coordinators (remembering that these are often different individuals with very different roles at the races)?

I've noticed an increase in the number of races offering separate American-only money, but this seems to have backfired in many cases.

Now, instead of having to go out hard and trying to finish in the top-5 or whatever, the American runners let the Africans go from the gun and just sit back and race each other. At a recent race I saw an American get outkicked by a naturalized US citizen from Africa - thinking "I'll still get the US $$$." The truth came out at the awards ceremony when the guy observed "I'd have beaten him if I knew he was American." Seems like a problem in attitude.

3. What about the American athletes?

Here's where I see something of a challenge.

Unfortunately, it seems like many of our top runners are more interested in training than racing. I understand about the need to balance the two, but I think many American athletes would see a "circuit" as an invitation to over racing.

A few weeks ago I ran into a very solid American runner at one of my wife's races - I assumed he was there to run. When I asked about this, he said "Oh, no, I'm not racing right now - I'm putting in mileage and will do a little racing indoors and probably run the 10k at Stanford." This is a guy who might well have beaten the Kenyans in the field at that race, but instead he's getting ready for the Stanford meet next spring - and doing this at the advice of his coach.

If an athlete feels that he or she needs 4 months of base training, 3 weeks of taper, a then 3 weeks of recovery to go chase the "B" standard at Stanford, then that's a person who's more interest in training than racing anyway, and structural changes to the sport probably won't change that mentality.

I don't necessarily advocate the "race of the week" approach used by some of the foreign athletes, but American runners need to be ready to race, or the ideas Tony suggests won't do much at all.

Anyway, not the most coherent thing I've ever written, but would love to hear others' thoughts on this stuff - it is an interesting topic and one deserving of more discussion.

Mr. Reavis and Mr. Hanson have earned the right to have opinions on this matter. I appreciate hearing from those that are in the trenches and have invested their lives toward the betterment of the sport. Because my ideas are not backed with knowledge or first hand experience, I will keep my opinions to myself. Thanks to both of you for adding to the board and please do not respond to those who THINK they have all the answers but have never been in the arena. Myself included.

"Competitive balance? What is that? If it smells like limiting foreign #'s, it is."

Competitive balance means athletes who the public knows, who are all training for the same thing for stakes the public understands and finds compelling. It has nothing to do with foreign, as such. Cheap, anonymous labor is simply the symptom of the problem.

Again, look at the L.A. Marathon (now moving, unfortunately, to Memorial Day 2009). With a limited elite athlete budget, and yet a live KNBC TV show to produce, we had anonymous Kenyan men and Russian women winning year after year, often running alone for the final six or seven miles because the fields were so weak. As could be expected, once robust ratings fell dramatically no matter how many sidebar stories about average runners overcoming disease we showed.

So we introduced the Gender Challenge which, using exactly the same anonymous athletes, created fan interest by adding that extra level of competition that the public understood and embraced. It didn't make any difference who the individual athletes were (though that would have been even better). Men rooted for men, and women rooted for women. We gave them a reason to watch and become engaged.

My point is to give people a reason to watch and invest their time, and maybe, no promises, they just might.

The Gender Challenge is just one way of accomplishing that goal. Team competitions are perhaps another. Let's put our heads together and come up with more. But it will require cooperation from the entire bandwidth of the sport, rather than the continued parochial focus we presently have. As has been said in recent times, "We've tried it George Bush's way. It doesn't work."

Kevin Hanson wrote:

I want Des and Brian and Meb to all be in a position to win Boston or Chicago or New York. I just want them to beat an international field to do so.

Why? Bill Rodgers had much less foreign competition (and certainly not the influx of Africans we see today), yet he won Boston AND ran faster than the likes of Meb/Brian. So did Alberto and Greg Meyer (along with their "equals" in Dick Beardsley and Ron Tabb). The influx of foreigners in American races HASN'T made American faster; it's made us less interested/lower participation. We don't need international competition to run faster, but the opportunity/possibility of WINNING, along with the incentive for more American post-collegiates to keep running.

I think the bigger issue is that running is trying to be all things to all people, and because of that you have problems. I'm convinced more than ever that the reason that so many back of the pack people run is because our sport is viewed as non-competitive. It doesn't matter if you run the marathon in 130 minutes or 330 minutes, both people are treated equally as finishers. Not only that, but the finishers feel special and like winners, as they are better than the hundreds of thousands who couldn't complete the race. This is the reason so many slow runners run. Trust me, 60 year olds would rather play basketball instead of run, except when they play basketball (or another fun sport like soccer or hockey or anything else), their egos get crushed when a six year old make them look bad on the pitch. That is the one advantage running has over all these other sports: you can be a crappy runner and STILL feel special.

Now if races truly focused on competitive runners, this whole idea is lost. These weekend warriors would realize that unathletic ten year olds run faster than them. And they'd feel even worse when they'd get bumped from races because someone wants to race who is faster than them. And they'd hate the loss of all those age group awards; no longer would races magically have three trophies for the three 75-79 year old women who finish the race. No, by focusing on the elite runners, you're alienating the majority of your clientele. That's why the current system will remain; it is the only way to keep the masses happy, as they are kept oblivious to the elites in the race.

So the big question is, why do these races even have elite fields and prize money when it's clear that races get so little out of having the elite runners there? While watching the NYC Marathon, the crowds were FAR bigger when the 4 hour runners came through than when the leaders came by, and I guarantee you no one around me cared who won the race; they were there to watch the spectacle and see some friends. If I was a race director of Falmouth or Beach to Beacon or Peachtree, the first thing I'd do is cut all prize money and the elite field, as the race will be just as successful, if not more so, without it (see the Marine Corps Marathon). Plus, I wouldn't have to deal with the hassles of handling an elite event. Is there honestly any economic reason to have elite fields in this day of age? For running's sake, I hope I'm wrong in my analysis.

So if someone in the people's race runs faster than anyone in the elite race they don't win, as happened in San Francisco? That's wrong.

Take away ALL prize money and pay the athletes you want to have to come race for a nice trophy. Make it clear to them that those who do better this year are much more likely to be paid to come back next year, but if that if they tank here but run well enough in other races over the next year that perhaps their reputation will be enough to bring them back again next year. This way you can have the athletes you want in your races. If someone new comes along and does better than the paid performers you can decide if you want to drop some cash on them right there and hope they come back next year or you can decide that they didn't add amything you want to your event and that you don't really care if they come back again.

This brings up the possibility that one athlete who paid his/her way to the race gets little or nothing while a "name" runner may DNF and go home with a pile of money. Essentially the same situation exists in all of our major sports. It's never hard to find baseball players with low salaries because they aren't eligible for free agancy outperforming guys with huge salaries. Eventually, the first guy becomes a free agent and cashes in.

We, as always, are talking in circles. The elite race is the elite race. The people's race is the people's race. They may run over the same course, but they are not in the same competition. Times in one do not transfer to the other. A tactical race at the pro level may produce a slower time, but that does not mean someone running without competition who posts a faster time would have beaten the competitors in the other race. Apples and apples, oranges and oranges. We are talking Invitational events for athletes who are part of a system which requires a criteria for inclusion beyond showing up and running. I agree there should be qualifying races, sponsor selections, and local hero waivers. But mostly we require a system whereby all these elements are established and adhered to. There have to be standards which identify "elite status".

The SF problem was that there were, in fact, no real elite runners in the field, and there should not have been a separate start. That was just poor event management.

No,no,no.

Go to a high school or junior high track meet. There are almost always more kids wanting to run the 100 than there are lanes on the track so we run them in heats. The coaches always put the fastest kids in the first heat and usually all of the placers come from that heat. But if a kid from a slower heat runs fast enough to win or place then that kid is the winner or one of the scorers.

True, this would make for lousy television if the winner comees out of the third heat which wasn't even taped let alone shown live. But that's the way it's done.

But if we're going to insist on this "elite race" and "people's race" crap, stipulate that anyone from the people's race whose time betters that of any prize winner from the elite race has to be given the same prize as their time would have brought had they run in the elite race.

We are no longer in high school, though at times it seems our sport is being run by a high school cafeteria crowd.

Certainly, there are different agendas in staging high school competitions than professional ones.

That said, I don't disagree that it may well spike interest in the people's race to say, "if you post a faster time than the pros you get a special award, and an invitation to the pro race next year."

That way we take advantage of such a situation rather than just try to explain it away. But once again, this and other eligibility and obligation rules have to be in place before anyone toes any line. It is all about reaching broad concensus across many events to become decipherable to a general sporting public. (And BTW, thanks for contributing to the debate).

HRE,

Let me illustrate something: when making an "elite" competition, there aren't openings for ever Tom, Dick and Harry who show up. Do I have some right to show up in Lausanne and tell Jacky Delapierre that I want in his 100m and just find a lane or make an extra section or heat for me and some other guys who have no business being in a meet like Lauasanne? The fact is that many meets have 'B' sections for also rans or local guys which offer reduced prize money. But if I'm a 10.2 Swiss guy entered in the Lausanne 100m B race, and I get a +5.0 wind at my back and run 9.8 and end up with a faster winning time than the 'A' section, you're saying that I should demand 'A' section prize money because my time was faster, even though I didn't race in that section? Of course not: because a professionally run, 2hr athletics event is not a high school all-comers meet where everyone pays their $3 and everyone has a chance at winning.

So why can't a road race be run the same way?

I like the idea of improving things, but it sounds like you (Toni) are advocating a system in which the elite coordinator has too much power to determine who gets to toe the line against the "big boys" and who doesn't.

While I would agree that a race should be able to dictate who might or might not get travel expenses, appearance fees, etc - based on a person's ability to contribute to the "event" (which is different than the race itself) - one of the real beauties of road running has always been the fact that on any given day, someone can come out of nowhere to beat the field, and in doing so earn both the money on offer that day and the opportunity to be part of the invited field at the next such event.

One of the big problems right is race directors who think they are the sole arbiters of who is or isn't elite - and this is often limited to athletes who are managed by people with whom the race director is on friendly terms. This insular and cabalistic thinking is part of what's taking motivation from the up and comers - in order to break into the "elite" ranks, it's often necessary to both run well and make the right connections, and that shouldn't be the case. Let races limit who they invite, let them pay appearance fees to whom they like, write stories about them, have them do public events and publicity work - and pay them for it - but on race day let these same "elite" athletes race all comers with the understanding that such is the essence of the sport, and that they might get beat if they're not ready for the race. To have an unknown beat the hyped elites might not do much for some of the egos, but it will certainly add to the drama of the event.

Darn near any athlete who's willing to pay travel, entry and lodging expenses for a shot at whatever prize purse is on offer should be given that chance - regardless of nationality, language or ability to contribute to the sport aside from running fast.

The beauty of running is that, unlike gymnastics, figure skating, or even backyard football, it is a sport in which success can be determined by purely objective means - you finish first, you win, no matter who you are.